John Cusack Interviews Law Professor Jonathan Turley About Obama Administration’s War On The Constitution

truth-out.org:

Since mostly we hear from the daily hypocrisies of Mitt and friends, I thought we should examine "our guy" on a few issues with a bit more scrutiny than we hear from the "progressive left", which seems to be little or none at all.

Read the whole story: truth-out.org

Comments

[Rhonda Oliver]

03:39 AM on 09/06/2012

I am still asking the question: "How is it that the Republicans have FORGOTTEN what their representative in the White house did for "EIGHT LOOONG HORRIBLE YEARS??? HAVE THEY FORGOTTEN THE "STATUTORY RAPE" BUSH and HIS CO-HORTS PERFORMED on our ECONOMY?? How is it that they have 'SELECTIVE AMNESIA" when it comes to the MESS PRES. OBAMA BRAVELY ATTEMPTED to pull us out of and INHERITED??

[MommaCat50]

08:53 PM on 09/05/2012

What a load of crappola! The sheep sure didn't say much when Bush passed the Patriot Act which took about REAL rights guaranteed by the constitution.

[SirReal1]

07:40 PM on 09/05/2012

This "discussion" is very interesting to me. I share concerns about how Presidential Administrations have eroded significant protections enshrined in our Constitution, but I often find that I must "step back" and look at the "BIG PICTURE" when it comes to assessing WHO is right or wrong.

By Mr. Turley's assessment, President Obama has "violated the Law" in both a specific and a "spirit of" sense. I agree! Mr. Turley further notes that the former President Bush ALSO violated the Law in both these senses. I agree! In other comments, and from multiple others comments, the former President Clinton did the same. I agree!

In point of fact, you can click back through our "modern history" and find that the vast majority of our "modern leaders" have "done the same" repeatedly, and a fair argument could be made to support that assertion.

This is the claim and the premise that nearly every "Libertarian" thinker holds as the "central tenet" on which they argue against Government expansion. It is the "valid" argument they accept as "self evident" when they argue that "We the people" must rein in this exercise of Governmental authority that is unsupported by our Constitution.

Again, I agree!

But that is where we run headlong into a very uncomfortable reality.

WE (collectively) end up with some significant dissonance when we try to resolve certain tenets that we hold as immutable.

[SirReal1]

10:45 PM on 09/05/2012

"The Vote", which many cite as our most basic of inalienable rights, also enables the electorate to put into office, individuals who will enact legislation, implement policy, or otherwise act, in a way that is not only offensive to a significant portion of the populace, but might even be contradictory to other laws, or to the Constitution itself. As certain policies have been put in place over our history (often with the BEST of intentions), individuals of particularly questionable moral standards have devised ways to manipulate those well meaning policies and laws in order to further their particular agenda.

Yet, those same individuals are re-elected by the citizens.

It has, and likely always will, been true that; in a Democracy, the citizens get the Government they deserve.

You can try to affix the blame to any politician you wish, or to any ideology, or to any philosophical perspective (as Mr. Turley has above), but the TRUTH is, it is OUR FAULT.

As long as a "compromised" individual can win a majority of the voters to their particular proposal, they can enact (nearly) any agenda they wish. The problem we face today, is that THEY ARE ALL COMPROMISED! In truth they have been for a very long time. The proof is in how corrupt, not only certain individuals are, but the entire SYSTEM is.

[Brian Bender]

06:35 PM on 09/05/2012

This is why 1/2 of country does not vote and 1/3 of voters identify as independant. Ask yourself why you vote for all R's or all D's and why things only get worse...

[SirReal1]

06:03 PM on 09/06/2012

Of course you're right, but I also doubt that voting for a G, or L, or I, or any other letter of the alphabet will change things either.

It's not the Parties that are screwed up, it's the system. Until we make it possible for people to become candidates, with no debt to "sponsors" we will continue to have a dysfunctional Government.

Read Lawrence Lessig's "Republic, Lost". Then become an activist. There is a way we can fix this and get our Republic back.

[care4mypeeps]

04:47 PM on 09/05/2012

The Republican Party violated their oath of office and guilty
of Treason. They decided as a Party to take down a sitting President
in a time of Two Wars and got away with it.

They used subliminal espionage to leak secrets to the enemy by
demanding that classified information be made public and created
National fights that kept sensitive material in the Media.

Republicans unleashed their crazy Republican Tea Party Members
to spread inflamed Lies that was picked up by our enemies and used
in their Propaganda to make their people hate us even more.

Republicans took Foreign Policy trips and started whisper campaigns
to shed President Obama in a negative light.

Republican Obstruction and Treason has been given a pass by the Media
and there was silence on the Left for way too long. It is only now that
People are starting to wake up to this horror that the Republicans have
Orchestrated.

