• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Obama Has Brought Us to ‘Constitutional Tipping Point’

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
I would imagine this dude is getting a ton of hate mail right now.

Liberal Prof.: Obama Has Brought Us to ‘Constitutional Tipping Point’

During testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday, liberal constitutional professor Jonathan Turley said that the growth of executive power is “accelerating” and that the growth of such power has brought us to a “constitutional tipping point”.

“I believe we are now at a constitutional tipping point in our system,” Turley, who teaches law at George Washington University, said. “It’s a dangerous point for our system to be in, and I believe that your response has to begin before this president leaves office. No one in our system goes it alone.”

Turley noted that while he agrees with the president on most of his policies, it still “does not alter the fact that I believe the means he is doing is wrong” and that the continued acceleration of executive power can be “a dangerous change in our system.”

Turley flatly rejected the Obama administration’s reason for using more executive powers, which the president claims is a gridlocked Congress. “It is simply untrue that we’re living in very different or unprecedented times. The framers lived in these times,” Turley said, noting that back then Congress used the Alien and Sedition Act to arrest opponents and Thomas Jefferson referred to his opponents as the “reign of witches.”

“This is not a different political time, and it shouldn’t be used as an excuse for extra-constitutional action,” Turley warned.
 

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
1. He's correct. Executive power has been accelerating for some time and it's gotten worse after 9/11. Leeway granted to the Executive is hardly ever given back. Extra power that Reagan got was inherited by Bush and then Clinton. Extra power that Clinton got was inherited by Bush. Extra power that Bush got was inherited by Obama.

2. A dysfunctional congress accelerates the process. An opposition Congress will pass things at odds with the President, but generally can get the day-to-day business of running the country done. A dysfunctional one, like we have now and had at the end of Bush's administration begs for more Executive power. On the one hand, it's a practical way of getting things done when Congress isn't delivering. Second, if Congress is dysfunctional it cannot be an effective check against the Executive.

3. Congressional testimony tends to be self-serving in the interest of the party in charge of the chamber. It is not surprising that the professor who testified had the same opinions as the Republicans in the House. Otherwise he would not have been asked to testify.

tl;dr Executive power has grown for years, not just under Obama. Pointing it out in a House committee is restating the obvious for political reasons.
 

BUnit1701

Senior member
May 1, 2013
853
1
0
1. He's correct. Executive power has been accelerating for some time and it's gotten worse after 9/11. Leeway granted to the Executive is hardly ever given back. Extra power that Reagan got was inherited by Bush and then Clinton. Extra power that Clinton got was inherited by Bush. Extra power that Bush got was inherited by Obama.

2. A dysfunctional congress accelerates the process. An opposition Congress will pass things at odds with the President, but generally can get the day-to-day business of running the country done. A dysfunctional one, like we have now and had at the end of Bush's administration begs for more Executive power. On the one hand, it's a practical way of getting things done when Congress isn't delivering. Second, if Congress is dysfunctional it cannot be an effective check against the Executive.

3. Congressional testimony tends to be self-serving in the interest of the party in charge of the chamber. It is not surprising that the professor who testified had the same opinions as the Republicans in the House. Otherwise he would not have been asked to testify.

tl;dr Executive power has grown for years, not just under Obama. Pointing it out in a House committee is restating the obvious for political reasons.
I notice no interest in changing the status quo. The fact that it has happened under Presidents and Congresses of both parties should emphisise the importance of reigning this in.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,485
3,814
136
I've seen this movie before. He'll have the senate vote him more emergency powers before declaring himself emperor.

Then the rebel alliance will be born.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,596
7,665
136
I've seen this movie before. He'll have the senate vote him more emergency powers before declaring himself emperor.

Then the rebel alliance will be born.
Hey you should start Fantasy Rebel Alliance.

Or Maybe an MMO, Take Over America, Militias in action!
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,200
8,044
136
To the defective brain of the right; all that is bad in America started on 1/23/09.

