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

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/12/04/turley_obamas_become_the_very_danger_the_constitut ion_was_designed_to_avoid.html 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. (House hearing, December 3, 2013)[/QUOTE] This guy is a liberal and an Obama supporter. Not only a Constitutional expert but apparently a man that decides truth is far more important that political party ... He declares what many of us have been saying but ridiculed as being biased and hate filled for presenting that truth. This guy is no conservative and no Republican. What say ye about this my critics!!??? Critics that called me mad and a raving fool for saying the same thing about Obama but doing so long before this guy decided to speak out!! This is a huge deal folks. The man called Obama the very danger the Constitution was devised to prevent!! And he is dead on the money too. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Here is more from another link.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/03/liberal-law-prof-obamas-unconstitutional-power-grabs-are-creating-a-very-dangerous-and-unstable-system/ Liberal law prof: Obama’s unconstitutional power grabs are creating a “very dangerous and unstable system”


posted at 8:01 pm on December 3, 2013 by Allahpundit Good stuff from Jonathan Turley at today’s House hearing on executive power, although I regret that I couldn’t find a more user-friendly format for you to watch. There’s no compilation clip; you’ll have to make do with the C-SPAN embed by fast-forwarding to the time cues I give you and being patient while the vid buffers (and buffers, and buffers). At 1:10:55 he describes the “royal prerogative” that the Constitution was designed to eliminate but which Obama, through the growth of the administrative state and his own expansive view of executive discretion, is now flirting with. At 2:53:45, he applies that concept to O’s war powers, specifically vis-a-vis Libya and the White House “kill list.” If you have time for only one snippet, though, skip to 2:33:00 for his list of Obama’s five most egregious violations of separation of powers. Some are familiar to you — declaring that he wouldn’t deport illegals who might qualify for DREAM, refusing to enforce the employer mandate, etc — but the ones about him shifting money around without regard to how Congress has appropriated it might not be. Turley makes two valuable points here. One: Courts tend to give the executive a wide berth in separation-of-powers challenges on the theory that Congress has the power of the purse and can defund any executive agency it likes. But that’s not true anymore, he says. Obama, by defying appropriations, has claimed some of that power for himself. What check does Congress have left? That brings us to point two: Even if Congress can’t stop Obama, the courts can. The problem there, though, says Turley, is that O and the DOJ have argued successfully in many cases that no one has standing to sue him because no one can show an injury from his power grabs that’s concrete enough to justify a federal lawsuit. So the courts can’t check him either. Another link -- http://freedomslighthouse.net/2013/12/03/professor-jonathan-turley-sounds-the-alarm-on-barack-obamas-disregard-for-constitutional-limitations-you-have-the-rise-of-an-uber-presidency-there-could-be-no-greater-danger-for-individual-liber/ This gets to the heart of what we are dealing with in President Barack Obama.

At the House Judiciary Hearing today on the President’s refusal to recognize the Constitutional limitations placed upon him, Rep. Steve King cuts to the chase and poses questions to a panel about where we are with a President who does not respect the U.S. Constitution. At the 4:56 mark, King asks Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley where we are today, and his response was sobering, indeed:


“I have great trepidation of where we are headed, because we are creating a new system here – something that is not what was designed. . . . Within that system, you have the rise of an Uber-Presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift, because everything they dedicated themselves to was creating political balance – and we’ve lost it.”

Only when Americans use their votes to say, “Enough!”, and elect people who love and respect the U.S. Constitution will this balance return to what it ought to be. Barack Obama came from associations with Leftist Radicals – it was plain as the nose on your face from the first days of his 2007-2008 Presidential run. He is behaving as President consistent with what all those signals and signs said he would do. But now many are just waking up to how radical he truly is. The 2014 Midterms will be the first real opportunity for Americans to speak up and say, “Enough!” A message loud and true needs to be sent to Barack Obama, that Americans want their country back – their freedom back.

Posted by Brian on Tuesday, December 3rd, 2013   |   Tags: Jonathan Turley, Obama and the Constitution, Obama as Uber-President

[aboutime]

Why should any intelligent, thinking, honorable American believe someone


who dresses this way http://icansayit.com/images/obampantsaggy.jpg to be JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, should be called

our President??????:laugh:

[revelarts]

Another link -- http://freedomslighthouse.net/2013/12/03/professor-jonathan-turley-sounds-the-alarm-on-barack-obamas-disregard-for-constitutional-limitations-you-have-the-rise-of-an-uber-presidency-there-could-be-no-greater-danger-for-individual-liber/ This gets to the heart of what we are dealing with in President Barack Obama.

