Jonathan Turley to Congress: You face self-destruction if you don’t rein in Obama

posted at 8:01 pm on July 16, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via the Daily Caller, an elegant opening statement from today’s House Rules Committee hearing on Boehner’s separation-of-powers lawsuit. You’ve heard him make this argument before but he’s getting more apocalyptic with each appearance before Congress — and who can blame him? The last time he testified, Obama wasn’t babbling to activists about amnestizing five million illegals with a stroke of his pen. Today Turley calls O’s rhetoric about unilateral action “extreme” and warns the committee that Congress will effectively self-destruct if the executive is allowed to do what he wants whenever there’s gridlock. After all, in a system of limited powers, gridlock produces paralysis, not government by executive diktat; the whole point of checks and balances, he says correctly, is to protect the individual citizen’s liberty by getting the different arms of the federal government to police each other. If the president can override Congress whenever it’s at an impasse, the minority party will be forced to choose between letting the president do what he wants by executive order and “compromising” by signing onto a bill that lets the president do what he wants in exchange for a few concessions. That’s the end of Congress, and the end of checks and balances.

I admire his doggedness in pushing these points, but as he himself notes, he made this same argument when Bush was president and was ignored by Republicans. Now he’s making it at Obama’s expense and is ignored by Democrats. Odds of him being ignored by the president’s party come 2017: Upwards of 100 percent. Candidly, that’s one of the reasons I’m going to give Rand Paul a hard look in 2016. I worry about him — a lot — on foreign policy and I’m under no illusions that he’ll be better on amnesty than the rest of our pandering presidential field, but it’ll take someone who’s unusually committed to more “modest” executive power to reverse this trend. If we end up with President Rubio or President Walker or President Christie, most congressional Republicans will roll over. And if we end up with President Hillary, congressional Democrats will be ready to transition to monarchy. If you worry about executive power grabs like Turley does, not just because you hate Obama but because you fear what this accumulation of precedents will lead to, I think Paul has to be on your radar.

Oh, by the way: Since I’ve written half a dozen posts about Republican pols downplaying the idea of impeachment, I feel duty bound to flag this audio from Jack Kingston, the Republican nominee for Senate in Georgia, claiming that Congress might take a serious look at it. It’s not true and he knows it — it’s his way of impressing local conservatives ahead of next week’s primary runoff — but there’s at least one case of a GOP candidate who’s not afraid to broach the subject.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Obama wants a GOP Senate. He is a narcissist.

Obama vs. the World. Chaos + fire.

faraway on July 16, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Obama ‘taught’ the Constitution at Harvard. Who the Hell is this guy???

BigWyo on July 16, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Congress won’t act to protect itself, and the American people will suffer.

We are left with no recourse except to buy more ammo.

Nessuno on July 16, 2014 at 8:10 PM

It’s not just presidency who needs to be reigned it but the entire federal bureaucracy as well. And that starts with Congress voting to repeal some agencies (& departments) and pulling in others. Congress shouldn’t delegate its function to the executive branch.

rbj on July 16, 2014 at 8:10 PM

But, but, but… who then will I golf with???

———– John the Weasel Boehner (D-Chamber)

viking01 on July 16, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Jonathan Turley to Congress: You face self-destruction if you don’t rein in Obama

…well NO shit JT!

JugEarsButtHurt on July 16, 2014 at 8:12 PM

[Autoplay ... ugh]

These guys think they’ll be fine when the country is in flames — so, no.

The one thing they can’t abide is being demonized as racist by the sycophantic LSM whores; THAT’S the only self-destruction they imagine …

ShainS on July 16, 2014 at 8:12 PM

He still had his knee pads on.

ThePrez on July 16, 2014 at 8:13 PM

If you worry about executive power grabs like Turley does, not just because you hate Obama but because you fear what this accumulation of precedents will lead to, I think Paul has to be on your radar.

Personally, I think this is why Rand Paul should be the GOP nominee in 2016. Let’s be honest among ourselves — Rand is despised by many people in both parties because of his libertarian-esque beliefs, which is why no one would have to worry about a Congress capitulating to his executive branch.

Aizen on July 16, 2014 at 8:13 PM

Jonathan Turley to Congress: You face self-destruction if you don’t rein in Obama

“But we’ll still get to keep our cushy jobs with all the perks, right?” -Congress

Flange on July 16, 2014 at 8:15 PM

You don’t need a majority to be against the Constitution for the Republic to fail. You only need a majority to be ignorant or apathetic about the Constitution for the Republic to fail.

EA_MAN on July 16, 2014 at 8:16 PM

A – freaking – men!!!!

