Congress Considers Legislation To Respond To Executive Nonenforcement Of Federal Law

260px-capitol_building_full_viewThis morning I will be testifying before the House Judiciary Committee at 10 am. (I hope to post other stories after I return from Congress this afternoon) The hearing is entitled “Enforcing the President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws” and will explore the options for Congress in resisting the encroachment of executive power. I was critical of such encroachment under Professor George W. Bush and I believe that danger has grown under President Barack Obama. UPDATE: Here is the video link to the testimony.

Once again, it is often hard to divorce the policies objectives of this Administration from the means used to achieve those objectives. However, I believe we are witnessing a dangerous and destabilizing shift in our tripartite system of government. I hold this view despite my agreement with many of these policies.

Below is my testimony for the Committee:

Turley Enforcement Testimony

Jonathan Turley

109 thoughts on “Congress Considers Legislation To Respond To Executive Nonenforcement Of Federal Law

  1. Dr. Turley: I emailed you ( and Ambassador Bolton an email on the 15th of this month. Subject was ATTN to you and the ambassador. As relevant as it is to your testimony today, I wish I had thought to remind you sooner. I’d appreciate your opinion and input. Thanks. “Dr. Matt”

  2. The issues of drones and the NSA policies need to be ironed out in the daylight and these issues are what I believe is your main concern in this meeting.
    Apart from these policies the only thing that I see happening is Obama’s attempt to get something done for the economy in spite of this Congress’s refusal to pass ANY legislation, following their STATED determination to do NOTHING to help the country while he is President – MAKE him fail in other words !!!!
    Congress is shameful at this point – they are elected in order to manage the economy etc, and they have just sat in their chairs and spouted nastiness and refused to even pass legislation that they themselves proposed previously !!

  3. Veronica… there are many more issues; not all of them unique to the Executive Branch.. He should have vetoed NDAA 2012 (Section 1022), which effectively erases our right to due process (Writ of Habeas Corpus), not that Congress has any more authority than an ant to amend the Constitution… and if you read the article at , you’ll see he supports the idea of politicizing the federal government, if you didn’t know it before. The list is pretty substantial.

  4. I liked how you put in your testimony that you voted for Obama and agree with many of his policies. Last time it seemed like some were viewing you as another ideological Republican. We look forward to seeing if your testimony will help change things in Congress.

  5. If the Republican leadership supported closing Guantanamo, ending torture and crimes against the U.S. Constitution – Obama would follow suit!

    It’s not right but merely our current state of politics! Nobody upholds their oath of office to the U.S. Constitution including many judges and justices – the biggest villains over the past decade in my view – protecting citizens’ constitutional rights is the top duty of the Independent Judiciary!

  6. Why don’t these republicans pass immigration reform rather than holding hearings on the non enforcement of extremely punitive laws with regards to immigrants?

  7. Professor Turley: In your testimony, you state, ” Absent individual injury of a member, such institutional challenges are the only option short of a constitutional amendment,” and “such authorization would reflect the view that Congress is the most aggrieved party and the best party to advance these arguments…. Indeed, there may not be any readily apparent private party available in some of these actions.” I believe the links in the email I sent you offer a Congress-designed plan of action to counter just such usurpations of branch power. The injured party, in the case I presented is our Constitution herself, empowered as a plaintiff by the authority granted a subset of the citizenry, Please read it. I wish you had already, (Incidentally, you’re very impressive. Unfortunately, I’ll have to miss the live version because of work.)

  8. I applaud and support your efforts in this cause especially so as you are demonstrating what few do–the ability to separate the means from the ends. You support much of the president’s policies but recognize the usurpation.

    This increase in the executive branch at the expense of the legislative is clear.

    However I also believe our system has been undercut by the judicial branch via the relativism and “insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding” with the 14th amendment. By utilizing an interpretation that the words will not bear the Court has undermined federalism reducing the check of state governments. While accomplishing desired results the means have resulted in a end that has significantly increased the power of the federal government (executive especially).

    Professor Turley–be consistent and fight that usurpation as well.

  9. Premises, protocols and programs always push forward. As Reagan set the record and GWB continued the pathway, POTUS Obama is simply following precedents.

    Doesn’t make it right and neither does seeking to arrest Executive Privilege without a fully vetted process.

  10. It was a long read.

    One critical point Professor Turley made was that the “standing to litigate” a seperation of powers issue currently is a judge-made and ill advised area of federal case law.