At the House Judiciary Hearing today on the President’s refusal to recognize the Constitutional limitations placed upon him, Rep. Steve King cuts to the chase and poses questions to a panel about where we are with a President who does not respect the U.S. Constitution. At the 4:56 mark, King asks Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley where we are today, and his response was sobering, indeed:


“I have great trepidation of where we are headed, because we are creating a new system here – something that is not what was designed. . . . Within that system, you have the rise of an Uber-Presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift, because everything they dedicated themselves to was creating political balance – and we’ve lost it.”

Only when Americans use their votes to say, “Enough!”, and elect people who love and respect the U.S. Constitution will this balance return to what it ought to be. Barack Obama came from associations with Leftist Radicals – it was plain as the nose on your face from the first days of his 2007-2008 Presidential run. He is behaving as President consistent with what all those signals and signs said he would do. But now many are just waking up to how radical he truly is. The 2014 Midterms will be the first real opportunity for Americans to speak up and say, “Enough!” A message loud and true needs to be sent to Barack Obama, that Americans want their country back – their freedom back.

Posted by Brian on Tuesday, December 3rd, 2013   |   Tags: Jonathan Turley, Obama and the Constitution, Obama as Uber-President

I've been talking about this since the "war on terror" began.
but i was called a deluded Bush hater for saying so. Obama is just taking it were it naturally leads. I knew he was lying when he promised otherwise..
I've ask the question many times but rarely get an answer.
What republican do you know of who's "electable" who will undo the damage and return the congressional powers and serve within the constitutional boundaries of the office?
what republican politician is even making noises along that line?
you find plenty of Rs calling Obama names and tyrant etc etc.
You find republicans talking about a strike on Iran, about repealling Ocare:rolleyes:, about the 16th amendment, about guns, about the debt etc etc
But name ONE that if elected president has said anything about FIXING the imperial powers of the president.

the Rs and Ds BOTH LOVE IT.

if you vote for another scumbag republican or democrat you'll see EVEN MORE of the same presidential bombasity.
Obama going to leave and a new tyrant will replace him because to many people still thinks it's D vs R and not the state v the people.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've been talking about this since the "war on terror" began.
but i was called a deluded Bush hater for saying so. Obama is just taking it were it naturally leads. I knew he was lying when he promised otherwise..
I've ask the question many times but rarely get an answer.
What republican do you know of who's "electable" who will undo the damage and return the congressional powers and serve within the constitutional boundaries of the office?
what republican politician is even making noises along that line?
you find plenty of Rs calling Obama names and tyrant etc etc.
You find republicans talking about a strike on Iran, about repealling Ocare:rolleyes:, about the 16th amendment, about guns, about the debt etc etc
But name ONE that if elected president has said anything about FIXING the imperial powers of the president.

the Rs and Ds BOTH LOVE IT.

if you vote for another scumbag republican or democrat you'll see EVEN MORE of the same presidential bombasity.
Obama going to leave and a new tyrant will replace him because to many people still thinks it's D vs R and not the state v the people. Actually , its the globalists versus the American citizenry and the Constitution. Neither party rightly opposes the globalist agenda. A huge part of Obama's agenda is globalism mixed with socialism. Neither fits well with our Constitution. Obama is just a well paid , overpraised , glorified , basically stupid puppet. His image is over 90% lies that have been made to appear to be truth. After he is out of office he should be arrested and given a day in court for his damn treason! Myself , I firmly believe should that happen and he be found guilty he should suffer the ultimate punishment. Of course it'll never happen unless we have a civil war and they lose... I now firmly believe that America can not be saved unless a civil war takes place. It has gone a bridge to far now.. --Tyr

[Gaffer]

I've been talking about this since the "war on terror" began.
but i was called a deluded Bush hater for saying so. Obama is just taking it were it naturally leads. I knew he was lying when he promised otherwise..
I've ask the question many times but rarely get an answer.
What republican do you know of who's "electable" who will undo the damage and return the congressional powers and serve within the constitutional boundaries of the office?
what republican politician is even making noises along that line?
you find plenty of Rs calling Obama names and tyrant etc etc.
You find republicans talking about a strike on Iran, about repealling Ocare:rolleyes:, about the 16th amendment, about guns, about the debt etc etc
But name ONE that if elected president has said anything about FIXING the imperial powers of the president.

the Rs and Ds BOTH LOVE IT.

if you vote for another scumbag republican or democrat you'll see EVEN MORE of the same presidential bombasity.
Obama going to leave and a new tyrant will replace him because to many people still thinks it's D vs R and not the state v the people.

