The Imperial Presidency

[American Patriot]

8 Graphs Show Why It’s No Surprise Young America is Turning on Obama

9,180 Shares By Caroline Schaeffer 19 hours ago

Remember the President’s repeated assurances that his bailouts and Obamacare would revive the economy? Those claims probably sound pretty hollow to the President’s one-time supporters, young adults.

These eight graphs, which examine adults under the age of 25 who have moved out of their parents’ home, via PolicyMic, show that this group is suffering the worst from dwindling incomes and long-term unemployment.

1. Annual household income is at shockingly low levels for families headed by someone under the age of 25. Forty percent of these households get by on only $10,000 a year.



2. Compared with older households, under-25 poverty rates are extremely high.



3. Young unemployment is over double the national average. It peaked in spring 2010 at 19.5%, but still remains higher than it was at the onset of the recession.



4. Despite an increase in the national minimum wage in 2009, and several states across the country raising their minimum wages, median hourly wages for people under 25 are lower than they were 10 years ago. Some economists argue that the minimum wage increase actually contributed to these lowered hourly wages and higher unemployment.



5. Almost 90% of under-25 households rent, as oppose to own their living space. This lowers their equity and oftentimes their credit scores.



6. For over 50% of under-25s who rent, the monthly rent eats up over 35% of their already small incomes. This provides little income for this group to set aside money for savings or retirement.



7. On top of their rent, high cost of living and low incomes, 43% of this population is hit with paying off student debt.



8. Recent college graduates have record-breaking debt… and it looks like it’ll go even higher.



Young people are looking for another way – because the economy they’ve experienced for the past 5 years just hasn’t been working.

A change is necessary in Washington; let’s just hope that the detrimental effects of this economy won’t have long-lasting implications.

[Ryan Ruck]

I'm guessing we're getting under that Crazy, law-breaking Marxist, Imperial President's skin, finally.


Obama on Highway Plan: "It's Not Crazy, It's Not Socialism, It's Not The Imperial Presidency"

If you have to tell people something isn't what it looks like, it probably is exactly what it looks like.

[American Patriot]

That was my thinking.

[American Patriot]

Karl Rove: No to ‘King Barack’ the first

Rove cites recent Supreme Court rulings as evidence that Obama had overstepped. | AP Photo




By SARAH SMITH | 7/2/14 11:44 AM EDT


Karl Rove likened President Barack Obama to an imperial president on Fox News Wednesday morning, saying it was the opposite of what the framers of the Constitution would have wanted.


“They did not want a king,” Rove said. “They didn’t want king George III, and they certainly didn’t want King Barack No. 1.”

Rove’s comments come after his fellow Republican, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said he would take Obama to court over the president’s use of executive action.

Undeterred, Obama has continued to use and plan executive actions to push through his policy agenda despite a congressional GOP that he says simply refuses to work with him.


“I think it’s important,” Rove said of Boehner’s lawsuit. “I don’t think it’s the only thing that needs to be done.”


Rove cited the recent Supreme Court decisions as evidence that Obama had overstepped his boundaries as an executive, saying the president had been “slapped down” by the nation’s highest court.


“This man claims to be a constitutional scholar and is thumbing his nose so childishly at judicial constraints,” he said.

[American Patriot]

Just a quick heads up.

FNC is about to talk about "Is Obama creating an 'imperial presidency'" - and they have a guest (I dunno who yet) who is going to say that there appear to be no more obstacles to that end for Obama.

I will add, there are still us Americans.

[American Patriot]

Charles Krauthammer: The imperial presidency drives on

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMERJune 26, 2014


















WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court this week admonished the Environmental Protection Agency for overreaching in regulating greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act covers polluters that emit 250 tons per year (or in some cases, 100 tons). This standard makes no sense if applied to greenhouse gases. Thousands of establishments from elementary schools to grocery stores would be, absurdly, covered. So the EPA arbitrarily chose 100,000 tons as the carbon dioxide threshold.


That's not "tailoring," ruled the Supreme Court. That's rewriting. Under our Constitution, "an agency has no power to 'tailor' legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms."


It was a welcome constitutional lesson in restraint, noted The Wall Street Journal. One would think -- hope -- that an administration so chastened might reconsider its determination to shift regulation of the nation's power generation to Washington through new CO2 rules under the Clean Air Act.


Fat chance. This administration does not learn constitutional lessons. It continues marching until it meets resistance. And it hasn't met nearly enough.


The root problem is that the Clean Air Act, passed in 1970, was never intended for greenhouse gases. You can see it in its regulatory thresholds which, if applied to CO2, are ridiculously low. Moreover, when the law was written, we hadn't yet even had the global cooling agitation of the 1970s, let alone the global warming panic of today.


But with only two of nine justices prepared to overturn the court's 2007 ruling that shoehorns greenhouse gases into the Clean Air Act, the remedy falls to Congress. It could easily put an end to all this judicial parsing and bureaucratic mischief with a one-line statute saying that the Clean Air Act does not apply to CO2 emissions.


Congress can then set about regulating greenhouse gases as it wishes, rather than leaving it to the tender arbitrary mercies of judges and bureaucrats. Otherwise, we will soon have the EPA unilaterally creating a cap-and-trade regime that will make its administrator czar of all power regulation in every state.


Of course, a similar scheme failed to pass a (BEG ITAL)Democratic(END ITAL) Congress in 2010. Our president doesn't let such niceties stand in his way, however. He has an agenda to enact, boldly enunciated in his Feb. 24, 2009 address to Congress promising to transform America in three areas: health care, education and energy. Education lags, but he's now on the verge of centralizing energy regulation in Washington through naked executive action, having already succeeded in centralizing health care in Washington through the Affordable Care Act.


With energy, he'll do it by executive order after failing to pass the desired legislation. With health care, he does it with a law that he then amends so wantonly after it passed that the ACA itself becomes a blank slate on which the administration unilaterally remakes American medicine.


Employer mandate? The ACA says it was to go into effect Jan. 1, 2014. It didn't. The administration decreed that there should be several classes of employers, each with different starting dates, contradicting its own law.


Private insurance? The law says that plans not conforming to ACA coverage mandates must be canceled. Responding to the outcry that ensued, Obama urged the states and insurers to reinstate the plans -- which would violate the explicit mandate of his own law.


One bit of ACA lawlessness, however, may prove a bridge too far. The administration has been giving subsidies to those who sign up through the federal exchange. The ACA limits subsidies to plans on the state exchanges.


This case will reach the Supreme Court. It is hard to see how the court could do anything other than overturn the federal-exchange subsidies. The court might even have a word to say about the administration's 22 (or is it 37?) other acts of post-facto rewriting of the ACA.


Perhaps. But until then, the imperial president rules.


Having been supine for years in the face of these encroachments, Congress is stirring. The Republican House is preparing a novel approach to acquiring legal standing before the courts to challenge these gross executive usurpations. Nancy Pelosi, reflecting the narrowness of both her partisanship and her vision, dismisses this as a "subterfuge."


She won't be saying that on the day Democrats lose the White House. Then, cheered on by a suddenly inflamed media, the Democrats will no doubt express horror at such constitutional overreach.


At which point, the temptation to stick it to the Democrats will be overwhelming.


At which point, Lord make us strong.


Charles Krauthammer's email address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

[American Patriot]

Wayne Crews:

Clyde Wayne Crews

Vice President for Policy









Wayne Crews is vice president for policy and director of technology studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. His work explores the impact of government regulation of free enterprise, antitrust and competition policy, safety and environmental issues, and information age concerns like privacy, online security, broadband policy, and intellectual property.
Crews is the author of the yearly report, Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State, and he co-authored This Liberal Congress Went to Market?, a Bipartisan Policy Agenda for the 110th Congress and Communications without Commissions: A National Plan for Reforming Telecom Regulation. Prior to the assorted government bailouts now taking place, he wrote the report, Still Stimulating Like It’s 1999: Time to Rethink Bipartisan Collusion on Economic Stimulus Packages.
Crews is co-editor of the books Who Rules the Net: Internet Governance and Jurisdiction (2003) and Copy Fights: The Future of Intellectual Property In the Information Age (2002). He is co-author of What’s Yours Is Mine: Open Access and the Rise of Infrastructure Socialism (2003), and a contributing author to others. He has published in the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Forbes, Communications Lawyer, the International Herald Tribune and others. He has made various TV appearances on Fox, CNN, ABC, CNBC and the Lehrer NewsHour, and his regulatory reform ideas have been featured prominently in such publications as the Washington Post, Forbes and Investor’s Business Daily.
He holds an M.B.A. from William and Mary and a B.S. from Lander College in Greenwood, South Carolina. He was a candidate for state senate as a Libertarian while at Lander. Prior to joining CEI, he worked at the Cato Institute, the U.S. Senate, and the Food and Drug Administration. He can do a handstand on a skateboard and loves motorcycles.

[American Patriot]

1984 was an enlightening year
1984 was an enlightening year

By: Lawson Bader
6/23/2014 06:00 AM

RESIZE: AAA
Print

Share on Facebook

This year marks a quarter century since the collapse of the Berlin Wall. And that got me to thinking about how the world has changed over the last three decades. For this year also marks the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which I am now privileged to lead.

The year CEI was born, 1984, was an enlightening one, for CEI’s founder, Fred Smith, on one continent, and for me, on another. And what I learned then still matters today.

Back then, I lived briefly with a family in northern Germany. One day, we drove to the countryside to see where Helga, the family matriarch, had been raised. She had grown up in a beautiful town that fell under Soviet occupation after the war.

We stopped at a field. Across a heavily guarded fence with tank traps, landmines, and guard towers, we could just make out an old church steeple. Helga told me it was the church where she had been baptized and married. But it was now impossible to visit. The most tragic part is that her mother had died there the year before, never having met her grandchildren.

And, it was in that moment that I became a libertarian.

No institution—public or private—has the authority to control the human conscience. And no economic system is as averse to human flourishing as that which destroys our innate sense of worth and stifles our incentive to experiment and grow.

But there are other, less visible barriers to human progress. One of the biggest is the stifling, ever-growing regulatory state.

We know why regulations attract little attention: They’re boring! People don’t care – until directly affected.

Regulatory agencies don’t face the same scrutiny as Congress. And lawmakers hide unpleasant or unpopular policies by delegating their authority to those agencies.

Last year, Congress passed 72 laws, while federal agencies issued 3,659 regulations. That is 50 times more regulations than laws, as my colleague Wayne Crews points out. And this from the “most transparent administration” in American history!

That’s why we at CEI are redoubling our efforts. We are focused on confronting those in power who rain down regulations, sapping the nation’s entrepreneurial energy. We will continue to hold the government accountable, especially in this era of rogue regulators and Imperial Presidencies.

We are currently involved in two legal challenges to Obamacare, specifically its illegal exchange program. And just last week, CEI filed a law suit against the National Security Agency—asking it to snitch on the Environmental Protection Agency. When EPA officials informed us they didn’t have records of their communications with their environmentalist buddies, we decided to try to get them from the agency that probably does have them—thank you, Edward Snowden.

I have been referred to as an opportunistic pessimist. There may be some truth there, at least in the current political climate. Republicans could make big gains in this year’s midterm elections, which means … well, not much, frankly. The deadlock in D.C. will probably tighten. Congress will continue to battle this president, and he will continue to ignore them using his infamous “pen and phone.”

And CEI will continue to push back.

That’s why celebrations and anniversaries are not just to commemorate past achievements. Rather, they point joyfully to what lies in store. The late economist Julian Simon was the greatest reminder of this. At CEI’s anniversary dinner last week, over 800 of us were privileged to hear Viscount Matt Ridley and our 2014 Julian Simon Award winner, John Tierney, speak eloquently about the simple truth that we are healthier, wealthier, and happier because of human ingenuity. Far from being Pollyannaish, that counterintuitive insight is the perfect antidote to the prevailing “woe-is-me-sky-is-falling” mantra of today’s media and political elites.

That day in that German forest, I did not imagine I would later make defending and promoting economic liberty my calling and mission. Nor could I have conceived that border fence would now lie in ruins.

We’ve come a long way. But that does not mean we should ever accept the status quo, especially when it comes to the government’s involvement in our lives and its ability to throw a wrench in our dreams.

The work of advancing opportunity and innovation is a trying task, but a rewarding one as well. In our 30 years in Washington, CEI has witnessed government overreach up close and fought back in the trenches. We have survived five presidents and three wars. And we’re about to outlast Henry Waxman!

But we’re far from done. There are still plenty of capitalists to save and central planners to shame.

Let’s get to it.

Lawson Bader is president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

[American Patriot]

arrogant, narcissistic bastards

WH Press Sec: Obama Not Worried About GOP Response to Executive Orders

Posted by deacon303 on July 2, 2014

“What that they might sue?” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said laughing when asked Tuesday about possible Republican retaliation for the executive action.
“They announced they were doing that last week,” he continued. “So, the prospect that Republicans might do even more to try to obstruct the president’s agenda I think is a little far-fetched. It seems to me they have tried every single thing they can think of already to block progress for this country so the fact that they might do more is not something we spend that much time worrying about.”
On Monday, President Obama announced his intentions to take on immigration reform unilaterally.
“America cannot wait forever for [Congress] to act. That’s why today I am beginning a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress,” Obama said in his Rose Garden announcement.
House Speaker John Boehner and Republicans blasted Obama for his plans to enact immigration reform administratively.
“It is sad and disappointing that – faced with this challenge – President Obama won’t work with us, but is instead intent on going it alone with executive orders that can’t and won’t fix these problems,” Boehner said.
Last week, the House Speaker said he would be suing Obama over his executive actions. At the time, he did not specify which executive actions a possible lawsuit would cover.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...n-Immigration/

[American Patriot]

Shades of Lil' Kim.


White House strong-arms photo agency to squash Malia photos

TMZ ^ | 7-8-14
Posted on 7/9/2014, 4:13:16 AM


Malia Obama went to a famous L.A. restaurant Monday night -- a restaurant regularly frequented by celebs and paparazzi -- and when the White House found out a photog took her pic, they went into DEFCON 1 to KILL the photos.


The 16-year-old went to Gjelina in Venice, CA with some friends. The photog got the pic as Malia walked out and then sent it to the AKM-GSI agency to sell. The agency posted the pic on its website for media outlets to purchase, but several hours later The First Lady's Office called AKM-GSI and asked them to please take the pics off the website and delete them from their files.


We're told Michelle Obama's people told the agency they had promises from various media outlets not to photograph the 2 girls when they were not in the presence of their father.


AKM-GSI then agreed, sending an email to the media with the subject, "URGENT SET KILL NOTICE."


The text reads, "Please delete the set of Malia Obama from your archive. The set was sent around earlier today. We cannot distribute this set."


Now here's what's interesting. Malia has been in L.A. over the last few weeks, doing an internship on Halle Berry's TV show for part of the time. Then she showed up at a famous restaurant -- Secret Service in tow -- with photogs all over the place.


So is this a case of the President and First Lady taking precautionary action, or is this a concerned famous mom and dad flexing their muscles?

[Malsua]

Someone needs to publish the pictures. The press printed pics of the Bush girls whenever they were in anything less than flattering, so this should be no different.

[American Patriot]

Bush girls, Sarah Palin's girls....

[Ryan Ruck]

Saw the headline and was about to post the exact same thing you guys did.

So instead of being redundant, I'll just take this opportunity to post a picture of Barbara Bush (the younger you pervs!).

[Malsua]

She was my favorite of the two.

[Malsua]

Forgot to add...she's probably batting for the pink team though.

[American Patriot]

Lol

[Ryan Ruck]

Forgot to add...she's probably batting for the pink team though.

I'm content with just being a bystander...

[American Patriot]

The country is really onto this guy finally.....


The Imperial President

Posted on Wed 07/16/2014 by papundits



The Rule of Outlaws

By Mark Alexander~

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” –Declaration of Independence (1776)

According to a source within the Secret Service, Barack Obama refers to himself as “The Bear” when diverting from a planned security route for “meet and greet photo ops.” He announces such departures by saying, “The bear is loose!”


Now, I’m sure it’s only coincidence that “The Bear” is also the mascot of the former Soviet Union, and now the Russian Federation. While it would be more fitting if Obama referred to himself as “The Red Squirrel,” his wishful “bear” reference certainly reflects the tyrannical “rule of lawlessness” that now defines his presidential modus operandi.


Obama’s administration is now defined by his litany of lies and legacy of scandals, most notably this incomplete list of ignominy: The failure of his so-called “economic recovery plan, his unparalleled foreign policy malfeasance, his ”Fast and Furious“ gun control play, his long list of ObamaCare lies, his IRS Enemies List, the dramatic resurgence of al-Qa’ida, the Benghazi cover-up to protect his 2012 re-election bid, his hollow ”Red Line“ threat to Syria, the ”Russian Spring“ in Crimea, the Middle East meltdown in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Jordan and Israel, the disintegration of Iraq, and now, of course, the VA death panels cover-up and the immigration crisis on our southern border.


He has certainly earned the public opinion title of ”worst president since WWII,“ which has negated the smidgeon of good faith he once held with congressional Republicans, and also most of that extended him by all but the most leftwing congressional Democrats.
So what’s Obama to do?


Having lost control of the House in 2010 and having failed to recover it in 2012, and the pending threat of losing Democrat control of the Senate, Obama has launched, in earnest, a campaign to completely bypass Congress through executive and regulatory diktat, a bold and lawless endeavor unmatched in its unconstitutional offense, except perhaps by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s despotic regime.


The range of his executive and regulatory edicts has been very broad, from 19 executive orders constricting Second Amendment rights, to regulations supporting his ”war on coal“ and avoiding the Keystone XL pipeline.


But the most notable abuses have included his repeated rewrites of the so-called ”Affordable Care Act,“ in order that it not wound the re-election campaigns of his congressional Democrats.




Now, Obama is increasingly audacious in the exercise of these unlegislated diktats.


In November of last year, he pretended to be constrained by law in acting on immigration reform, saying, “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing this through Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition.”


But a few months later, Obama proclaimed, “Where Congress isn’t acting, I’ll act on my own.” He complained that “we can’t wait” for Congress, and bragged that he’s “getting things done” by disregarding Rule of Law and the separation of powers set forth in our Constitution.


“[W]e are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need,” he brazenly declared. “I’ve got a pen … and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.”


These are the words of a despot, and now define Obama’s standard operating procedure, whether secretly ordering the “Taliban Five” terrorist trade for an Army deserter, or choking the economy with his executive and regulatory orders, ostensibly to halt “global warming.”


Though Obama claims to be a “professor of constitutional law,” a genuine constitutional scholar, George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley, a self-acknowledged liberal Obama supporter, has offered severe criticism of Obama’s abuse of executive orders and regulations to bypass Congress.


According to Turley, “I think that he has crossed the constitutional line. … When the president went to Congress and said he would go it alone, it obviously raises a concern. There’s no license for going it alone in our system, and what he’s done, is very problematic. He’s told agencies not to enforce some laws [and] has effectively rewritten laws through the active interpretation that I find very problematic.”


“What’s emerging,” Turley notes, “is an imperial presidency, an über presidency, as I’ve called it. … Obama has repeatedly violated this [separation of powers] doctrine in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to immigration law to environmental law. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government. … We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system.”


Reread those words for their full effect…


In his 1973 volume, “The Imperial Presidency,” noted liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger, a key adviser to John F. Kennedy, outlined the extreme danger to Liberty posed by lawless executive overreach. At that time, his focus was on Richard Nixon, but his warnings, like those of Turley, have far more application to Barack Obama.


So, with 30 more months of Obama’s escalating assault on Liberty, what now? Make no mistake – this “lame duck” is anything but.


Turley advises, “If balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before [Obama] leaves office, and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority. No one in our system can ‘go it alone’ – not Congress, not the courts, and not the President.”


As the ever-erudite Dr. Charles Krauthammer notes, “[Obama’s] gross executive usurpation disdains the Constitution. It mocks the separation of powers. And most consequentially, it introduces a fatal instability into law itself. If the law is not what is plainly written, but is whatever the president and his agents decide, what’s left of the law? … This president is not only untroubled by what he’s doing, but open and rather proud. As he tells cheering crowds on his never-ending campaign-style tours: ‘I am going to do X – and I’m not going to wait for Congress.’ That’s caudillo talk. That’s banana republic stuff. In this country, the president is required to win the consent of Congress first. At stake is not some constitutional curlicue. At stake is whether the laws are the law. And whether presidents get to write their own.”


Of course, I think the good doctor would agree, given his sterling psychiatric credentials, that the rise of Obama’s imperial presidency was entirely predictable, given that he is a textbook case study in Narcissistic Personality Disorder.


Speaking in Texas last week, Obama’s egomaniacal arrogance shined through with his lavish first-person references – “I,” “me” and “my” (199 times in all) – when outlining upcoming plans to unilaterally dictate “immigration reform” and additional “economic measures.”




This week, he made clear his intent to unilaterally advance his populist “class warfare agenda” to “help working Americans … when Congress won’t act.” In his latest weekly address, Obama insisted, “So far this year, Republicans in Congress have blocked every serious idea to strengthen the middle class.”
That lie earned him a stern rebuke from even The Washington Post’s Fact Checker, as did his earlier claim that Republicans “have filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation that would help the middle class,” about which The Post concluded, “On just about every level, this claim is ridiculous.” But for Obama’s sycophantic legions of useful idiots, fiction trumps fact.


So what can Republicans do?


Plenty, if they are willing to fight fire with fire, and they better start igniting those precedents now. It’s going to take more than a threat of a lawsuit from House Speaker John Boehner.


House Republicans can use their control of the budget to defund enactment and enforcement of Obama’s lawless orders and regulations. Indeed, if they fail to do so, then they violate their own oaths “to Support and Defend” our Constitution, and Rule of Law becomes gravely imperiled by rule of men.


Of course, if Republicans don’t act, and we continue racing down this imperialist path to tyranny, there are tens of millions of American Patriots who understand our options.
Having recently celebrated Independence Day, I invite you to re-read the Declaration of Independence. This remarkable treatise on Liberty as “endowed by our Creator” addressed an imperial executive who willfully violated that endowment “which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitled” all people.


Our Founders outlined the “injuries and usurpations” committed by the executive, “all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” They noted, “He has refused his Assent to Laws … He has obstructed the Administration of Justice … He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”


There are undeniable parallels between the imperial powers which gave rise to the American Revolution and the imperial presidency which now threatens the Liberty our Founders, and generations of American Patriots since, have defended with their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor.”


Obama now jokes about his lawlessness: “It is lonely, me just doing stuff. … I’m just telling the truth now. I don’t have to run for office again, so I can just let her rip.”
In other words, short of rigorous intervention by Congress, this gets much worse before it gets any better.


Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis
Read more excellent articles at The Patriot Post

[American Patriot]

I'd like to point out that, although this thread started (By Ryan on August 21st, 2011, 17:01) three years ago, we were already using the words "Imperial President" before that in conversations. I'm sure Ryan used that phrase elsewhere, and I know I have with conversations with friends.

