Since President Obama was sworn as president in 2009, the number of constitutional violations has risen and continues to do so from bypassing Congress and issuing illegal executive orders to changing certain aspects of the laws that Congress passed which includes certain aspects of Obamacare. However, on Friday, CNS reported that a George Washington University law professor, Jonathan Turley, who has voted for Obama stated that the framers of the Constitution would be shocked by how much power has moved to the president.
Appearing on C-SPAN, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley comments about the fate of the Constitution and President Obama took people by surprise and warned that the Constitution is in great pearl if it is not abided by as the Founding Fathers envisioned. Although Turley stated that he approves of Loretta Lynch as the new U.S. Attorney General if she is confirmed, he went on to say, “The Justice Department is at the epicenter of a constitutional crisis, a crisis that consumed her predecessor and his department.”
“As my academic writings indicate, I have been concerned about the erosion of the lines of separation of powers for many years, and particularly the erosion of legislative authority, of this body, and of the House of Representatives, “said Turley. “That concern has grown to alarm in the last few years under President Obama, someone that I voted for, someone with whom I happen to agree on many issues… including some of the issues involved in these controversies. We are watching a fundamental change in our constitutional system. It’s changing in the very way that the Framers warned us to avoid.”
When it came to President Obama, Turley had much to say. In his testimony, and in written statements found here, he said, “The effort to establish unilateral authority presents an existential threat to our system of government. Although the President has insisted that he is merely exercising executive discretion, any such discretion by definition can only occur within the scope of granted authority and only to the extent that it is not curtailed by the language of the Constitution. This includes his obligation to faithfully execute the law. U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, cl. 4. Some of the President’s actions can be viewed as within permissible lines of discretion. However, many of his actions cannot and are violations of his oath of office. That oath is not merely an affirmative pledge to defend the Constitution but to yield to its limitations on his own authority. To put it simply, that was the deal struck on January 20, 2013.”
“We are watching a fundamental change in our constitutional system in the rise of a dominant Chief Executive, a type “uber presidency” that has evaded the limitations imposed by the Framers in our system, “said Turley. “It certainly did not begin with President Obama, and I was previously critical of the action of President George W. Bush with regards to the loss of legislative authority. However, it has reached a dangerous constitutional tipping point under the current Administration. That aggrandizement of authority could not have occurred without the active support and catalytic role of the United States Justice Department.”
Some have questioned as to why Obama has been allowed to violate his oath of office and violate the Constitution without any action by Congress for so long. Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review outlined the top ten most serious violations President Obama has committed in 2013 alone. Among the violations, they include the delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps, delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate, the delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements, political profiling by the IRS, and the DREAM Act.
As the constitutional violations and cover-ups continue by the President and his administration, on January 28, 2015, Judicial Watch, after filing a FOIA lawsuit against the State Department, was able to obtain more documents exposing the truth of the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack. In those documents, which include a memo from the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Command Center (DSCC), showed that the State Department knew the attack was caused by an organized Islamic assault on the U.S. Embassy in Tunisia. Judicial Watch stated that the DSCC obtained this information from a drone, which recorded the attack in real-time.