SmallGovtGuy on July 16, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Did he say ‘Uber’ President ??

This fellow seems to be an honest Lib…

Or, as he says so himself…there’s going to be more Presidents and I really don’t want to see a Republican taking it to us x 100 because of what the Dog Eater is doing now…

BigWyo on July 16, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Maybe this message coming from a liberal Democrat will make more of an impact with Boehner than the same message coming all these years from the GOP base.

Hope so anyway.

MTF on July 16, 2014 at 8:21 PM

You don’t need a majority to be against the Constitution for the Republic to fail. You only need a majority to be ignorant or apathetic about the Constitution for the Republic to fail.

EA_MAN on July 16, 2014 at 8:16 PM

I do believe we’re near a majority or may have already passed it. The fix for this mess will be very messy.

wifarmboy on July 16, 2014 at 8:25 PM

We are inching ever closer to a dictatorship. We have a president who truly believes the law does not apply to him and the media is letting him get away with it. If he is allowed to circumvent Congress he will then try to nullify the courts.

rmkdbq on July 16, 2014 at 8:25 PM

What did W do that made Prof. Turley worry about Congress? The wars?

Cindy Munford on July 16, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Turley is consistent unlike many on the Left who totally reversed themselves on the issue of executive power once a Democrat took over.

DisneyFan on July 16, 2014 at 8:27 PM

I don’t think it matters anymore. No budgets, all monies are fungible. Whatever powers might be riegned in specifically to potus executive fiat are made up for with regulatory dictate.

And the alphabets act on their own accord now. Obama could play golf all day, it wouldn’t matter. The machine is running on it’s own.

wolly4321 on July 16, 2014 at 8:32 PM

You face self-destruction if you don’t rein in Obama

“As long as I get to keep the parking space at National and free overseas travel, its ok.”

BobMbx on July 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM

…I’m going to give Rand Paul a hard look in 2016. …but it’ll take someone who’s unusually committed to more “modest” executive power to reverse this trend.

Hopefully the entire federal gov’t as well.

My pick for 2016 Rand Paul/Ron Wyden ticket. I don’t see Rand Paul surrounding himself with yes men booble heads. Might as well have the ONLY other fellow interested in the Bill of Rights in the number 2 spot. Take that.

old school on July 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Turdley…heh

nonpartisan on July 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Turley must be getting worried that his personal loot might be affected by the lawless pharaoh.

viking01 on July 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM

but it’ll take someone who’s unusually committed to more “modest” executive power to reverse this trend.

If Allahpundit wasn’t Gay, a RINO and a misogynist, he would be calling for Sarah Palin right now.

oscarwilde on July 16, 2014 at 8:36 PM

what did W do that made Prof. Turley worry about Congress? The wars? Cindy Munford on July 16, 2014 at 8:26 PM

That can’t be it. Congress voted almost unanimously to authorize them. What was the act that let them snoop on us? I suspect that’s what bothered him.

wolly4321 on July 16, 2014 at 8:39 PM

Turdley…heh

nonpartisan on July 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Love it when leftists eat their own.

Meople on July 16, 2014 at 8:39 PM

And if we end up with President Hillary, congressional Democrats will be ready to transition to monarchy.

That was pretty dang funny right there… until I thought about it a little more. Now I’m sad.

WitchDoctor on July 16, 2014 at 8:40 PM

It’s not true and he knows it — it’s his way of impressing local conservatives

Agreed. Kingston won’t do jack.

Bmore on July 16, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Candidly, that’s one of the reasons I’m going to give Rand Paul a hard look in 2016. I worry about him — a lot — on foreign policy and I’m under no illusions that he’ll be better on amnesty than the rest of our pandering presidential field, but it’ll take someone who’s unusually committed to more “modest” executive power to reverse this trend.

Sorry. The idea that Rand Paul will be a “modest” executive if elected President is laughable. Like most libertarians, he’s an autocrat at heart. He’ll treat Congress like a wet dish rag; I mean, he’ll walk a couple of horses into the Senate chamber, in front of cameras. Don’t believe me? Go over to Lewrockwell.com and read all the posts about how democracy is incompatible with liberty, and that monarchy is the way to go. Hans Hermann-Hoppe anyone?

Joseph K on July 16, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Hey Cindy,,,

http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-united-states-still-the-land-of-the-free/2012/01/04/gIQAvcD1wP_story.html.

The Patriot act ticked him off, apparently.

wolly4321 on July 16, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Candidly, that’s one of the reasons I’m going to give Rand Paul a hard look in 2016


Candidly
, you are still pining for Chris Christie. Rand Paul is your rebound candidate

I worry about him — a lot — on foreign policy and I’m under no illusions that he’ll be better on amnesty than the rest of our pandering presidential field, but it’ll take someone who’s unusually committed to more “modest” executive power to reverse this trend.


