Header Image (book)


Monday, February 17, 2014

Alarm Sounded

And not by a political conservative — as is often the case throughout the conservative blogosphere.

If you're unfamiliar with Jonathan Turley, we can read about him HERE and HERE.  The latter link is the more informative.

Jonathan Turley shares his concerns regarding the direction that our government is going (hat tip to Bunkerville):

Have any of the readers of this blog seen the above in the liberal mainstream media?


  1. Of course Not. Why would they want to feature a freak of nature; an honest Democrat?

  2. This is exactly what I was saying in my comment to you at Z’s blog earlier today. Exactly. I agree with COF—we finally have identified an honest Democrat--not that it will do much good.

    1. Yes.

      I typed in a brief response before seeing your comment here.

      This is, in your words, the brutal truth, and the reality that most Americans don't have a clue about: [T]he Constitution doesn’t actually mean what you or I think it means. It only means what the Supreme Court thinks that it means. Thus, even the light headed leftist can understand why presidential elections are so important: they get to select judges for the Supreme Court —hopefully those who support the president more than they do the Constitution.

  3. I have been procrastinating on a post on this topic. There's a video from Obama in 2008:


    SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the constitution very seriously. The biggest problem that we're facing right now has to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America. (Townhall in Lancaster, PA, March 31, 2008)

    More than just another promise broken.

  4. Geez, I didn't see this. Maybe it's because Turley is nuts and Fox News sucks.

  5. Of course anyone who has some knowledge is nuts, even if he is a leftist--right, Liberalman?

  6. With Obama writing laws, we are screwed. Nobody can come up with a way to rectify the situation. How do you get a law enforcement organization to go to the White House, arrest the guy, and make him do a perp-walk on international TV?
    Since all federal law enforcement reports to him, nobody has the guts to jail the buy.

    It is not as hard for a dictator to take over the USA as we thought. Neither the Supreme Court or the Congress have the wherewithal to physically challenge an outlaw Executive.

    1. Bob,
      It is not as hard for a dictator to take over the USA as we thought.

      I know!

      Why are so many Americans ignoring the danger signs that are flashing like crazy? Because their "devices" are still working?

  7. AOW: I had never thought about the subject until lately. I blogged about it, too. Just remember what Andrew Jackson did with the American Indians in contradiction to a Supreme Court ruling.

    1. You are correct: BHO is not our first "lawless" President. What Andrew Jackson did with the American Indians is rather complicated:

      Chief Justice John Marshall's written opinion(s) in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia, (1832), the two Supreme Court decisions people mistakenly believe President Jackson overruled, applied only to the State of Georgia. Chief Justice John Marshall expressed his personal opinion about the United States' legal and ethical duty to the Native Americans within the body of the legal opinion, but his comments (called obiter dictum or dicta) weren't part of the Court's official decisions and weren't legally binding on the United States.

      Warren knows more about this topic than I do. Maybe he'll show up to clarify the matter.

      But note this about Jackson's lasting legacy:

      Jackson is remembered for introducing the spoils system to American politics. Upon his election as President, a sizable number of people holding positions in Washington, DC, offices found that they had suddenly been replaced by supporters of Jackson, who had worked to ensure his election. Jackson saw this system as promoting the growth of democracy , as more people were involved in politics. This practice has endured in political circles in the United States ever since. Additionally, Jackson pressured states to lower voting requirements to further the expansion of democracy.


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.