Top U.S. Constitutional Expert: Obama More Extreme Warmonger than Bush or Nixon

Obama Is the Most Extreme President In History

Jonathan Turley is perhaps the top constitutional law expert in the United States (and a liberal).

Turley told MSNBC that Obama is worse than Bush or Nixon in launching unilateral, unconstitutional wars:

Other constitutional experts agree.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • bankrupted taxpayer

    Consitutional

    ?

    sp3ll cheq ?

  • Ghordius

    as posted as Ghordius in Zero Hedge:

    From an outsider’s constitutional point of view, the US is running version 1.27, where version 1.10 is from 1789

    Now the whole issue could be easily solved by a 28th Amendment,

    then the constitution itself states in Art. 1, Clause 11 that “[The Congress shall have Power…] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”,

    so a new 28th Amendment would just have to state: “No armed forces may be deployed outside the borders of the United States without previous authorization of the Senate. No armed forces outside the borders of the United States may be engaged in combat without declaration of war by Congress, except for self defense”, or something very similar, to the point that most people would ask: what? is this not already so?

    Interestingly, one of the reasons why corruption has blown a leak in the constitutional principles is Roman Law, in particular unwritten Roman Law. All our republics are based on principles of the Roman Republic, and there any magistrate had the power to conscript, deploy, attack. after all, communication was flimsy at best, and hordes of barbarians could invade anywhere, which gave ample reason to fight first, and explain later

    BUT, and this is a big one, if he did so, he faced the possibility of being vetoed by a collegue and he faced automatic criminal charges after the war… IF he did not consult the Senate beforehand, and get approval, so that he was notexerting his powers (aka Imperium) without the authority of the Roman Senate (aka Auctoritas)

    So if you would take an ancient Roman and put him here and now, his first two questions would be:

    A) Where is the collegue of this incredibly powerful elected magistrate you call President? Is there nobody that can veto him? If yes, what’s their take? Alternatively, why do you elect only one chief magistrate? Do you know how we called asingle chief magistrate, to be appointed (only for six months) in extreme cases?

    B) Where is the criminal court after the military engagement, when this magistrate (i.e. elected executive in modern speak) engages in war without auctoritas? so that a court can judge if this unilateral use of Imperium (i.e. power in modern speak) without Auctoritas (i.e. not authorized in modern speak) was or was not in the interests of the People?

    The second reason why there is this “leak” is that Congress could flatly prohibit the President to do this or that in the realm of war, based on Art. 1, Clause 11. But this is a different story, and leads back to… corruption

    The third reason is that the Framers of the Constitution could not even imagine a world like the one we have, which leads back to the thing that it’s based on version 1.10 from 1789, meaning it’s one of the oldest republican constitutions in the world. compare to France, where they have model 5.0 from 1958. That’s a difference of a couple of centuries, and a very strange thing, in the context of the rest of the world

    The fourth reason… is in culture, particularly when it comes to international borders. Simply stated, Americans have an exceptional view on them, and for good or bad few cross them regularly, and many have never seen one. Even moresimply stated, they are not part of the American Way of Life. So all in all, public interest in this matter is… low

  • Rehmat

    Mr. Turley is wrong in certain cases. Nixon has long been declared a “Jew-hater” by the organized Jewry. Bushes, both Father and Son, were AIPAC poodles. They attacked both Iraq and Afghanistan for Israel, oil and drugs. Barack Obama aka ‘First Jewish President’ is just expanding anti-Muslim wars to secure Israel’s domination of the region.

    http://rehmat1.com/2010/01/08/afghanistan-wests-drugstore/

  • Bev

    What do you make of the following about Neo Cons in control? If Democracy prevails, Neo Cons and Neo Libs (same thing as Fascism) would not be in control.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/white-house-fence-jumpers-911-and-khorasan/5403975

    White House Fence Jumpers, 9/11 and “Khorasan”
    By Jason Kissner
    Global Research, September 24, 2014

    Could Khorasan conceivably have something to do with the 9/11 and 9/19 White House fence jumpers/intruders? Very conceivably indeed, and shortly we will turn to data and theory in support of this contention.

    First, here is a brief account of the two White House fence jumpers. Courtesy of NBC News and on 9/11, of all days, it happened that:

    “A man jumped over the White House fence just after 6 p.m. Thursday, prompting a lockdown, according to an official with the United States Secret Service. The man was taken into custody by Secret Service Officers. He was seen holding a stuffed Pokemon “Pikachu” doll and wearing clothing related to the animated show.”

    To the best of my knowledge, for some reason we still do not know the fellow’s name. So far, therefore, this fellow is, like both Barack Obama and Benny Rhodes, something of a cipher. We do, however, seem to know the name of the 9/19 White House fence jumper. His name, we are told, is Omar Gonzalez. Gonzalez left 800 rounds of ammo in his car, scaled a White House fence, and made it into the White House through an unlocked front door. If you haven’t already heard what comes next, brace yourself:

    “Secret Service officers stopped Omar Jose Gonzalez last month as he carried a hatchet in front of the White House, but let him go even though he had been arrested this summer in Virginia with a mini-arsenal of semiautomatic weapons, a sniper rifle and a map clearly marking the White House’s location.”

    And yet, on September 19, Gonzalez, who also, it must be mentioned, had lost part of his foot in combat, did in fact make it through the front door of the White House.

    snip

    …here’s the full text of Obama’s 9/10 ISIS speech. Guess what: there’s no mention of “Khorasan”—that most evil and menacing of targets and brand spanking new raision d’ȇtre for war!—at all. If Obama didn’t get the message on 9/10, there is every reason to believe he has it now, since, in Obama’s 10 AM (EST) 9/23 speech, we finally hear tell of the great new bin Laden-style evil in the world—Khorasan. And just in case any doubts remained about his commitment, Obama was kind enough to inform us that he was interested not just in bombing ISIS, but also in aiding resistance to Assad (see immediately preceding link beginning at around 1:36, and note in particular the way he kind of slips in, almost as a kind of weird, disassociated-sounding afterthought, the “and the Assad regime” language.

    So the neocons now appear to have what they have always wanted: a campaign against Assad. In addition, they have even more: a brand new amorphous enemy materialized, like their money, out of nothing. When global fascism looks in the mirror, what else can it see but bin Ladens and Khorasans? What we see when we look at the data is a series of theatrical, yet menacing, cues prompting Obama along his inexorable, and cowardly, slide toward warfare.

    Is it unreasonable to suppose that the two statistically unprecedented White House fence jumpers (two in 8 days, the first on 9/11) “helped” Obama make his decisions, including the manufacturing of the Khorasans—especially when we consider that the second jumper made it into the White House in spite of a wounded foot and a prior stop by the Secret Service that revealed a sniper rifle and a map suggesting a White House target?

    Read more at
    http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/09/u-s-propaganda-enters-into-insane-irrational-overdrive-in-attempt-to-sell-war-in-syria/comment-page-1/#H45dDxth8omTO2Pe.99

  • moka moh

    Perhaps the purpose of US ME foreign policy is destabilization and chaos. It is interesting to note that the regimes targeted thus far did not participate in the western financial system. It seems likely that defending the ever weakening petrodollar from a more stable basket of commodity based currency is the true motivation here. العاب طبخ سارة , العاب تلبيس , العاب طبخ