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[10] with a contrarian position.[22] 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.”[8] 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.[22][31] Moreover, Turley testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment.[32]
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."[23]
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...
No comments:
Post a Comment