[Marita Saxton]

04:47 PM on 09/05/2012

Please vote for Obama so I can keep my Social Security...I don't know what I'll do if they take that away...and as far as health insurance...well, I guess I won't have any...talk about Death Panels...

[LVRICHARD]

03:31 PM on 09/05/2012

The obstructionist GOP members have violated their oath of office to the point of treason.

[trying this again]

03:14 PM on 09/05/2012

I think of the alternative and will vote for Obama. Even my GOP relatives are voting for Obama.

[bovine13]

04:21 PM on 09/05/2012

What alternative is that?  Both parties are leading us down the same path?  How is voting for Obama any different than voting for Romney, if they both advocate the continual moral bankruptcy of our country in the world??

[care4mypeeps]

04:53 PM on 09/05/2012

bovine13 Mitt Romney is a Liar, Flip Flopping Rich Snob.

We celebrate the fact that life has been kind to him yet he
calls us envious?? What was he thinking??

Mitt Romney is out of touch with the American People
and way out of his league.

Mitt Romney is vague in what he will do for the County
because he has nothing.

I can go on and on but you get the gist.

Peace and Love

[SirReal1]

06:08 PM on 09/06/2012

In this election, the difference is fairly clear and certain.

Romney = more "wars of choice", more tax cuts for the 1%, less representation for anyone making less than $100k per year.

Obama = less likelihood our sons and daughters will be sent to some new exotic place where people with guns will be shooting at them, an effort to correct some of the income inequality of the last 30 years, more support for those who are struggling.

It's not that difficult to see the difference.

[martinspringfield]

10:09 AM on 09/05/2012

I share Cusack's frustration and concern over this administration's shredding of the Constitution, its efforts to outdo Bush in several critical areas like warrantless wiretapping, assassination of American citizens by drone, trashing of due process by cutesy Eric Holder rhetoric, crazy hyper escalation of the war on drugs, and relentless pursuit of whistle-blowers.

I understand the urge to want to elect Romney so that at least the Democrats will fight to preserve Medicare and Social Security, which Obama just two weeks ago said he can't wait to gut in his enthusiasm for the Grand Bargain.

Had Ron Paul won the nomination, it would have been very hard. So wrong for women and minorities, so right on some aspects of international affairs and the Constitution. Had Old Romney run, I might have gone for it.

But then they brought Paul Ryan on board, and that makes it very, very easy to vote for this pseudo-Democratic administration.

[Saje3d]

03:11 AM on 09/06/2012

They're not pseudo-Democratic. Obama's as much as a Democrat as the guy who dropped two bombs on Japan, or threw Japanese Americans into internment camps... or escalated the Vietnam War. Get over it.

[eenp718]

04:50 PM on 09/04/2012

When the low-effort thinkers, posting for the wrong-wing, post nonsense, are we responding to their ignorance? Not a thing is a reason for treason, in this article. It is just someone like us, writing his observations. Then the conservatives bring up all the unrelated material they can, to try to make it seem like they have knowledge to contribute. And then they quote about this article like it was a fact. No wonder they listen to faux and rush. The absolute slowest people, rushers & fauxers, commenting on this site, with their paid for comments from the karlrove wrong-wing group. Worthless folks to respond to.

[kl 0]

05:19 AM on 09/05/2012

what about this interview was inaccurate?

[bovine13]

04:24 PM on 09/05/2012

Writing his observations about factual events...which facts did the professor get incorrect?  How have Bush and Obama not lead us down this path?  The article points out a very real dynamic which is our fanatical reverence for the two party system and it's magical way of keeping us so busy fighting among ourselves that we cannot see that both parties are leading us over the same morally bankrupt cliff.

[eenp718]

08:01 PM on 09/05/2012

The prof. has his paid-opinion only. the wrong-wing is trying to use anything to grasp at, because the only plan they have, caused this depression. And the paid-off plants, distorting the truth will defend them, seen any?

[politicky]

03:41 PM on 09/04/2012

Dude Cusack,

Love your work, thought I loved your politics, but I'm baffled as to why you would get on THIS idealistic high horse 8 weeks before THIS election? You TRYING to get liberals to stay home and not vote? Let's face it, the cranky old uniformed and misinformed Faux NewZ watchers are going to reach over and check their mail-n ballot box for whoever Angry ol Billy frightens them into checking it for. They vote, which is the only reason they ever win elections because there are a heck of a lot more of us.

[bovine13]

04:26 PM on 09/05/2012

Statistically speaking there are far more conservatives and independents than liberals...but your proving of exactly what the author states as the reaction to his article from lefties...bravo.

