Why be coy?
“No president can take on the power of all three branches and that’s what he seems to be doing. He certainly seems to be taking on legislative authority. He isn’t be particularly coy about this, you know he says ‘this is what I wanted to get out of legislation and I’m going to do it on my own’ and that does become a government of one.”
Actually, I have said that. Exactly that. But it’s nice to get the affirmation. But I then asked: what happens next? If the act is invalid—a president cannot make law—how is it enforceable? And if he violates the Constitution, isn’t his removal from office and deposit in the dustbin of history compulsory and inescapable?
Yet someone has to act to make these things so. Even an invalid, unconstitutional act by a criminal president has authority merely from the respect of the office (if not the man) from which it comes. How can a diktat with no legal authority be acted upon as if it were “the law of the land” (to coin a phrase)? As the old robot in Lost in Space used to say, “that does not compute”.
Anyway, Turley had more to say:
“It’s a very sad moment but it’s becoming a particularly dangerous moment if the president is going to go forward, particularly after this election to defy the will of Congress yet again. I can understand the frustration, these are two political parties that cannot get along but as you said, we have a Democratic process and a Congress that’s coming in with the full voice of the American people behind them, that’s what an election is, you may disagree with the outcome, but you have to respect the outcome,” Turley continued. “What the President is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the constitution. We have a separation of powers that gives us balance and that doesn’t protect the branches. It’s not there to protect the executive branch or the legislative branch, it’s there to protect liberty. It’s there to keep any branch from assuming so much control that they become a threat to liberty.”
“I always tell my friends on the Democratic side, we will rue the day when we helped create this uber presidency,” he said. “What the Democrats are creating is something very very dangerous. They’re creating a president who can go at it alone and to go at it alone is something that is a very danger that the framers sought to avoid in our constitution.”
Uber is German, by the way, as in deutschland über alles. Just pointing it out.
So, this self-described liberal says Obama’s behavior is a “threat to liberty”. I don’t want any harm to come to any of the Obamas—not George, way over there in his dusty hut, not even Uncle Omar, bagging six-packs of Coors up on the North Shore—but this man needs to be stopped.
Who’s going to do it, and how?
PS: I describe his behavior as fascistic, but any fascist worth his salt has the military at his beck and call. I don’t think Obama can count on that. Not when the going gets tough.