Turley’s Testimony

In all of the chaos that has been swirling around the last week or two, i.e.; the border crisis, the Malaysian airliner, and the Gaza Strip, what has been lost or certainly under reported is the very important Congressional lawsuit against Executive Authority. Notable George Washington University law professor and admitted Obama supporter Jonathan Turley testified in front of Congress this last week in support of the lawsuit, and his testimony was very compelling and should get the attention of anyone who respects the Constitution and the founding of our country. Turley warns not only of unlawful unilateral changes to legislation by the executive branch, but also of the “fourth branch” of government, and the increasing power of agency deference, and the enactment of law through regulations. The testimony is found in full text here, and is a good weekend read. Many of us here have spoken to this issue quite a bit calling for the need to limit the size and scope of the federal government, and to see that the House, through elected representatives, and the States assert their Constitutional authorities. Unfortunately, in the face of those statements, we have been called racists and extremists by the very people who either support the expansion of unilateral power and the departure from the tripartite system our founders intended, or by those who are so willfully ignorant they pose an extreme danger to our republic. I contend it is the latter. In his testimony, Turley explains how he sat in bewilderment when the President stood in front of the Congressional body and told them straight up that he would go around them if they failed to act and many of them stood up and cheered. How sad is that? Congress cheering a President that promises to strip them of their elected responsibility. This lawsuit must go forward, and it must succeed, and this is just the first of many actions the people must engage in to regain control of this government, and of this country. Below are some excerpts:

While the President is clearly exasperated by the opposition that he has encountered in Washington, the Framers created a system that often forces compromise between factional and political groups. That legislative process tends to produce laws with a broader base of support and, frankly, a better product after going through the difficult revisions and conferences. What emerges is not always perfect but it does have the legitimacy of a duly enacted law. It is that legislative process that is the key to the success of the American system. Thus, the loss caused by the circumvention of the legislative branch is not simply one branch usurping another. Rather, it is the loss of the most important function of the tripartite system in channeling factional interests and reaching resolutions on matters of great public importance. 

The rise of this fourth branch in our tripartite system raises difficult questions.65 Today, the vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations. Adding to this dominance are judicial rulings giving agencies heavy deference in their interpretations of laws under cases like Chevron. Recently, this Supreme Court added to this insulation and authority with a ruling that agencies can determine their own jurisdictions — a power that was previously believed to rest with Congress. In his dissent in City of Arlington v. FCC, Chief Justice John Roberts warned, “It would be a bit much to describe the result as ‘the very definition of tyranny,’ but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Turley’s Testimony

  1. Retired Spook July 19, 2014 / 12:33 pm

    This lawsuit must go forward, and it must succeed, and this is just the first of many actions the people must engage in to regain control of this government

    For the sake of discussion, let’s say it does succeed, and next June the Supreme Court issues a decision that amounts to a cease and desist order on the executive branch. And the executive branch, in the same vein that it is now acting, says “pound sand”. What then? Demand that Eric Holder arrest himself, the President and everyone around him? What’s the enforcement mechanism when those constitutionally responsible for enforcement are, themselves, part of the criminal enterprise?

    • Cluster July 19, 2014 / 1:11 pm

      Impeachment. And if it got to that point, I would have to believe that there would be 60 Senators that would have no choice but to assert their constitutional power and dismiss an Executive that has not only ignored the House, but now is ignoring the Judicial branch.

      • Amazona July 21, 2014 / 9:57 am

        It is possible, I guess, that some Dems might be willing to do the right thing instead of groveling to their minders. However, we have to remember that the Left has set up a paradigm in which anyone who votes against, or even just fails to adore, Obama is pretty much guaranteed to lose the “black vote”. The efforts of the Left to herd black people into plantations where they are fed and given treats as part of their training to obey without question has shown itself to be very effective. Sure, it demeans black people and even worse it reinforces the vicious old stereotype that black people cannot think for themselves, but the Left has always cared only about gaining power, and if they have to throw a whole race under the bus to do it, well, that’s tough.

        So any Dem who dares to stand up for his country and for the law and for what is right is going to face sure defeat in the next election, and possibly be blamed for the race riots we can be sure will be stirred up by the race-mongers and hate-mongers and riot-mongers of the Left. That will be a hard line to cross.

      • Cluster July 21, 2014 / 10:16 am

        The left has perfected the art of bullying and Ben Shapiro wrote a great book about that. I think however with this current immigration debacle, some black democrats are starting to realize that Obama was not “the one they have all been waiting for”, and are starting to see him as just another dishonest, incompetent progressive. Expanding on that, it is moving to see how “concerned” democrats are with the “children”, particularly Pelosi and Kirsten Powers, but where have they been for American children? The children in Chicago live in just as violent and poverty ridden conditions as those children in Central America, but I don’t see any on-going Democratic efforts to help them.

      • Amazona July 21, 2014 / 1:40 pm

        Cluster, it is a multi-step process. It is one thing to start to realize you have been led down the garden path, that you have believed the wrong people, that you have been wrong. But there is still a chasm to cross, to get to the other side, and a lot of people will probably just hover there in limbo, not believing in the Big Rock Candy Mountain of Leftist promises but still scared spitless by the fearmongering of their former comrades and afraid to cross over and embrace the Right.

        Remember, most are not Democrats because they support Leftist governance—they vote Democrat because of the successful demonizing of the Right. And we do an absolutely miserable job of pointing out that it is far better to be FOR something than simply AGAINST whatever has been named as the target of the day. This is one of the biggest differences between the Left and the Right—-those on the Left tend to be AGAINST various things, and never question the political ads that give sooooo many reasons to vote against the Republican candidate but somehow never manage to say why they should vote FOR the Dem. Mark Udall’s campaign in Colorado is a textbook example of this—–his ads are horrible, ugly, dreary litanies of how SCARY and RADICAL and EXTREME and did I mention SCARY his opponent is, dark and doomsdayish, but never mentioning any reason why we should vote FOR Udall. His stance on Obamacare? Nah, don’t like to talk about that. His support for gun control? Kinda hoping Coloradans will forget about that. His determination to block the Keystone Pipeline? Not a big selling point. His backing by an out of state billionaire? Not quite the thing to bring up, given his squealing about Corey Gardner’s supposed support from the dreaded Koch Brothers (hiss hiss).

        Nope, it is All Negativity, All The Time. So even when people realize that Udall is a mess, and not what they want in the Senate, it is going to be hard for the neophyte thinker to make that leap over to what he has been brainwashed into thinking of as the Dark Side.

    • GMB July 20, 2014 / 8:03 am

      Laws! Laws! pass more Laws! Petition the King for redress!! Wait! Wait! Wait some more! Wait until your body is sore!

      I think that picture does not need any more paint.

      In the end those with grand ideas and and flowery words will end up saying that this is not the right time. Not the right place. Not the right battle. They will say that this is definitely not the right hill to die on.

      The only problem here is that those who depend on grand ideas and flowery words do not have that many hills left to retreat to. The progtards are going to force the issue while they have the Words that have been identified as racist and banned in the past and are still not allowed. They will be removed or you will be removed. Your choice. //Moderator

      The protests are growing. The Patriots are getting edgy and itchy. A scratch in just the right place and time will force the issue over the edge.

      As a trained S-2 I do not believe that I am telling you anything you do not already know.

      I invite you to the radical fringe of the Patriot movement.

      Our cookies are sweeter, our milk is more nutritious, and we have some of the best home brewed beer you will ever taste.

      We share with our friends.

  2. Cluster July 19, 2014 / 9:34 pm

    OT but how lucky can I be? First of all, Casper and Rico are afraid of AZ because of our draconian immigration law SB1070, and now I learn that that Markos moron from Daily Kos has decided to join them:

    I made very clear in the wake of Arizona’s passage of SB 1070 that I would not be setting foot in the state, nor spending a dime in it until the law was revoked. The law, however gutted by the courts, remains on the books, as does systemic harassment of Latinos, so my pledge still stands.

