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.Turley isn’t the only one sounding the alarm on Obama’s lawlessness, but his testimony is notable in that he’s a respected political commentator on the left.
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. (Read More)
Every department has usurped your power. In the case of Barack Obama, those department heads are ideologically joined at the brain with him and have been for decades. As much as fair-minded citizens want to include Bush in the same growth of bureaucratic power, it’s not quite the same. There was no ideological embrace at the State Department for GW. Bush didn’t clean house. Shame on him. We are paying for his lack of discretion today. He let the Left control his DOJ, and he gobbled up private American land for government control at a gallop. That’s just for starters, but there is no fair comparison of the Bush audacity to the Obama audacity.Even worse, the Senate just nuked the filibuster, further limiting the checks on this president.
This Senate testimony was reprinted in several places so a link is not needed... but people have painted anyone who disagrees with this president as a hater.. a bigot... a racists ... etc.
It is not for those reasons that I vehemently dislike this man in particular and he and his predecessor in general .... it is because they are dangerous to this country and indeed the world.... and most people can't even see the danger.
People... those who have dropped their blinders are starting to reject this president with even harsher criticism than Bush because he has no 9/11 excuse... he as no Katrina... he has been caught lying so many times, how could anyone believe a thing he says.... he is not a good man and people are starting to see the harm he is doing... better late than never. I just hope that they take a hard look at many of the Democrats and Republicans that reside in Washington.. They are all part of the problem... removing them is a start to finding a solution.
1776-2009 the Tea Party figured this out quite awhile ago.
ReplyDelete"1776-2009 the Tea Party figured this out quite awhile ago"
ReplyDeleteMaybe they will have national appeal when they figure out housetraining.
Because no Article V convention has ever been convened, there are various questions about how such a convention would function in practice. One major question is whether the scope of the convention's subject matter could be limited.[11]
DeleteThe consensus is that Congress probably does not have the power to limit a convention to a single amendment or a single subject, because the language of Article V leaves no discretion to Congress, merely stating that Congress "shall" call a convention when the proper number of state applications have been received. Comments made at the time the Constitution was adopted indicate that it was understood when the Constitution was drafted that Congress would have no discretion. In The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton stated that when the proper number of applications had been received, Congress was "obliged" to call a convention and that "nothing is left to the discretion of Congress."[26] James Madison also affirmed Hamilton's contention that Congress was obligated to call a convention when the requisite number of states requested it.[27] In the North Carolina debates about ratifying the Constitution, James Iredell, who subsequently became one of the founding members of the Supreme Court, stated that when two-thirds of states have applied to Congress for a convention, Congress is "under the necessity of convening one" and that they have "no option."[28]
There have been two nearly-successful attempts to amend the Constitution via an Article V Convention since the late 1960s. The first try was an attempt to propose an amendment that would overturn two Supreme Court decisions, Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims, decisions that required states to adhere to the one man, one vote principle in drawing electoral districts for state and federal elections. The attempt fell only one state short of reaching the 34 needed to force Congress to call a convention in 1969, but ended by the death of its main promoter Senator Everett Dirksen. After this peak, several states rescinded their applications, and interest in the proposed amendment subsided.[17] The next nearly-successful attempt to call a convention was in the late 1970s and 1980s, in response to the ballooning federal deficit. States began applying to Congress for an Article V Convention to propose a balanced budget amendment. By 1983, the number of applications had reached 32, only two states short of the 34 needed to force such a convention.[18] Enthusiasm for the amendment subsided in response to fears that an Article V Convention could not be limited to a single subject and because Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which required that the budget be balanced by 1991 (but that Act was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1986). [18] New life was breathed into the effort, however, when in 2013 the Ohio General Assembly applied to Congress for a Convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment. Depending upon whether or not rescissions between 1988 and 2010 in some of states that had previously petitioned for such a Convention during the 1970s and 1980s are in fact valid, then Ohio's 2013 petition is either the 19th or the 33rd. If Ohio's 2013 petition is deemed to be the 33rd, then the Nation is currently again just one state shy of an Article V Convention being triggered.
1773-2009 We are close.
Imagine that. A noted liberal is critical of Obama, but of course this never happens. So, from here on out TS, because you posted this, you can never, ever, ever, ever say that there is no objectivity from the left. This is simple, and it's black and white, and it's all or nothing. One post is all we on the left to say forever that you are wrong if you say there is not objectivity from the left. Thank you for ending that nonsense.
ReplyDelete