An electable republican that will change things back. Cruz or Ryan. Now it's your turn, name an electable independent.

[gabosaurus]

Why should any intelligent, thinking, honorable American believe someone


who dresses this way http://icansayit.com/images/obampantsaggy.jpg to be JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, should be called

our President??????:laugh:

I knew aboutime would be fantasizing about the butt shot in this pic.

[revelarts]

Actually , its the globalists versus the American citizenry and the Constitution. Neither party rightly opposes the globalist agenda. A huge part of Obama's agenda is globalism mixed with socialism. Neither fits well with our Constitution. Obama is just a well paid , overpraised , glorified , basically stupid puppet. His image is over 90% lies that have been made to appear to be truth. After he is out of office he should be arrested and given a day in court for his damn treason! ....
I'm prety much with you here Tyr.




An electable republican that will change things back. Cruz or Ryan. Now it's your turn, name an electable independent.

While both do have good voting records and stances on some issues, especially on the 2nd amendment, I'm not convinced about their stand on civil liberties or presidential powers.
Cruz abstained or voted for the NDAA which says the military can toss people in jail without trial indefinitely. and Ryan voted No on removing the provision from the law.
Both have said mildly strong thing about the NSA and drones. but I'm waiting for the beef on that.
talk is cheap. One of them voted to keep people in gitmo rather than let them onshore prison. that's pure politics IMO. gitmo-izing is still constitutional illegal in many ways. mainland jails hold other terrorist so what's the real problem, NOTHING.
I'm not sure i've even heard them say anything about overuse of presidential powers other than the IRS issues. again where's the solid commitment to push back against BS presidential powers on all fronts or ..to be reasonable... most fronts.

I'll need to see a lot more before i'd consider them completely serious about what Tyr's bought up here.
obama SAID he was against spying and unconstitutional actions as well, and i for one am not among those that think Rs don't lie to get votes. "contract with America" "no new taxes" "no nation building" etc

and Cruz was born Canadian though his mother is American, so there may be issues with his eligibility.

[revelarts]

As far an independents being 'electable'.
that depends COMPLETELY on how serious the american public is on changing what Tyr has described. If everyone, D and R, honestly looked at the problem an independent would be in the White house the next term.
Frankly i've got no names right now, but if the cry "throw them all out" was serious. it would only be a matter of picking from the 3 or 4 alt parties that do stand for constitutional powers of the CiC and congress.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm prety much with you here Tyr.





While both do have good voting records and stances on some issues, especially on the 2nd amendment, I'm not convinced about their stand on civil liberties or presidential powers.
Cruz abstained or voted for the NDAA which says the military can toss people in jail without trial indefinitely. and Ryan voted No on removing the provision from the law.
Both have said mildly strong thing about the NSA and drones. but I'm waiting for the beef on that.
talk is cheap. One of them voted to keep people in gitmo rather than let them onshore prison. that's pure politics IMO. gitmo-izing is still constitutional illegal in many ways. mainland jails hold other terrorist so what's the real problem, NOTHING.
I'm not sure i've even heard them say anything about overuse of presidential powers other than the IRS issues. again where's the solid commitment to push back against BS presidential powers on all fronts or ..to be reasonable... most fronts.

I'll need to see a lot more before i'd consider them completely serious about what Tyr's bought up here.
obama SAID he was against spying and unconstitutional actions as well, and i for one am not among those that think Rs don't lie to get votes. "contract with America" "no new taxes" "no nation building" etc

and Cruz was born Canadian though his mother is American, so there may be issues with his eligibility.
Problem is that the federal government system is so corrupt and so powerful that it would take a very strong, very dedicated man to make enough reversal to matter! Do we have such a man Rev.?? I truly do not know.-Tyr

[fj1200]

Do we have such a man Rev.?? I truly do not know.-Tyr

You just take care of the revolutin' and I'll take care of being the benevolent dictator. Give me a month and... voila! :cool:

[Kathianne]

I'm in the wilderness so far, at least here.

[revelarts]

Problem is that the federal government system is so corrupt and so powerful that it would take a very strong, very dedicated man to make enough reversal to matter! Do we have such a man Rev.?? I truly do not know.-Tyr

your right, but frankly it'd be better to find a few men that'd at least chip a away at the job in office rather than a civil war or revolution where it really becomes a wild card what you'll end up with.