OHhhhhh
, so you mean someone like THIS guy did when HE was running?

AP … do you even read what you write anymore?

PolAgnostic on July 16, 2014 at 8:46 PM

launch.newsinc.com/?type=VideoPlayer/Single&widgetId=1

you know if you guys took 2 seconds to change the widgetId=1 to a widgetId=2 we would not get hammered with sound from just open the link ???
serious, 2 damned seconds.

dmacleo on July 16, 2014 at 8:47 PM

I would trust Ted Cruz over Rand Paul any day when it comes to following the Constitution and the rule of law.

onlineanalyst on July 16, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Øbama is a president along the orders of a Andrew Jackson, who ordered the round up of Amerindians and death-marched them to trails end. About 1/4 of the Indians died during the road march. The Supreme Court told him he couldn’t do it, but Jackson had a pen. Woodrow Wilson was an avowed racist who lied about getting us into WWI and then promptly did it at the cost of over 100,000 dead Americans, Teddy Roosevelt double crossed Columbia and then stole Panama from Columbia to build his canal. We’ve seen the Øbamas of the world before, and it’s always bad.

Mojave Mark on July 16, 2014 at 8:48 PM

wolly4321 on July 16, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Thanks. I think in retrospect it has ticked me off also. I wonder what Prof. Turley thinks of what Obama has done to a bill he was already against?

Cindy Munford on July 16, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Notice he admitted that he only objects to Obama’s power grabs because he is afraid that a conservative president would do the same thing. He says he in fact favors all of Obama’s aims, but is afraid that his means would set a bad precedent that a conservative might adopt.

HugoDrax on July 16, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Autoplay…what a sourge.

RI_Red on July 16, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Spelling…an even greater sCurge.

RI_Red on July 16, 2014 at 8:56 PM

As witnessed by TWO EFFING SPELLING MISTAKES IN A ROW.

Gosh, conservatives are dumb rubes (at least I am).

RI_Red on July 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM

Using words like “self destruction”
, but impeachment is too extreme. Whatever.

Dongemaharu on July 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM

RI_Red on July 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM

Luckily we don’t make a big deal of that, between auto correct, public schools and advanced age we usually give each other a break.

Cindy Munford on July 16, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Turdley…heh

nonpartisan on July 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Harvard, my ass. Prove you graduated from high school. I am waiting.

CW on July 16, 2014 at 9:04 PM

LOL! I love this impeachment debate.

Keep talking impeachment, GOP. That is the only way you will convince more people that impeachment is the right thing to do and not a fantasy of the crazy right.

Ned Pepper on July 16, 2014 at 9:08 PM

Ned Pepper on July 16, 2014 at 9:08 PM

Interesting you go there instead of dealing with Turley’s points. Says a lot about you.

No you are not a patriot or a lover of this country. That is quite clear.

CW on July 16, 2014 at 9:12 PM

This guy understands what’s going on. I don’t care whether he’s a liberal of conservative. He’s right. Congress has to get their mojo back. Waiting for the election or til the angels come or whatever is a bad strategy

crankyoldlady on July 16, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Well, I’ve found a liberal who really cares about the country. Thank you Professor Turley for trying to wake up the House of Representatives. I’m not sure either party is doing the right thing, but I’m sure the country would be much better off if they got together and stopped the President from doing the wrong thing. That one event could change the political discourse of this country like no other event.

bflat879 on July 16, 2014 at 9:16 PM

it’ll take someone who’s unusually committed to more “modest” executive power to reverse this trend. If we end up with President Rubio or President Walker or President Christie, most congressional Republicans will roll over.

Rubio and Walker will abuse executive power? Not likely.

J.B. Say on July 16, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Today Turley calls O’s rhetoric about unilateral action “extreme” and warns the committee that Congress will effectively self-destruct if the executive is allowed to do what he wants whenever there’s gridlock.

As long as it means they don’t call us racist, we can live with this compromise.

xblade on July 16, 2014 at 9:17 PM

What does Congress care? Just give them the perks, the easy life and the long term pension; they are set. They could care less than a hoot about the fate of the Republic.

steveracer on July 16, 2014 at 9:26 PM

Today Turley calls O’s rhetoric about unilateral action “extreme” and warns the committee that Congress will effectively self-destruct if the executive is allowed to do what he wants whenever there’s gridlock. After all, in a system of limited powers, gridlock produces paralysis, not government by executive diktat; the whole point of checks and balances, he says correctly, is to protect the individual citizen’s liberty by getting the different arms of the federal government to police each other. If the president can override Congress whenever it’s at an impasse, the minority party will be forced to choose between letting the president do what he wants by executive order and “compromising” by signing onto a bill that lets the president do what he wants in exchange for a few concessions. That’s the end of Congress, and the end of checks and balances.