  11. Who is going to hold hearings on a do nothing but obstruct Congress? How is it Constitutional that they are allowed to go to the House and Senate and do nothing more than grind to a screeching halt the business of governing?

  12. Federal Executive Branch regulatory agencies restrict the enforcement of statutes through “policy.” One such agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has justified their anti-enforcement policies via a 1987 9th Circuit opinion: 829 F. 2nd 933 (9th Cir 1987).

  13. I don’t understand this argument of a “do nothing congress.” I see it more as a “do nothing president.” Never was there a better example of an oxymoron than a President of the United States who is either unable or unwilling to negotiate and compromise. I’ve heard complains from Democrats, Republicans, allies, and recently governors complain that the president is aloof.

  14. You know sometimes I agree with him….especially federal non enforcement of marijuana laws…. But how can we pick and choose….. As LD said… He’s just following president….. Now it can be said… If the President only had a brain….

  15. And the duopoly women are as predictable as the sunset. It’s 5:45p this evening in San Diego. They have their own version of “duop” music. The refrain is always “Yeah but those other guys..”

  16. Veronica, the solution for the failure of one branch of government to follow it’s constitutional duty is not to have another branch breach its constitutional obligations. The answer is to require the first branch to shape up and do its duty. As Mr. Turley points out, it doesn’t matter what one thinks of the specif policies involved, what matters is the process of governance.

  17. While I agree in the substance of what Professor Turley is suggesting, isn’t it interesting that a hearing like this was not done during the Bush years? This hearing is a political hearing that would not be needed if Congress had not tried to block and filibuster almost everything President Obama has attempted to do. How about a hearing on Filibuster abuse? How about a hearing on how Citizens United can be overturned via Amendment? As Swarthmore mom asked, why isn’t there a hearing why the Speaker won’t have a vote on immigration reform?

  18. The President of the United States is sworn to faithfully uphold the laws of the United States. He does not get to pick and choose. The Framers of the Constitution specifically listed the branches of government in order of importance. Legislative (Law making branch); Executive (execute laws as written) & Judicial (does the law pass Constitutional muster).

  19. We are the reason that our government becomes dysfunctional.

    Our instinct is to align on one side of the fence and throw stones at those on the purported other; as we forget that the true adversary is the manure being shoveled upon U.S.

  20. I imagine that a lot of the people responsible for this are just mad that he won’t be wasting our time and money on drug laws in two particular states.

  21. swarthmore, The US does not tear families apart. It is the families themselves who decide it is better to live in the US apart from their families rather than be with their loved ones. I read the ACLU article and they object to the idea of requiring illegals to follow our traffic laws and any other laws that they find inconvenient. I used to have some respect for the ACLU, but their contempt for laws they disagree with has voided that. As Prof.Turley pointed out in his testimony, one has to be concerned with process as well as laws. The ACLU has forfeited that respect.

  22. Professor Turley,

    The problems with Legislative and Judicial branches of our government are far more egregious than the Executive.

    We have a Congress where a minority within a minority have a government shutdown as its main priority. Our Supreme Court consists of politicians wearing black robes who give the appearance of impropriety. There are Justices who publicly speak about controversial issues that will soon be litigated before them.

    We need the Republicans to get back to the business of governing instead of finding ways to destroy our system of checks and balances.

  23. And if this legislation is crafted to respond to executive nonenforcement of Federal Law and placed on the desk of the current occupant of the White House for signature … signature from the very person this legislation would specifically target … who seriously expects to acquire his signature on this legislation? There are no current Constitutional remedies the Legislative and/or Judicial branches and/or citizens can take to prevent the escalating lawlessness?

  24. The Supreme Court, including Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayer ripped the Solicitor General a new one on King Barry’s EPA rules. The Emperor is indeed naked.

  25. On the subject of immigration, just want to say that I am an immigrant, legal, and had to wait in line to get a visa, and I am not automatically on the side of those who stole their way in & because they were clever enough to make it, they somehow should have the right to stay permanently.
    You cannot do that in any other country unless you prove you fit their existing laws. !!!
    I think that unless the border is closed (both Mexico AND Canada) all that will happen is there will be another 11 million illegals in 20 yrs. time.
    NO alternatives I’m afraid, if you cannot send them all back – there will never BE a permanent solution to this problem.
    Not being mean to those wanting a better life, but those are the facts – if I overstayed a visa, I would expect to be thrown out unless there were a special pardon !!

