• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Turley: Obama's "Become The Very Danger The Constitution Was Designed To Avoid"

eohrnberger

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
77,129
Reaction score
59,275
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

Turley: Obama's "Become The Very Danger The Constitution Was Designed To Avoid"

REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R-VA): Professor Turley, the constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It's about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president's unilateral modification of act of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?

JONATHAN TURLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch.

This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration. There is two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Turley: Obama's "Become The Very Danger The Constitution Was Designed To Avoid" | Video | RealClearPolitics

So who is this Professor Turley?
Jonathan Turley (born May 6, 1961) is an American lawyer, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. He is currently a professor of law at The George Washington University Law School.
. . . .
Professor Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law, and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda".[SUP][8][/SUP] have led liberal and progressive thinkers to also consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law,[SUP][10][16][/SUP] civil rights,[SUP][7][17][/SUP] and the illegality of torture.[SUP][18][19][20][21][/SUP] Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian".[SUP][22][/SUP] Turley has nevertheless exhibited his disagreement with rigid ideological stances in contradiction to the established law with other stated and published opinions.[SUP][10][22][23][/SUP]
In numerous appearances on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show, he has called for criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials for war crimes, including torture.[SUP][24][/SUP]
Click to expand...
Jonathan Turley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So a self-proclaimed social liberal, a liberal and a progressive, warns that Obama and his imperial attitude to his presidency are a 'severe danger'. And that "The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch."

So. Obama is now raising the ire of his own? Obama and his actions in the presidential role are now beyond the constitution's dictates?

Oh I forgot. I'm a racist. Shame on me. (sarcasm)
 
The executive branch is getting more and more powerful, and has been for quite a while now. The president now has de facto power to declare war, for example, and now he has the right to lock people up without trial, just by calling them "terrorists".

This is, indeed, a frightening trend.

As for the "unilateral modification of act of Congress" (sic) what does that refer to? Does the writer mean "modification of an act" or "modification of acts"? Sometimes, bloggers' writing is not very clear.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The executive branch is getting more and more powerful, and has been for quite a while now. The president now has de facto power to declare war, for example, and now he has the right to lock people up without trial, just by calling them "terrorists".

This is, indeed, a frightening trend.

As for the "unilateral modification of act of Congress" (sic) what does that refer to? Does the writer mean "modification of an act" or "modification of acts"? Sometimes, bloggers' writing is not very clear.
Click to expand...

The Neocons coined the term 'the Unitary Executive', and Bush certainly governed in that style and with that philosophy. Obama governs like Bush on steroids.

Jonathan Turley is a patriot, and a member of a distinct minority today. The Leviathan gathers mass, and Turley and a few others point this obvious point out to a fairly oblivious public.
 
eohrnberger said:
So a self-proclaimed social liberal, a liberal and a progressive, warns that Obama and his imperial attitude to his presidency are a 'severe danger'. And that "The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch."

So. Obama is now raising the ire of his own? Obama and his actions in the presidential role are now beyond the constitution's dictates?
Click to expand...


again, cons can not post anything other than “look, this guy says things I want to believe”. I’ve never considered President Obama a liberal. That’s a label your radio masters told you and you obediently believe. President Obama is a democrat. did you know that President Obama campaigned on sending more troops to Afghanistan and changing the failed dithering policy of bush? I bet you didn’t because that doesn’t help the narrative you’ve been instructed to believe.

Oh I forgot. I'm a racist. Shame on me. (sarcasm)
Click to expand...

I’m sure you’re not a racist but why is you only get mad at a black president when you falsely accuse him of doing exactly what the previous president actually did that drew not a peep from you and yours? From ignoring the warnings of an impending attack, “shredding the constitution”, raising the deficit, destroying the economy. again, these are things bush actually did but you only rage about it when you pretend President Obama did it. mmmm, are you sure its not because he’s black?
 
Vern said:
again, cons can not post anything other than “look, this guy says things I want to believe”. I’ve never considered President Obama a liberal. That’s a label your radio masters told you and you obediently believe.
Click to expand...

Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck.

I have no radio masters. I attend no JournoList (but we know that liberals / progressive / Democrats do). Swing and a miss.

Vern said:
President Obama is a democrat. did you know that President Obama campaigned on sending more troops to Afghanistan and changing the failed dithering policy of bush? I bet you didn’t because that doesn’t help the narrative you’ve been instructed to believe.
Click to expand...

Again, no one instructs me to believe anything, and if they tried, I'd most likely refuse, just on the grounds that they are trying to get me to believe. I'm kinda suspicious of that sort of thing, unlike many liberals / progressives / Democrats. Swing and a miss. That's 2.

Vern said:
I’m sure you’re not a racist but why is you only get mad at a black president when you falsely accuse him of doing exactly what the previous president actually did that drew not a peep from you and yours? From ignoring the warnings of an impending attack, “shredding the constitution”, raising the deficit, destroying the economy. again, these are things bush actually did but you only rage about it when you pretend President Obama did it. mmmm, are you sure its not because he’s black?
Click to expand...

I didn't agree with those things when Bush was president either, and it predates my joining this discussion board. I have no experience with Obama the person to base any animosity towards him. However, I don't agree with much of his policies, so you read it as racist, and you lamely play the racist card on it because of policy disagreements?

Swing and a miss. That'd be 3. You are out. :)
 
eohrnberger said:
Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck.