A very serious concern. The founders did not anticipate a house of Congress being more loyal to the president as the leader of its political party than to their own institution’s power and privileges.

I admire his doggedness in pushing these points, but as he himself notes, he made this same argument when Bush was president and was ignored by Republicans. Now he’s making it at Obama’s expense and is ignored by Democrats. Odds of him being ignored by the president’s party come 2017: Upwards of 100 percent.

Here, though, while I appreciate his logical consistency, it would be specious to put Obama and Bush on level ground as far as executive overreach. When the Senate held pro forma sessions just to prevent Bush from making any recess appointments, he respected their decision. When the same thing happened to Obama, he just declared the Senate to be in recess after all.

There is at least an order of magnitude between the executive overreach of Bush and of Obama. No comparison.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 16, 2014 at 9:26 PM

I love this impeachment debate. Keep talking impeachment, GOP. That is the only way you will convince more people that impeachment is the right thing to do and not a fantasy of the crazy right. Ned Pepper on July 16, 2014 at 9:08 PM

Nobody is debating that here. It was mentioned once at 8:57. other than that, only you have mentioned it. That’s not what this is about.

wolly4321 on July 16, 2014 at 9:30 PM

As witnessed by TWO EFFING SPELLING MISTAKES IN A ROW.

Gosh, conservatives are dumb rubes (at least I am).

RI_Red on July 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM

Just claim you made them ironically. Problem solved.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 16, 2014 at 9:32 PM

A very serious concern. The founders did not anticipate a house of Congress being more loyal to the president as the leader of its political party than to their own institution’s power and privileges.

There Goes the Neighborhood

That’s because the founders didn’t anticipate the 17th amendment.

cirrus on July 16, 2014 at 9:34 PM

Wow, what a way to appear marginally reasonable for a flash before reverting to form, AP…

It’s not true and he knows it-

Cute by half. You report what Rep. Kingston actually said and then glibly pronounce that he’s obviously lying and knows it.

Nice work.

And what’s with the contortionist move to slip in a Rand Paul plug. I thought this was the Recycle Romney train.

IndieDogg on July 16, 2014 at 9:35 PM

RI_Red on July 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM

Luckily we don’t make a big deal of that, between auto correct, public schools and advanced age we usually give each other a break.

Cindy Munford on July 16, 2014 at 9:00 PM

As witnessed by TWO EFFING SPELLING MISTAKES IN A ROW.

Gosh, conservatives are dumb rubes (at least I am).

RI_Red on July 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM

Just claim you made them ironically. Problem solved.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 16, 2014 at 9:32 PM

Well played, both of you. I claim all listed excuses; problem solved, indeed!

Thanks!!!

RI_Red on July 16, 2014 at 9:36 PM

here’s the Turley testimony

wolly4321 on July 16, 2014 at 9:40 PM

The Lefties are finally starting to realize that the Choom Gang is poisoning the well.

Damn time!

formwiz on July 16, 2014 at 9:43 PM

This fellow seems to be an honest Lib…

BigWyo on July 16, 2014 at 8:19 PM

A very rare species. Virtually extinct.

Most liberals nowadays are all about the power….and honesty is just an impediment to POWER.

SubmarineDoc on July 16, 2014 at 9:58 PM

Turdley…heh

nonpartisan on July 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Harvard, my ass. Prove you graduated from high school. I am waiting.

CW on July 16, 2014 at 9:04 PM

I’d say still in his teens.

slickwillie2001 on July 16, 2014 at 10:00 PM

I’d say still in his teens.tweens?

slickwillie2001 on July 16, 2014 at 10:00 PM

It would explain a lot.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 16, 2014 at 10:06 PM

Sorry folks, the united States died in the coup d’etat where the Progressives took over the Executive, decertified the Legislative and Judicial Branch by replacing them both with the Regulatory Branch made up of unelected officials who write their own laws and hold their own courts.

The new government has Progressive Philosopher Kings made up of billionaires and Harvard professors that control the Executive and co-lead with the Government Employee Unions over the Regulatory Branch.

Any talk of a Constitutional Republic is moot. It is over.

Forever.

Reuben Hick on July 16, 2014 at 11:00 PM

Notice he admitted that he only objects to Obama’s power grabs because he is afraid that a conservative president would do the same thing. He says he in fact favors all of Obama’s aims, but is afraid that his means would set a bad precedent that a conservative might adopt.