It was Obama that brought us here! We went from perfection to crap in a single day!
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
2. A dysfunctional congress accelerates the process. An opposition Congress will pass things at odds with the President, but generally can get the day-to-day business of running the country done. A dysfunctional one, like we have now and had at the end of Bush's administration begs for more Executive power. On the one hand, it's a practical way of getting things done when Congress isn't delivering. Second, if Congress is dysfunctional it cannot be an effective check against the Executive.
Obama changed his signature healthcare legislation at last count 26 (28?) times by executive fiat. I know you keep up on these things and wondered if you could help me out finding how Congress obstructed him in these instances that necessitated him doing that. Thanks in advance.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,821
2,923
126
This is the poorest excuse of all. He may not like not getting what he thinks ought to be but nullifying the Constitution is not a legitimate option.
When there are things that need to be done and those who are supposed to do it refuse, someone needs to step up to the plate.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
To the defective brain of the right; all that is bad in America started on 1/23/09.

It was Obama that brought us here! We went from perfection to crap in a single day!
No, Obama found us fettered 5 years ago and instead of liberating us , he has labored to make it stronger those many years.. Ah it is a ponderous chain.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
When there are things that need to be done and those who are supposed to do it refuse, someone needs to step up to the plate.
Obama does not have the authority under the Constitution to "step up to the plate" by usurpation any more than your worst nightmare preacher has the right to have you attend church at gunpoint.

Expedition of agenda does not change that one bit. You don't get to anoint the chosen one.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
When there are things that need to be done and those who are supposed to do it refuse, someone needs to step up to the plate.
Sorry, but he knew the fucking rules before he started playing the game. Just because the asshole isn't happy with what he can actually pass doesn't give him the right or the power to force his politics on the American people. He was elected President with the limits on the Executive branch that come with it, not dictator or fuhrer.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,821
2,923
126
Obama does not have the authority under the Constitution to "step up to the plate" by usurpation any more than your worst nightmare preacher has the right to have you attend church at gunpoint.

Expedition of agenda does not change that one bit. You don't get to anoint the chosen one.

That's for the Courts to decide.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
whether the Constitution intended for obama to increase State power doesnt really matter, the fact is that the Constitution made it possible.

anyway, the solution is to secede because there have been too many wars and too many taxes. and if obama wants to use nukes against secessionists, then he would do it, but there isnt going to be much point in living anyway if the State starts torturing people en masse and when there are even more monopolies/cartelizations.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,249
3,475
136
I use to see alot of Turly on Olberman. The man knows his constitution. This really started way before 9/11. I mean how many "police actions" have there been since WWII. There's this institution you know called congress. They've created this vacuum of power and those in power are going to use it.
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
What choice does he have?

He could apply some form or fashion of effective leadership and bring both parties to the table. He seems flatly unable to do that. In fact with his and his cabinets lack of experience it's truly amazing anything has been accomplished to date. Other presidents have faced similar stonewalling and have met with much better success simply because they were effective leaders and gained trust and respect of their adversaries. Many in Congress simply don't trust him and his handling of ACA highlights this mistrust to execute the law as it was passed. I have a phone and a pen doesn't quite suffice for leadership.

This man couldn't run a Taco Bell franchise let alone this country. Again, not because of his party affiliation but because of a blatant lack of experience and leadership skills.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,821
2,923
126
What choice does he have?

He could apply some form or fashion of effective leadership and bring both parties to the table. He seems flatly unable to do that. In fact with his and his cabinets lack of experience it's truly amazing anything has been accomplished to date. Other presidents have faced similar stonewalling and have met with much better success simply because they were effective leaders and gained trust and respect of their adversaries. Many in Congress simply don't trust him and his handling of ACA highlights this mistrust to execute the law as it was passed. I have a phone and a pen doesn't quite suffice for leadership.

This man couldn't run a Taco Bell franchise let alone this country. Again, not because of his party affiliation but because of a blatant lack of experience and leadership skills.
When one Party refuses, there are no options left.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
I use to see alot of Turly on Olberman. The man knows his constitution. This really started way before 9/11. I mean how many "police actions" have there been since WWII. There's this institution you know called congress. They've created this vacuum of power and those in power are going to use it.
What "police actions" are you thinking of?

Fern
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
When one Party refuses, there are no options left.
The D's are just as guilty about refusing to play nice. Reid is just as much a stamp your feet child as Boehner. Although critical of Obama's lack of effective leadership Congress on both sides of the aisle are also horrid. This is why a strong President is so important.

The options you suggest are not supported by the Constitution.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY