“The president is outside the line, but it has to go in front of a court, and that court has to grant review, and that’s where we have the most serious constitutional crisis I view in my lifetime, and that is this body is becoming less and less relevant.”
~Professor Jonathan Turley
The George Washington University Law School
“If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”
~Michael Cannon
Cato Institute
Allahpundit
Hot Air
12/3/2013
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…
The article continues at HotAir.com
–
–
Also at the site, Trey Gowdy to liberal law prof: If Obama can ignore parts of ObamaCare, could he ignore election laws too?
…Simple question from Gowdy to the legal panel: How far can Obama go? Now that he’s claimed the royal prerogative to not enforce immigration law against young illegals, not enforce O-Care’s employer mandate against businesses, and not enforce the new rules about “essential benefits” against insurers who un-cancel old plans, what else can he choose not to enforce? If Congress imposes a mandatory minimum sentence for certain offenses, presumably Obama could refuse to enforce that by granting blanket commutations for thousands of people convicted of those offenses. Presumably he could also refuse to enforce election laws. Why not? What’s the limiting principle?…
Read the whole thing.
–
–
Related: Uber President Danger to Individual Liberty
Congressman Steve King (R) – Iowa – explores Obama impeachment with Constitution experts during judiciary hearing. If the president is willfully and repeatedly violating the Constitution, this is a clear case for impeachment. If the People come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.
–
–
Meanwhile, Obama Administration Admits Over 126,000 Enrollments In Obamacare Not Real!
The Obama Administration is now having to admit that over 126,000 enrollments into the Obamacare system are not real. From fake friends on Twitter, to fake first person to enroll, there is nothing about the system that appears to be real…
Update: More Trey Gowdy. Where Is Accountability In Our Government?
–
–
Glenn Beck: Convention Of States
U.S. Congressman Blake Farenthold On The President’s Constitutional Duty To Execute Laws
Hearings On Presidential Power – Allegation Obama Disregarding Costitution – The Kelly File Judge Andrew Napolitano and Megyn Kelly