HugoDrax on July 16, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Rush Limbaugh has said this from day 1 of his statement of, “I hope he fails!” Over and over Rush has said that if the Dems create precedent by obvious overstepping of the Constitution via Obama, they’ll pay for it when a Republican gets into office.

There are many “conservatives” here who are too ignorant that say Rush is a shill for the GOPe. All of you are vastly wrong and really don’t understand him at all. He has been shouting this all along for anyone willing to listen.

UnstChem on July 16, 2014 at 11:41 PM

Rush Limbaugh has said this from day 1 of his statement of, “I hope he fails!” Over and over Rush has said that if the Dems create precedent by obvious overstepping of the Constitution via Obama, they’ll pay for it when a Republican gets into office.

There are many “conservatives” here who are too ignorant that say Rush is a shill for the GOPe. All of you are vastly wrong and really don’t understand him at all. He has been shouting this all along for anyone willing to listen.

UnstChem on July 16, 2014 at 11:41 PM

No, because Democratics would impeach a Republican president in a heartbeat. Barry is only immune because he is black and because the Clinton precedent was so disastrous for us politically.

slickwillie2001 on July 16, 2014 at 11:55 PM

It isn’t congress vs POTUS. It’s a conspiracy within the democrat party.. The transfer of power from congress to POTUS is guided by the unseen hand of the democrat party to further its interests, and to retain a grasp on power as a ruling minority.

Red Creek on July 17, 2014 at 12:06 AM

For shame, AP…Professor Elizabeth Price Foley (Florida International University–Miami) deserved a look from you, too! Her opening statement AND her dressing down of Rep McGovern (Dim-MA) today were surely deserving of at least an honourable mention! Skip ahead to about the 2.38.00 mark and let her fly…

Alas, Turley is this month’s Flavour of the Month…

Newtie and the Beauty on July 17, 2014 at 12:13 AM

No, because Democratics would impeach a Republican president in a heartbeat. Barry is only immune because he is black and because the Clinton precedent was so disastrous for us politically.

slickwillie2001 on July 16, 2014 at 11:55 PM

You’re assuming Congress would be Democratic. If a Republican President acted like this, he would already be bolstered by having a Republican Congress and thinking he had the support of the country to trample on the rights of minority liberals.

UnstChem on July 17, 2014 at 12:16 AM

Obama ‘taught’ the Constitution at Harvard. Who the Hell is this guy???

BigWyo on July 16, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Really? You got proof of that?

HiJack on July 17, 2014 at 12:20 AM

He was elected president of the Harvard Law Review. But that was juxt an affirmative action gimme handout.

Red Creek on July 17, 2014 at 12:25 AM

The courts have declined in power? Hadn’t noticed.

paul1149 on July 17, 2014 at 6:55 AM

but there’s at least one case of a GOP candidate who’s not afraid to broach the

Perhaps one could easily insert Sarah Palin’s name in this case. She’s not a candidate technically only because the GOP elites had chosen to destroy her before she could announce.

Don L on July 17, 2014 at 7:08 AM

This guy scared the heck outta me. They must think an R is gonna be the next prez and they want to start conditioning him now to not act on his own. Sounds like they are pushing moderation, with all 3 branches just getting along. What we need is a weed whacker, that will deplete the alphabets.

Kissmygrits on July 17, 2014 at 8:21 AM

This administration is turning the White House into the Animal House..

texmarc on July 17, 2014 at 9:09 AM

Sorry. The idea that Rand Paul will be a “modest” executive if elected President is laughable. … he’s an autocrat at heart.

Joseph K on July 16, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Agreed.

Carnac on July 17, 2014 at 9:30 AM

That’s why Brack was the perfect candidate. You can’t touch him because he’s a Harvard-educated black. He could be caught in the proverbial bed with a dead boy and you still couldn’t impeach him. The Left will not abandon him. They are all-in, lock-step.

Deckard BR on July 17, 2014 at 9:49 AM

I get so tired of hearing about how Oprompta is a “Constitutional professor,” no – he isn’t, and never was – he was a GUEST LECTURER – PERIOD.

PJ Emeritus on July 17, 2014 at 10:16 AM

just because we want the power of president reigned in is certainly no reason to support Paul. Who knows how he would be as president? We have to institutionally challenge this situation, we cannot depend on the integrity of any one man. There is literally no way I could support anyone who favored they type of massive immigration that Paul does or who might wind up supporting the bad guys in the middle east……yeah, no way jose!!

Redstone357 on July 17, 2014 at 10:30 AM