I have no radio masters. I attend no JournoList (but we know that liberals / progressive / Democrats do). Swing and a miss.

Again, no one instructs me to believe anything, and if they tried, I'd most likely refuse, just on the grounds that they are trying to get me to believe. I'm kinda suspicious of that sort of thing, unlike many liberals / progressives / Democrats. Swing and a miss. That's 2.



I didn't agree with those things when Bush was president either, and it predates my joining this discussion board. I have no experience with Obama the person to base any animosity towards him. However, I don't agree with much of his policies, so you read it as racist, and you lamely play the racist card on it because of policy disagreements?

Swing and a miss. That'd be 3. You are out. :)
Click to expand...

Sorry, I hit a homerun (just to continue your empty factless rhetoric). I recall nothing but lies trying to blame President Obama for the failures of bush. I've not seen one example of the vitriol spewed by the right until 1/20/2009. so it makes hard to think race is not a factor.
 
Vern said:
Sorry, I hit a homerun (just to continue your empty factless rhetoric). I recall nothing but lies trying to blame President Obama for the failures of bush. I've not seen one example of the vitriol spewed by the right until 1/20/2009. so it makes hard to think race is not a factor.
Click to expand...

Bzzzz. I recall nothing but blaming Bush for failures of Obama. This continued until . . . heck it only just stopped. Perhaps a few during the first year of the administration, but certainly not during the 4th year.

Sure, sure. Go play your race card. It's certainly not taken as a serious defense of anything anymore.
 
Vern said:
Sorry, I hit a homerun (just to continue your empty factless rhetoric). I recall nothing but lies trying to blame President Obama for the failures of bush. I've not seen one example of the vitriol spewed by the right until 1/20/2009. so it makes hard to think race is not a factor.
Click to expand...

The "right " doesn't hate Obama because he's black, nor even because he's a liberal. Bush was a liberal, too, after all. The "right" doesn't really hate Obama at all. They hate the Democrats, and Obama is a Democrat.
 
Obama is the first president to take to himself the ability to order any person, including American, summarily covertly assassinated on his order with no due process whatsoever.
 
joko104 said:
Obama is the first president to take to himself the ability to order any person, including American, summarily covertly assassinated on his order with no due process whatsoever.
Click to expand...

True enough, and no one seems to mind. You'd think the opposing party would be all over that like flies on manure, but no, nothing. You'd think the Democrats would even be beating the drum, but, silence.
 
Y'know the biggest problem? This has been going on for ever, and no president will ever relinquish the powers previous presidents have gained, and most will add to it.
 
spud_meister said:
Y'know the biggest problem? This has been going on for ever, and no president will ever relinquish the powers previous presidents have gained, and most will add to it.
Click to expand...
That's the nature of power. It's addictive. Once a person has some, he wants more.

Which is why we need the Constitution.
 
Dittohead not! said:
True enough, and no one seems to mind. You'd think the opposing party would be all over that like flies on manure, but no, nothing. You'd think the Democrats would even be beating the drum, but, silence.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is because the republicans are looking to the future. Maybe it is because they want to elect their own king who will trash the constitution. Maybe the republicans think that if they say nothing about it now, their king will be able to do the same when we get a republican president.
 
cwb01 said:
Maybe it is because the republicans are looking to the future. Maybe it is because they want to elect their own king who will trash the constitution. Maybe the republicans think that if they say nothing about it now, their king will be able to do the same when we get a republican president.
Click to expand...

and they may be right.
 
So it goes when the whole government embraces the sophistry of The Unitary Executive. We get the government we deserve.
 
I wish dearly wish he was. If there was ever an era of American history that called for another Andrew Jackson, this is it. Can't be any more compromised or ineffective as we are now.
 
I remain astonished by Senator Durbin's comment yesterday about how the President would "borrow the power" to solve the border problem. I'm no Constitutional scholar, so maybe someone who is can clarify whether any President can borrow legislative power from the Legislature.
 
nota bene said:
I remain astonished by Senator Durbin's comment yesterday about how the President would "borrow the power" to solve the border problem. I'm no Constitutional scholar, so maybe someone who is can clarify whether any President can borrow legislative power from the Legislature.
Click to expand...

You ignore it and act against it. Hopefully enough that everyone loses respect for it and the Constitution finally dies the death it has needed for 100+ years.

Like keeping a brain dead person on life support.
 
Vern said:
again, cons can not post anything other than “look, this guy says things I want to believe”. I’ve never considered President Obama a liberal. That’s a label your radio masters told you and you obediently believe. President Obama is a democrat. did you know that President Obama campaigned on sending more troops to Afghanistan and changing the failed dithering policy of bush? I bet you didn’t because that doesn’t help the narrative you’ve been instructed to believe.



I’m sure you’re not a racist but why is you only get mad at a black president when you falsely accuse him of doing exactly what the previous president actually did that drew not a peep from you and yours? From ignoring the warnings of an impending attack, “shredding the constitution”, raising the deficit, destroying the economy. again, these are things bush actually did but you only rage about it when you pretend President Obama did it. mmmm, are you sure its not because he’s black?
Click to expand...



He posted the quote from Turley that said both Bush and Obama conducted the "radical expansion" of presidential power.

In both cases this is possible because the Congress is composed of weak willed, lying thieves who don't care about anything other than their loot and have no integrity, sense of history or courage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom