Magisterial Prerogative

Discounting Rand Paul’s lawsuit, which is not really directed at Obama per se, after the midterms in November, I think it’s time for some serious heat (even the “I” word if necessary) to be focused the emperor’s way wrt his trashing of the Constitution. All it takes is someone in Congress to grow a pair.

Remember this little gem, uttered while then candidate Obama was making empty promises?

This kinda reminds me of that speech he made while still a candidate, where he said that running up a $9 trillion debt was both irresponsible and unpatriotic.

It’s like shooting fish in a barrel, cataloging all the lies on the campaign trial. But this end run around the Constitution smacks of illegality to the point where silence and acquiescence is not an option anymore.

Jonathan Turley is a Constitutional scholar of the first order. He has testified in front of Congress, specifically on the usurpation of authority within the federal government;

Last night he was The Kelly File, and had this to say. Coming from a Obama supporter and proud liberal, the power grabbing going on is not only setting a bad precedent, but is undermining Constitutional authority.

In other posts I have talked about the rule of law. Some (wrongly) think all this means is that a country has laws that need to be followed and adhered to, but more importantly this rule of law means that everyone in bound by them, no exceptions. When laws are arbitrary, the government loses the authority to enforce them. Obama needs to follow the law just like anyone else. Hopefully by the end of the year, a smackdown ensues.

Comments are closed.

  1. Xetrov

    Remember this little gem, uttered while then candidate Obama was making empty promises?

    Has he ever stopped making empty promises?

    (Or stopped being a campaigner/candidate for that matter…)

    Thumb up 3

  2. Aussiesmurf

    I know that I’m a mere lefty, but I would recommend in the strongest terms the book ‘The Justice Game’ by Geoffrey Robertson QC. It is a memoir of his most memorable cases (primarily in the British and Commonwealth system, including Africa and the Caribbean).

    One of his basis premises is that if the governement is successful in a Court action merely because it is the government, then the system has broken down. I wouldn’t really call him ‘left’ or ‘right’, but he is a strong believer against government over-reach. He has cases were people are prosecuted for blasphemy (yes, really), and artist charged with counterfeiting (for selling pictures of currency), a theater director prosecuted for solicitation because a play involved a simulated rape, the (legal) supplier of machinery to Iraq just prior to the (1st) gulf war, a gym owner who secretly photographed HRH Diana, and so forth.

    Fair warning – he is anti-death penalty, particularly the capricious way it is exercised in many countries.

    Thumb up 0

  3. richtaylor365 *

    Being anti-death penalty is not a right/left issue per se, I am against it for many more reasons than just it’s capricious nature.

    And I think if your mentioned author saw what this administration was doing (violating the Constitution by doing end runs around Congress, arbitrarily deciding what laws HIS justice dept. will and won’t enforce, packing the DC Court of Appeals-the first line of review for any unlawful act he commits- with stooges who will do his bidding) then he would conclude that the system is indeed broke.

    Thumb up 1

  4. Hal_10000

    Being anti-death penalty is not a right/left issue per se, I am against it for many more reasons than just it’s capricious nature.

    I’ve been slowly moving to an anti-position for some time as well. Again, for many reasons.

    Thumb up 0