The first article here was by Mark Steyn, posted by Ryan... and lays this out.

I have come to the conclusion that Obama planned this whole "Legacy" for himself and his "team". This means that we can expect the Left to continue this ad infinitum.

If Americans haven't realized this yet then what happens next will surprise them even more.

America as we knew it is gone. We're under a Royal stewardship by Marxist assholes who intend to push the envelop with people like Warren and Clinton.

Believe me... I don't want to be a part of this any more.

[American Patriot]

Liberal Lawyers even 'get it'.

I've been following Turley quite awhile now and he's actually a lot less Liberal than he thinks he is.

Today’s Heartening Congressional Testimony of Law Professor Jonathan Turley Supporting the Rule of Law and Condemning Obama’s Arrogant Illegal Acts

Posted on July 16, 2014

All hail King Obama! Long live the King! The King is a law unto himself.

Law professor Jonathan Turley



Law professors rarely make news. But Jonathan Turley is an exception. Someone has to stand up to tyrants and today it’s his turn.


He’s long been critical of presidential power grabs. Today, he got the chance to express his criticism before Congress.


This story looks at Dr. Turley’s analysis of how Obama has created through his evil arrogance one of the greatest Constitutional crises in the history of the United States.
The transcript of the testimony is long. I’ve excerpted a few of the more powerful indictments of King Obama’s abuse of power below. I’ve bolded especially relevant statements.

jonathanturley

Reflecting these views, the Framers stated that the President “shall take care that the laws
of the United States be duly and faithfully executed.” It was a direct mandatory statement that
stood in contrast to the fluid notion of executive prerogative. I have previously testified on the
history and meaning of that clause, which I will not repeat here. However, some of President
Obama’s statements come strikingly close to assertions by King James I that he could apply
“natural reason” to the alteration, and even the suspension, of federal laws.
—
There is no license in the Madisonian system to “go it alone.” Our country is sharply
divided politically and that division is manifested (as it should be) in Congress. During times of
division, less may get done. Both sides must either compromise or seek to change the balance of
power in the next election. The assertion of executive prerogative to implement changes without
Congress is tantamount to a pledge to govern alone.14 Such a dominant executive certainly
promises to “get things done” but at a prohibitive cost. Those who remain silent today should
consider that, in less than three years, a different president will sit in the Oval Office. That
person could use the very same claims to suspend environmental or anti-discrimination laws. The
short-term benefits of achieving such changes will pale in comparison to the long-term damage
to our system from fueling the rise of an American über-presidency. The safeguard for our
system remains our federal judiciary, but as discussed below, the courts have increasingly
detached constitutional rights from judicial remedies.
—
The “power of the purse” is the classic example of congressional power within the
separation of powers.20 However, with modern appropriation rules, it has become something of a
constitutional mythology in many cases. Due to modern budget rules, it is practically difficult for
Congress to immediately alter government programs with appropriation changes. There are
billions sloshing around in federal budgets that can be moved around to fill gaps in funding. The
Libyan War is a good example. President Obama announced that he would not ask Congress for
authority to attack another country, including attacks on its capital and military units in support
of rebel forces. Instead, he merely shifted billions to fund a war without the need to ask for
immediate funding. President Obama supplied an even more relevant example under the ACA.
As reported by the Washington Post, “[t]he Obama administration plans to use $454 million in Prevention Fund dollars to help pay for the federal health insurance exchange. That’s 45 percent
of the $1 billion in Prevention Fund spending available [in 2013].”21 The unilateral action to
move hundreds of millions from an appropriated to a non-appropriated purpose led even leading
Democratic Members to denounce the act as “a violation of both the letter and spirit of this
landmark law.”22 However, that open disregard of the power of the purse resulted in nothing of
consequence for the Administration. Congress was simply circumvented and the President
effectively self-appropriated federal funds for his own priorities.

You can read the entire 20 page transcript of the testimony at the link to Dr. Turley’s website above.