Not enough people liked Ron Paul but based on his voting record , i was convinced he'd have reapealed a boatload of executive orders and NOT signed the ndaa that says citizens can be jailed without trial. And clipped the NSA's activities. I have no doubt he'd reined in the executive depts and at least have tried to abolish a few. Was he perfect , no. Was he on the globalist imperial presidency bandwagon , absolutely not.
That's why i was so adamently for him. as you point out the office is out of control. If ANYONE D, R, or other is willing to set the constitutional of the OFFICE right during their term i think we could survive whatever other agendas they might get moving.

I'm 100% prolife but if a liberal pro-abort Green Party candidate had a clear and powerful record of supporting constitutional limits, at this point I'd probably vote for them. (especially since no R i've voted for has done much to stop abortion ANYWAY) The despotism that's on track at this point has only a few legal points where the brakes can be applied. the most power is at the presidential office itself. divestment of power there would set a tone similar to George Washingtons refusal to be made king, be called 'his excellency' or serve a 3rd term. Frankley it be a LARGER series of gestures.

But whatever happens, I pray the country can be saved without bloodshed.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm in the wilderness so far, at least here. Kat, I think it all comes from this judgment made by Turley that was in post number 2 here. Turley rightly pointed out Obama operates an Imperial Presidency and is the very threat of dominating Centralized Government Power the CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT! EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING HE WOULD DO EVEN BEFORE HE GAINED THE OFFICE THE FIRST TIME. . -Tyr



Here is more from another link.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/0...stable-system/ Liberal law prof: Obama’s unconstitutional power grabs are creating a “very dangerous and unstable system”


posted at 8:01 pm on December 3, 2013 by Allahpundit Good stuff from Jonathan Turley at today’s House hearing on executive power, although I regret that I couldn’t find a more user-friendly format for you to watch. There’s no compilation clip; you’ll have to make do with the C-SPAN embed by fast-forwarding to the time cues I give you and being patient while the vid buffers (and buffers, and buffers). At 1:10:55 he describes the “royal prerogative” that the Constitution was designed to eliminate but which Obama, through the growth of the administrative state and his own expansive view of executive discretion, is now flirting with. At 2:53:45, he applies that concept to O’s war powers, specifically vis-a-vis Libya and the White House “kill list.” If you have time for only one snippet, though, skip to 2:33:00 for his list of Obama’s five most egregious violations of separation of powers. Some are familiar to you — declaring that he wouldn’t deport illegals who might qualify for DREAM, refusing to enforce the employer mandate, etc — but the ones about him shifting money around without regard to how Congress has appropriated it might not be. Turley makes two valuable points here. One: Courts tend to give the executive a wide berth in separation-of-powers challenges on the theory that Congress has the power of the purse and can defund any executive agency it likes. But that’s not true anymore, he says. Obama, by defying appropriations, has claimed some of that power for himself. What check does Congress have left? That brings us to point two: Even if Congress can’t stop Obama, the courts can. The problem there, though, says Turley, is that O and the DOJ have argued successfully in many cases that no one has standing to sue him because no one can show an injury from his power grabs that’s concrete enough to justify a federal lawsuit. So the courts can’t check him either. Another link -- http://freedomslighthouse.net/2013/1...ividual-liber/ This gets to the heart of what we are dealing with in President Barack Obama.

At the House Judiciary Hearing today on the President’s refusal to recognize the Constitutional limitations placed upon him, Rep. Steve King cuts to the chase and poses questions to a panel about where we are with a President who does not respect the U.S. Constitution. At the 4:56 mark, King asks Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley where we are today, and his response was sobering, indeed:


“I have great trepidation of where we are headed, because we are creating a new system here – something that is not what was designed. . . . Within that system, you have the rise of an Uber-Presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift, because everything they dedicated themselves to was creating political balance – and we’ve lost it.”

Only when Americans use their votes to say, “Enough!”, and elect people who love and respect the U.S. Constitution will this balance return to what it ought to be. Barack Obama came from associations with Leftist Radicals – it was plain as the nose on your face from the first days of his 2007-2008 Presidential run. He is behaving as President consistent with what all those signals and signs said he would do. But now many are just waking up to how radical he truly is. The 2014 Midterms will be the first real opportunity for Americans to speak up and say, “Enough!” A message loud and true needs to be sent to Barack Obama, that Americans want their country back – their freedom back.

Posted by Brian on Tuesday, December 3rd, 2013   |   Tags: Jonathan Turley, Obama and the Constitution, Obama as Uber-President
Last edited by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot; Yesterday at 10:44 AM.