KELLY: Why is it so dangerous? What' so bad that will come of this?Real Clear Politics h/t Rush Limbaugh. (Video at the Link)
TURLEY: Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism. I don't believe that we are that system yet. But we cannot ignore that we're beginning to ignore a system that is a pretense of democracy if a president is allowed to take a law and just simply say, 'I'm going to ignore this,' or, 'I'm going to shift funds that weren't appropriated by Congress into this area.'
The president's State of the Union indicated this type of unilateralism that he has adopted as a policy. Now, many people view that as somehow empowering. In my view, it's dangerous, that is what he is suggesting is to essentially put our system off line. This is not the first time that convenience has become the enemy of principle. But we've never seen it to this extent.
KELLY: What is supposed to be done about it? You know, I know in your testimony before Congress you cited Ben Franklin who believed that the other branches would work in their own self interest to try to reign in a president who got drunk on his own power, or however you want to put it. You know, Congress doesn't have -- they can withdrawal money, they can move to impeach, they can file lawsuits --which they've done -- I mean, what are they supposed to do?
TURLEY: Part of the problem really rests with the federal courts. For the last two decades, federal courts have been engaged in a policy of avoidance. They are not getting involved when the executive branch exceeds its powers, they're just leaving it up to the branches. And often they say Congress has the power of the purse, Congress can simply restrict funds.
But one of the complaints against President Obama is that very clearly dedicated funds in areas like healthcare, have been just shifted by the White House unilaterally to different areas. And the courts have adopted this avoidance policy.
I am astonished by the degree of passivity in Congress, particularly by Democrats. You know, I first came to Congress when I was a young page and there were people that fiercely believed in the institution. It didn't matter what party held the White House. But what we're seeing now is the usurpation of authority that's unprecedented in this country.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Turley: "We Have Become a Nation of Enablers"
Transcript excerpt of Law professor Jonathan Turley on Fox's News with Megan Kelly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
One thing wrong is that too many Constitutional scholars -- the sorts who should care -- are in tenured positions and just don't give a shit. Precisely because they have that sinecure, they should be the fearless ones. That is their historical role and should be part of protecting underdogs. The same is true of any lifetime appointed judge.
The precautions that were put in place to protect them are failing then.
Both the courts and the law professors.
Hey, we're only on "the border" of authoritarianism. So not to worry. Gay schluffen, kinder, gay schluffen.
The problem here is Obama's black skin and the pass that it gives him.
It's racist to hold him to the same standard as we would hold a white male president.
The Democrats plan to mine the same theme with Hillary.
It will be sexist to hold her to the same standard as we would a white male president.
Quite a scheme for dodging constitutional restraints, isn't it?
Chick, those people, constitutional scholars and judges, are precisely the people that like the constitution the least, at least as it is written. They're also a part of the elite of the nation that wants to crush the middle class so that we can have a society that is more egalitarian, although with a loyal class of true believers at the top. (After all, they should get SOME benefit for all their sacrifices.)
The problem is nothing new. It is, in fact, older than everyone here.
The real problem isn't that the *President* is writing the law, but that the *executive branch* writes that laws. Congress has, since the early 20th century, regularly passed "laws" that amount to "the bureaucrats will figure out what the actual law is later on".
Virtually none of the laws and regulations that afflict American businesses, for example, were ever voted on by Congress in anything like their current form. They were written by unelected bureaucrats, reviewed by other unelected bureaucrats, and given final approval by Presidential appointees.
Cutting out all those middle men and skipping straight to "fuck it, the President writes the law" at least has the benefit of the public knowing who the fuck to *blame*.
chickenlittle said...
One thing wrong is that too many Constitutional scholars -- the sorts who should care -- are in tenured positions and just don't give a shit.
This is a weird complaint given that the video features exactly this kind of person.
@Revenant,
A very clever way of dodging the reality that this President has stated that he intends to legislate by fiat and bypass Congress. And, he is doing precisely that.
