I've disputed such claims before. The National Defense Authorization Act contained some verbiage that some found worrisome, but I disagreed, on the grounds that the phrase "neither expands nor limits current authority" means just that, but many were interpreting "Neither A not B" to mean "A but not B."
Then again, Obama seems bound and determined to make my mockingly referring to him as "His Imperial majesty" reality.
UPDATE: Looking up "Constitutional Law professor Jonathan Turley" on Wikipedia, we learn that he is" frequently regarded as a champion of liberal and progressive causes", and "someone who speaks truth to power". (That phrase always makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit, it usually means "supports libtard causes no matter how silly.")
OTOH, it also says
However, Turley has a strong libertarian streak and sometimes infuriates the left with a contrarian position. For instance, he has said, “It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right.” In May 2009 the Daily Kos said that, "Jonathan Turley is an embarrassment!" because Turley had suggested that supreme court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor was not "brilliant" enough for the job. Moreover, Turley testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment.
In another commentary that outraged progressives, Turley defended Judge Henry E. Hudson's ruling declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional for violating the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, saying: "It’s very thoughtful—not a screed. I don’t see any evidence this is motivated by Judge Hudson’s personal beliefs. . . . Anybody who’s dismissing this opinion as a political screed has obviously not read the opinion."
So maybe he should give lesson on ConLaw to His Imperial Majesty...
h/t to Langenator on Bill Quick's Emergency Preps board for the additional G2...