    I will have to remind all of my Latino friends on how harassed they are. I am sure it will be news to them. On another note – that famous Native American Elizabeth Warren is becoming quite the progressive darling, and has evidently been talking with Watson:

    Warren defined the conservatives’ “internal motto” as “I got mine, the rest of you are on your own.”

    And there is more:

    she said progressives are guided by the “principle” that “we all do better when we work together and invest in building a future… not just for some of our kids, but for all of our kids.”

    That is provided the kids and their parents don’t disrupt the teacher unions. God forbid they should be allowed “choice”.

    And yet there is still more:

    “Oh, and we believe that corporations are not people, that women to have a right to their bodies,”

    Women have a right to their bodies AND the right to have someone else pay for all of it!! It’s a win – win. The government is the biggest sugar daddy of them all.

    • Amazona July 20, 2014 / 8:26 pm

      Oh my! Oh dear! I can hardly imagine the level of consternation—nay, PANIC !!—-at the thought of being spared the presence of a hair-on-fire raving Liberal.

      Actually, I think this is the kind of “threat” that might encourage other states to enact the same legislation. I am all for anything that will keep these Loony Leftists penned up in areas with their own kind, as long as the penning is purely voluntary and based upon their resistance to reasonable legislation.

    • Amazona July 20, 2014 / 8:29 pm

      I also think Ms Warren is delusional if she thinks that ANYONE has an interest in her body.

      As decent human beings have been saying all along, any woman ought to be able to do anything she wants with HER body. The problem comes when she is determined to snuff out the life of ANOTHER body—-that is, that of her unborn child.

      I know that these people, while irrational, do have the intellectual ability to tell the difference. They just choose not to admit it, and prefer to mouth the same old same old, trusting that there are enough morons out there to go along with it.

    • Amazona July 21, 2014 / 1:53 pm

      No, corporations are NOT people. Neither are unions. They are legal entities made up of people. They are not buildings, or machines, or virtual constructs with no physical form. They are groups of people, organized for a purpose.

      The Left doesn’t even try to hide its disdain for the intelligence of Americans, doesn’t even try to come up with slogans that imply even a hint of respect for their ability to think. And, sadly, they have a pretty good read on too many Americans, are right too many times in their assumption that their audience is just too profoundly stupid to see through the lies and nonsense. So they keep on repeating their stupid mantras, as noted in a prior thread on redundancy, and sure enough, they get sheeple to baaaaa it back to them.

      The Supreme Court never said a corporation is a person, singular or plural. It said that as a legal entity made up of people, real live human beings who have opinions and rights, this entity has the legal right to express the views of the real live human beings who constitute the entity. The same standard is now applied to corporations that has been applied to unions for decades, with the same rights to political expression. A union is also a legal entity made up of real live human beings, and unions have been allowed to participate in the political process all along.

      What has the pathetically ignorant so willing to buy into the crap spread by the crapmasters like Warren is that they can grasp the fact that a union is made up of people, probably because they belong to a union or know someone who does. They experience, personally, the fact that a union is just people united in some way for some purpose. But being ignorant drones, brought up on class envy and hatred of the successful, they are easily led into the perception (it is not deep enough or complicated enough to qualify as a belief) that a “corporation” is not just people united in some way for some purpose but is some kind of ……..THING. Some kind of THING that somehow, in a blurry, confused, incoherent kind of way represents the fact that some people have more stuff than other people, which feeds into the equally blurry and incoherent belief that this is, somehow, for some reason, just WRONG.

      • Cluster July 21, 2014 / 2:04 pm

        One big difference between corporations and unions. Corporations do not require monthly dues from their employees to carry out their political activities.

    • Amazona July 21, 2014 / 1:57 pm

      It’s not “I got mine, the rest of you are on your own.” it’s “I worked hard for mine and I will fight for your right to do the same thing.”

      • Cluster July 21, 2014 / 2:07 pm

        Or – “I worked hard for mine and want a larger voice in where and how it is spent”

        I have been thinking recently that those folks who do pay income taxes, and pay the freight of this country, should have a larger voice in where and how this country spends that money.

Comments are closed.