You cited normal corruption as the same thing.
No, it isn't.
This precedent will be passed on at some point to a Republican president. I bet you won't be so quick to rationalize then.
As an example of the danger Turley is talking about... if not too logically extraneous.
People who didn't move their cars after the snow storm last week, were very sorry after temperatures they probably had expected to rise, thereby melting the snow, so they could easily move their cars, did not.
As a result their cars are entombed in ice as temperatures stayed in the teens.
We may be letting Obama be because we have the expectation that things will straighten themselves out later.
But what if our expectations are wrong?
Once Congress has conceded its prerogatives to another branch what happens then?
Turley calls it dangerous, but I'm afraid that in the days of whimsical sequesters and fiscal cliffs, 'dangerous' might be processed as something of a bunny slope.
A very clever way of dodging the reality that this President has stated that he intends to legislate by fiat and bypass Congress. And, he is doing precisely that.
It is cute how you spin my pointing out that the executive branch has been legislating by fiat for decades as "dodging the reality that this President has stated that he intends to legislate by fiat". It isn't enough for me to think that Obama is grossly abusing his power -- I must also pretend he's the first President in living memory to do so.
You cited normal corruption as the same thing.
I didn't mention corruption at all.
I'm talking about the way laws and regulations are written. The US code of laws and regulations runs to tens of thousands of pages, and the vast majority of it was written by executive branch employees -- NOT passed by Congress. Most of the so-called "laws" we are ordered to obey were never voted on by anything more than a blue-ribbon commission of federal bureaucrats and maybe a panel of judges or two.
For example, the EPA regulates CO2 as an environmental pollutant. Congress explicitly *rejected* granting the EPA that power, but a collection of state executives, environmental activists, and appointed judges just went ahead and decided to do it anyway. Neither voters nor their elected representatives were given any say in the matter.
As another example, while you're in the process of whining yourself inside-out over the use of Presidential fiat to delay the employer mandate, the IRS is using executive fiat to establish a $500 billion entitlement program forbidden by Congress.
"... whining yourself inside out..."
When you resort to this kind of foolish language, you discredit yourself completely.
My post was quite unemotional. It was a flat statement.
You're ranting. Incoherently.
I can only wonder why. I really don't know.
Once again, I'll state my quite simple and unemotional point...
When a president announces his intent to violate the constitution, ignore the legislature and rule by fiat from the Oval Office, we've got a problem of an entirely new and dangerous dimension.
When you resort to this kind of foolish language, you discredit yourself completely.
Not among people who count. :)
"This precedent will be passed on at some point to a Republican president."
There is a reason beyond their desire for a short term gratification of their interests that the Democrats are not as worried as it seems they should be with the accrual of apparently illegal power in the office of the President.
You can assert that all politicians are liars and they all serve only themselves and the money and voting groups that keep them in office, but you would be wrong.
The Republicans may have an assortment of scallywags in their midst but in modern times they have consistently nominated presidential candidates who are
at heart committed to the national interest and have a respect for the this country's principles, institutions and founding documents.
In short, they are not worried because they know that even if they lose the presidency the Republicans will not select a person so totally unprincipled as to be willing to spit on the Constitution without remorse.
Nixon at least had the decency to resign.
When a president announces his intent to violate the constitution, ignore the legislature and rule by fiat from the Oval Office, we've got a problem of an entirely new and dangerous dimension.
See, if you take out the bolded section there's no problem at all. It becomes a simple and unemotional statement of fact.
The reason I mock you, and will continue to mock you, is because you include the bolded section and genuinely believe it to be true. But of course the notion that Obama is in any way the first President to ignore Congress, ignore the Constitution, and and issue rulings by fiat is the kind of think a man can only believe if he hasn't heard of, say, George Bush, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Richard Nixon, or Lyndon Johnson.
Or, heck, Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson, for that matter. :)
@Revenant
You can mock all you want.