  26. Really… From I read the four democratic appointees sided with the EPA and Kennedy is the swing vote. Let’s hope he prefers to breath clean air……

  27. Swarthmoremom : If a person has served in the military I would assume that they are considered worthy of a permanent visa – that sounds like common sense to me (:>)

  28. Just saw that 82 percent of democrats support a Hillary run, nick. Jeb is looking better now that Christie is out. Saw Rick Perry on tv the other day. I think he is running and he hates the EPA. I think he must like all those red ozone alerts they have in Texas. Somebody picked some good looking glasses for Perry. He looks attractive and smart.

  29. Just got home for lunch and have thoroughly enjoyed (and pretty much agree with) most all of the comments. Wow. Thinkers’ forum… To the commenter comparing the hearing to the absence of one for Bush, I’d add that the P.A.T.R.I.O.T.A.C.T. was the only unconstitutional event of his term, to my knowledge, but we were all so snowed by the 9/11 conspiracy, and the promise it would root out terrorists, that we signed on, In a sense, the Sovereign Rule ruled in favor, though it was clearly not a formal (or informal, for that matter) amendment to the constitution. To those, including the professor, who feel the Judicial Branch plays second fiddle to the Executive, it has been true in the past few billion years that politics put them there, so politics is the debt they bear. Their primary aim is to keep the Legislative Branch from encroaching on the Executive. Terribly unjust, I realize. Such is the tale of one John Roberts – the man who so famously proclaimed, “while it is unconstitutional to require citizens to engage in commerce, it is reasonable to construe that what Congress meant, was…’ (In one sentence he overruled himself and, by usurping the authority of Congress, which did NOT levy a tax, put them in a positioh of having to admit to the citizens that they were being taxed without representation.

  30. hogident.”. To the commenter comparing the hearing to the absence of one for Bush, I’d add that the P.A.T.R.I.O.T.A.C.T. was the only unconstitutional event of his term”. So Bush’s 171 recess appointments were contsitutional.

  31. Swarthmoremom… Thanks for the assist. (My point was no one is above the law… though we all break it.) So I will do my best to keep partisanship out of this. When I speak about Obama, it’s only because he is in the hot seat. The hottest yet. The seat hasn’t been ours since Woodrow Wilson sold it to the Fed Reserve,

  32. annieofwi I think has the right idea. We have lived through five years of a do-nothing congress to the detriment of the American people. SOMEONE has to do SOMETHING. While I realize that the original concept of the founding fathers was three branches of government, separate but EQUAL, I don’t think that they had any idea that a situation such as we find ourselves in today would ever occur. Sometimes when the creek gets jammed with logs, SOMEONE has to throw in a stick of dynamite to break up the obstruction. Of course there is always the ‘moral argument’ namely, ‘is it right to enforce laws that are immoral or unjust on their face’, but we have done so for 240 years so why stop now?

  33. This is the Georgetown prof., Constitutional scholar, and voter for Obama that I mentioned to you earlier. He is all over the place right now and I’m watching. Share with Mike if you think appropriate.//Mom

  34. This blog’s commenters represent the kind of thinking I’d like to see in Congress. Not bought and paid for. Not self-serving. Let’s all run!

  35. rafflaw wrote: “This hearing is a political hearing that would not be needed if Congress had not tried to block and filibuster almost everything President Obama has attempted to do. How about a hearing on Filibuster abuse? How about a hearing on how Citizens United can be overturned via Amendment? As Swarthmore mom asked, why isn’t there a hearing why the Speaker won’t have a vote on immigration reform?”

    Hmmm. Sounds like you don’t like democracy. I assume that these reasons you offer are the same reasons Obama uses to rationalize his unconstitutional actions.

  36. hogident wrote: “Such is the tale of one John Roberts – the man who so famously proclaimed, “while it is unconstitutional to require citizens to engage in commerce, it is reasonable to construe that what Congress meant, was…’ (In one sentence he overruled himself and, by usurping the authority of Congress, which did NOT levy a tax, put them in a positioh of having to admit to the citizens that they were being taxed without representation.”

    Nice analysis.

  37. Kraaken: forgot about that – but hey if you want to adhere to the mode of that poem – you just SAY SO and let everybody know what the policy is ! – Not my decision one way or the other. There is an argument for that of course, but I doubt that the majority of Americans would agree with an open-doors policy now – maybe in 1883 when it was written ?

  38. Justin, “Progressives” want to go back to the days of trains. They want to go back to pre vaccine days. So, going w/ disgraced old politicians is @ least being consistent.

  39. nick spinelli, your point of “2006: “Hillary presumptive nominee.” is spot on.

    I hope Hillary after Barack Obama is not the direction our country wants to go in. She has too much baggage, literally and figuratively speaking.

  40. david,
    democracy left the building as soon as McConnell and others announced that they would do everything in their power to block democratic actions. When you filibuster almost 500 times, something has to give. If you read what I wrote you will see that I agree with most of what Prof. Turley stated in his opening remarks. I don’t anything done in Washington by any branch can be understood without considering the politics. If you want to improve things David, you will have to get in line to end Citizens United because money is the real king here.

  41. rafflaw – problem is that I agree with the Citizens United decision. Money should be taken away from the rulers in Washington, because they did not earn it, but it’s power should not be taken away from the citizens. Citizens should be able to vote with their hard earned money.

    Also, I agree with filibustering. It is a way for the minority to be heard and explain their case. Government shutdowns are simply democracy in action. If you want to stop all that, then take steps to lessen the role of democracy in government.

    It seems to me that many Democrats only favor democracy when the rest of the people agree with them or they are enough in the majority that they can do what they want without discussion.

  42. I just heard that the Muslims are upset over a Katy Perry video and calling for it too to be censored. Yet, Christians are being killed in the Middle East and not one Muslim leader has stepped up and called for the killing to stop.

  43. If a flea farts over the Arabian Desert, the Islamist want to blow themselves up or blow up a building, or kill scores of human beings. Yet, Christians are being killed in the Middle East and not one Muslim leader has come forward and condemned the killing.

  44. Let’s see if I remember all I wish to say here… may spread it over a few posts. First and foremost, if anyone reading this has a way to alert Professor Turley to something, please tell him to read the email I sent him and Ambassador Bolton on the 15th, from “hogident@…” with subject “Attn In the event he’s deleted it as junk, I am just now ending it again. It’s of vital importance. (Thank you to those to whom it may apply.)

    To davidm… thank you for your kind words. I’ve been refining a number of analyses over the past year or so… I know in my head and heart I am correct. It astounds me that the sound bytes seem to convey everything but what appears to me to be unavoidably stark logic.

    In addition to the Provenance article, linked in an earlier post, above, and the article, “A Less Wright, More Perfect Union,” linked in an earlier post yesterday, there are others which I believe to be far more objective and direct, not to mention crucially relevant.

    Following at bottom are a couple I am not only molding as works in progress, but among several I’d really appreciate criticism, advice, commentary, etc. from all of you on. (I’d link more but Chuck is right that appending 3 or more hyperlinks sends a comment to blackout land, awaiting a moderator which never comes.)

    To victoria: 99.9999% of us are mutts, or implants, like you. My family sailed here from Rotterdam in 1750.

    Lastly, for now… the Statue in New York harbor is one of those things which, more and more, becomes less and less relevant. First, she was a gift, from France; not an American extension as an invitation. Second, the poem, which I have always thought of as typical of a country to which we owe our very independence, is not law, – the sense of humor of the French notwithstanding, it manifested that which the French perceived America to be: the new land to which all the misfits of the world could flee. Third, as the most the important – consider what she represents(ed).. freedom and liberty. Name one other time in American history when it could not have been any further from the truth. Remember the term “American Dream” was also a gift from foreigners,

    Any advise, comment or help you care to share (including discussion) is appreciated. Guess I need to create a blog:

    “Dear John: The Power of the Pen” spells it out, portrays CJ Roberts as a self-exhaulted one, accuses O of perjury, and more:

    “Echoes of Freedom: Exercising Your Last Rights on the Issue of Gun(Mind) Control.” (Poor Piers lost his show.)

    ‘Nuff said and done…

  45. If a person believes “No one’s life liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session” then gridlock can be viewed as beneficial

  46. Gus S. Calabrese (@99guspuppetx)
    This is silly…. pass a law to make people obey an existing law ? What the world needs now …. is love … and the elimination of many existing laws… not more layers
    Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.
 — Thomas Jefferson
    Thank you! For years I’ve been saying that certain laws need repealing in their entirety – not just fixing a paragraph or section here or there, but ALL of the legislation that was written and/or amended to those original laws need to be taken off the books. That includes: Repealing Gramm-Leach-Bliley and reinstating Glass-Steagall (a “new” and toothless Glass-Steagall based on what bankers want is useless); repealing the AUMFs (there is no Article I power that can be transferred to the executive or judicial), Patriot Act(s) (we need all of our Constitutional rights back), MCA ’06 (taking away our habeas corpus rights is totally unconstitutional), FISA ’08 (telecoms had legions of lawyers who could tell them that spying on us is illegal and unconstitutional; they knew what they were doing was/is wrong), MCA ’09 (which never should have passed). Additionally, because religious people and groups have far too much input into secular legislation, Dumbya’s executive-order-created ‘office of faith-based initiatives’ which is still run through the White House needs abolishing and defunding (as a student of history, I know how murderous and cruel mixing religion and government has been, and could be again, since religions continue to interfere with the legislative process).

    ALL corporations need to be kicked out of government, health insurance needs to be turned over to the not-for-profit single-payer Medicare insurance and all citizens under retirement age should be able to buy into Medicare since we’re paying for it already.

    Other things badly need correcting, but that’s the short list of things that could be taken care of and repealed with one short piece of legislation.

    When Obama, the alleged con law prof, had not moved to correct any of those illegal and unconstitutional laws AND had not moved to investigate the lies and war crimes done by Dumbya and Dickie and their war criminal cohorts by 1 February ’09, I knew he’d be keeping all the illegal and unconstitutional horrors voted into being when Dumbya & Dickie ruled this country.

    Obama is in love with his image of himself as a “bipartisan compromiser” but he does not recognize how wrong that position is and how far backwards he and the obstinate racist & religious Republicans are taking this country.

    There are many things this nation can compromise on…, but when our “leaders” have taken away our rights and refuse to give them back, they’ve gone too far. No more compromises can be made, and we need new legislators who can correct their errors and bring this ship of state back on a true course.

  47. Darren, AMEN!! I love gridlock, it’s the Hippocratic oath of libertarians like myself, “First do no harm.”

  48. I think that my parents generation would disagree with that and FDRs efforts to end the Depression were needed as were most of his reforms.. Thanks to Obama and the Democrats, I got my job back and my wife got health insurance which she could not get otherwise. Doing nothing was not a viable option, unless you were doing well and were willing to tell the rest of us to go to hell and starve and die off.

  49. Video link much appreciated. How long did it take Professor Turley to compose his testimony, I like the way he writes, esp his unique use of words.

  50. smile4drmatt=dr. matt=hogident. I just registered. Don’t know why my new “avatar” isn’t popping up… oh well.

  51. Citizens United is the most destructive piece of legislation that has ever passed in the US and it is destroying America.

    How in the world could you possibly support it davidm2575? Are you part of the 1%?

    In a nutshell, Citizens United makes it possible for the 1% to take over the US and turn the rest of us into slaves.

    Citizens United is the end of America.

  52. I believe in free speech and the right to spend money to communicate viewpoints about elections.

    You don’t lessen the power of money by making laws that violate the principles of free speech.

  53. If you support Citizens United, then you do not support free speech for all Americans – you only support free speech for the super wealthy who use money to drown out the voices of the American people.

    Some Americans are rich and some are not. We all deserve to be heard in a democracy – but because of legislation like Citizens United – the US is no longer a democracy.

    Citizens United kills democracy. If that is what you support then we can agree to disagree. But deep down we all know what is right and what is not right.

  54. help america wrote: “If you support Citizens United, then you do not support free speech for all Americans…”

    Citizens United does not say that only the super wealthy get to vote. It says that every American can vote with their money. It says that if I earn money through my corporation and I want to produce a video to communicate why a certain candidate might be a good candidate for office, that I am allowed to do that. This helps EVERY American, not just the super wealthy. Why would you think that only the super wealthy would be allowed to do that?

    In regards to the US being a democracy, it never was. The US is a Republic. We have a measure of democracy built in, but we are not a democracy anymore than we are socialist or communist.

  55. David,

    Citizens United gives the corporations, special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington and it completely destroys the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. Citizens United crushed the Republic.

    It takes power from the people and gives it to the corporations and super wealthy and they are using that power to destroy our environment, our planet, our water, our air, etc. It’s bad for our country.. We are no longer a Republic, we are an Oligarchy.

  56. help america, that is just propaganda from people who hate America. There are a lot of people who hate free enterprise and hate our economic system based upon capitalism. They spread these lies about people who form corporations. Please don’t believe them. I’m sorry that you have been subjected to all their negative speech and been affected by it.

    Corporations are good. They create jobs for people. Corporations provide the mechanism by which to bring common people together to work together. Most people who do not work for government work for a corporation.

    Citizens United is not about hurting the common citizen. It is about helping them. It enables the company that a person works for to speak for them and the rest of the people who work for them about candidates that they like. Citizens United promotes greater democracy by defending the voice of the company you work for.

  57. No David, I am sorry for you that you feel a corporation’s voice is more important than a human beings voice.

    Corporations don’t speak for people. Corporations exist to make a profit.

    The difference between a corporation and a human being is that humans have compassion and empathy – corporations don’t. That is why the oil industry is spreading cancer causing toxins across our once great nation – so they can make a profit and the expense of everyone else.

    When the corporations you speak of are done destroying all the US land, water and air, the average american tax payer will be expected to pick up the bill to attempt to clean up the toxic waste dump left behind by the wonderful job producing corporation.

  58. A corporation’s voice is not more important than a human beings voice. A corporation speaks for the people who are part of that corporation. The voice of the corporation is the voice of people.

    I own a corporation. My corporation speaks for me and all my employees. Why would you want to pass laws to stop my corporation from making videos or placing radio ads that express what me and my employees want to say about an upcoming election?

    My corporation does not destroy land, water, and air. We are not destroying the environment with toxic waste. My corporation is a vehicle that generates money to stop all that nonsense. Me and all my employees pay taxes from the money we earn through the corporation. You have been fed a lot of misinformation about corporations, and it has made you bigoted against corporations. How can we come together on this?

  59. We can come together on this when we have a publicly funded campaign system where each candidate gets the same amount of money to run their campaign.

    That way, each voice is heard and the candidate is judged on their merit – not how much money they have to broadcast their message and drown out their opponent.

  60. The Citizens United decision didn’t have anything to do with contributing money to campaigns. Corporations still cannot give money directly to candidates running for federal office. You know that, right?

  61. davidm2575:

    I am in the process of verifying the allegations made in the video I posted online at , I’ve nearly completed the hard docs research (so far, the video is accurate, but my historian friends in Europe and I are at an impasse re the history of the Windsors and arousing them to prove or disprove the claims of an unbroken royal blood line, purportedly through King Louis and Marie Antoinette).

    Your references to “corporation” reminded me of the video’s references to same.

  62. I agree with David, a generic use of the word Corporation as being inherently evil is not reasonable. How about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, are they evil and polluting the world? David’s business is no more destroying the Earth than he is. Corporations are a tax and license entity that is recognized by state, federal, and international laws.

    A corporation cannot act in itself any more than a signed document on a table can. It is the persons who own or are employed by the corporation that do. If those persons act with malice then they should be addressed for this. Surely there are many times where interests within a corporation use the resources of the corporation to do nefarious acts and I can see labelling these with corporations since they are done in the name of the corporation.

    I personally don’t like the excesses and abuses that some corporations are steered into and for practical purposes one probably will use terms calling a particular corporation as being evil as being much easier than trying to find out which individuals in the corporation are misbehaving.

    But through the large amounts of finance and resources large corporations possess they are certainly used to magnify and amplify the will of the few that control them, giving them a much bigger voice or power than they would as just an individual voter, compared with other voters who have less means. That is where the abuses lie therein.

  63. Excellent segment on Fox News, Professor Turley. It may not ingratiate you with the Washington cocktail party clique, but I can tell you that you are highly respected by the principles and values crowd.

  64. Justin, Mr. Turley is singing, “I drink alone..w/ nobody else…you know when I drink alone, I prefer to be by myself.”

  65. The Affordable Care Act says that the employer mandates will begin as of January 1, 2014. Neither the president nor anyone else has any authority to alter or delay that date. Yes, the same people who screamed “It’s the law!” when Republicans tried to use proper legal procedure to change the law to delay those mandates are silent as Obama openly violates the law to do the same thing. This is why it’s hard to take any of them seriously.

  66. Make no mistake, the problem does not lie with the Republicans or Democrats, but with the people who keep *re* electing them. And lest anyone suggest a lack of choice, there were 13 people on the ballot for president in florida, only one of which was Republican and one was a Democrat.The problem can be found by looking in a mirror.

  67. davidm–

    Proxy’d monies that don’t go into a candidates coffers is a double edged slice an dice of our system.

    It’s improper that those seeking to take the most and pay the least;
    spend the most – to make sure they can succeed at that very thing.

Comments are closed.