To: i-node who wrote (143697 ) 6/15/2014 1:46:10 PM From: tejek Read Replies (1) | Respond to >> Turley is not an 'ultra liberal'. He's a libertarian with some liberal viewpoints. Libertarians is what Rs become when they can no longer stomach the doings of the GOP. Everything else, tejek to the core. Inasmuch as you're not "mainstream", I would say that makes him liberal. Libertarians may be what Rs become when they recognize there isn't a hair's breadth of difference between the Rs & Ds. Rs want to control your life; Ds want to control your life. And both parties will use government to accomplish that end; they just use different strategies to do it. Back to Turley, he is liberal. He agrees with most of Obama's positions, ideologically. But he does understand the law, and Obama either doesn't or he believes he has the right to violate it. And he does because supporters like you, who are not particularly well-informed, don't understand why it isn't in your interests to allow it. > The power increased under Bush because the Rs controlled Congress and gave it to Bush . If Congress delegates power to a president, that's the business of Congress and it is, de facto, not a case of the president claiming power that isn't due him. Turley's complaint with Bush had to do with "torture", but that is a personal determination, not a legal one. IOW, torture is illegal but there can be legitimate debates about whether torture actually occurred as not everyone would agree it was. Others would argue that the necessity of the moment required it. Just as FDR violated the Constitution during wartime, the argument can be made that Bush should have been cut slack, too. Turley's problem is that Obama has escalated the violations at an alarming pace. So much, in fact, that he says if these violations aren't corrected before Obama leaves office, the Constitution is threatened. And he has argued that Obama is moving us toward an Imperial Presidency, which he appears to be correct about. So, while he had issues with Bush, the issues are far bigger with Obama. >> If, and that's a big if, the power has increased under Obama, its because Congressional Rs have become totally ineffectual. Frankly, even you ought to be able to see this is just rationalization on your part in support of your candidate. Assuming, arguendo, that the Rs have become "totally ineffectual", then there is no exception in the Constitution (as there obviously could not be) to allow the president to act unilaterally. In fact, this is the heart and soul of separation of powers. If any president, feeling Congress wasn't being "effectual", could just act on his own, then we are no longer a Constitutional Democracy, we are a dictatorship. The question I have is how do you square your belief that President Obama should be allowed to act in any way he'd like with the notion that the Constitution has any meaning at all?