We are approaching a constitutional confrontation over the perpetual civil rights crisis that has ruled the thinking of the Democrats since the 1960s.
I knew and predicted that this confrontation was inevitable the day Obama took office.
It would take too long, and you would have no patience with reading my fully developed discussion of why this is happening, so I'll skip to the chase and give you the Reader's Digest version.
Democrats are possessed by the notion that "bigots" should be excluded from the political process, that they simply have surrendered their rights as citizens. Of course, defining what a bigot might be is the job of Democrats.
Issues that touch on "bigotry" are exempt from the normal political process, since banishing bigots and guaranteeing an ever expanding panoply of civil rights is the duty of every decent citizen.
Obama cannot be held to account because opposition is bigotry. Insistence on the rule of law thus becomes bigotry. Any and all tactics are justified in the war on bigotry.
We're in for a fierce confrontation. I saw it coming when he entered office.
You repeatedly employ a tactic that is quite clever, which is to insist that I accept your terms for defining the debate. No, I don't have to agree to your terms. I'm a hard headed bastard.
We are headed toward an all out confrontation over whether the permanent civil rights crusade can be used as an excuse for any and every abuse of power.
the vast majority of it was written by executive branch employees
More likely, the vast majority of regulations are written by the staff of lobbying organizations, then passed along to the appropriate apparatchik in the administration.
The process for most Congressional bills is largely the same.
You can mock all you want.
Sweet!
More likely, the vast majority of regulations are written by the staff of lobbying organizations, then passed along to the appropriate apparatchik in the administration
Actual administration members usually don't get involved in the nitty-gritty details. Have you ever seen one of them try answering questions about ObamaCare regulations, for example? Sure, there's the usual lying -- that goes with the territory -- but it is plain to see that they don't actually understand what's in there.
The regulations are mostly written by career employees of the agencies, who remain while administrations come and go.
You're definitely right about the lobbyists, though. Particularly since that's a good retirement path for career bureaucrats.
@Revenant
No, it isn't just biz as usual.
Else, you wouldn't have responded with that hysterical rant.
That was the tipoff that you know that it isn't just biz as usual.
No, it isn't just biz as usual. Else, you wouldn't have responded with that hysterical rant.
Why Thomas, I am shocked. When you resort to this kind of foolish language, you discredit yourself completely. :)
Seriously, though, I've already refuted your argument in this and other threads. You scrupulously ignore the responses and repeat the same silliness all over again: blah blah he's black blah blah unprecedented abuse blah blah blah.
It is silly, ignorant, and worst of all boring. I have two modes for the silly, ignorant, and boring: mock and ignore. Be grateful I notice you, for nobody else seems to.
Bullshit.
Althouse uses that very tactic while she's debating me at length.
You've noticed that too.
You're pretty transparent.
And, I don't ignore your responses.
I ignore your diversionary tactics. That's your attempt to insist that I discuss issues as you phrase them. Like the multiple choice exams you insist I answer.
You're a very foolish man if you think that will succeed with me. In fact, you know that it won't.
After Caesar crossed the Rubicon and declared himself Dictator for life, he confiscated the property of his opponents in the Senate and distributed it to his supporters. What's not to like about a guy like that? Too bad we don't have politicians like that today. (sarc)
@revenant: I think you underplay the degree to which Obama has played autocrat. As the wise saying goes, difference in degree lead to differences in kind.
Obama was special from the get go: did Bush, or Clinton, or any predecessor after FDR entertain the cult of personality which Obama enjoyed? What about the Shepard Fairey posters? The fainting women at rallies? The phony oration driven by a teleprompter? Worst of all -- and unique to Obama -- the fawning press which continues. Then there is the D.C. bubble. Surely you're not ignoring these firsts are you?
I had more respect for you than that.
It is silly, ignorant, and worst of all boring.
Boring to you, perhaps. :)
Post a Comment