[SirReal1]

06:18 PM on 09/06/2012

There are far more Liberals and Independents than Conservatives.

If you have to include another group with yours in order to skew the numbers in your favor, it's likely that you're not feeling very confident.

Which is good, because you shouldn't be.

"Conservatives" have been citing a fictitious numerical advantage for decades, by attempting to co-opt groups that really ARE NOT aligned with them except in the most narrow of circumstances. You're likely to have A LOT of Libertarians who will not hold their nose and pull the lever for R&R this time out. Latino's are running away in droves. Women will likely go Democratic this cycle, and Independents are APPALLED by how extreme the Republican's have become.

If you truly believe there are enough "angry old white men" to pull this off, I've got some prime real estate in Florida that I can let you have, cheap!

[politicky]

08:53 PM on 09/06/2012

show me your stats

[AbrahamSadegh]

02:08 PM on 09/04/2012

"I don't know how to bring myself to vote for a constitutional law professor, or even a constitutional realist, who throws away due process and claims the authority that the executive branch can assassinate American citizens. I just don't know if I can bring myself to do it."

Thank you John for the interview and for expressing your doubt about whether or not you should vote for Obama.

Regarding your comment above, to be completely true to our highest values of freedom and justice as well as being a model worthy to emulate we have to be concerned about assassinating any human being and not just our citizens.

[Lorraine Devon Wilke]

01:58 PM on 09/04/2012

While screeds about the horrors of government are rampant, many live in a country where rent is due, sick Mom has no insurance, Dad is jobless, school funds are cut, infrastructure is crumbling, and raising healthy, hopeful kids is a challenge, social concerns you’ve dismissed as sheer piddle against the Constitution-stripping, law-breaking, Machiavellian manipulations of civil liberties, global war laws, and other mind-numbing, gut-ripping horrors.

So I ask both of you wealthy, protected men, what IS the point being made? You’ve screamed “the sky is falling” but what’s the prescription?? Romney? A Libertarian? A new Democratic candidate? DON'T VOTE AT ALL and not “enable” the whole sticky mess?

I’d suggest you’re inspiring non-action, a hopelessness about issues the average American has no hand in and no control over, as conspiracy and flag-waving rants about backroom Constitution-negation tend to. There’s more to being a president than either of you – any of us -- will ever know. Yes, there is much to push against and we must all get informed and active, but this dark exchange offers little beyond a negative, despairing view of the world, our President, government, process, and personal responsibility. Me? I’ll vote my gut and continue to push toward making the actions and policies of our government align with honor, fairness, ethics and...yes, constitutionality. Naïve? You’ll likely interpret it as such. But some Rubicons cross right back to the simplicity of taking the small steps we actually can.

[kl 0]

05:26 AM on 09/05/2012

It's just a discussion. It is important for these observations to be shared. At some point, maybe we do need to break from this system in ways that may not be apparent to us just yet. Also, you missed that they advocated working at the local and state governmental levels. That was the main point towards the end.. Further, are you implying that one party is better than another at reducing poverty? Because that remains to be seen. I don't think it's anywhere nearly as cut and dry as you suggest. And Ethics? Neither party is clean in this regard -- I would argue that the lack of ethics is what prevents fairness and opportunity to those who are moving from the middle to the lower class. All of the lobbying by corporate interests -- there is no free market!

[Lorraine Devon Wilke]

11:14 AM on 09/05/2012

I made no comment about either party regarding poverty...that, you must have read somewhere else! And I get that it's "just a discussion"; that's the problem. This kind of incendiary "discussion" offers nothing to the average person except more fear-mongering. Working at local and state government levels is a worthy task regardless, but suggesting that in context with this screed still offers no prescription to anyone trying to figure out who to vote for after these two annihilated the entire process.

[bovine13]

04:31 PM on 09/05/2012

Sometimes not acting is the boldest action possible.  Perhaps if we did decide, as a nation, to discontinue the ruse which is the two party system, and instead really voiced our concerns...stopped electing incumbents over and over again simply because they have the proper consonant after their names...perhaps the answer is to vote for Romney...and then next election vote for someone else, because we know that Romney wins, he'll take it as a vote for him to do what he thinks is right, now what the people think is right....we need to retrain the politicians to remember that they work for us, not the other way around.  Stop putting them into office...that is change that I can believe in...how about you?

[omobob]

10:59 AM on 09/04/2012

No US citizen may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.
The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. President Obama crossed that line when he ordered the killing of US citizens abroad. Denying it will not change these hard facts.

From the article: President Obama has not only maintained the position of George W. Bush in the area of national securities and in civil liberties, he's actually expanded on those positions. He is actually worse than George Bush in some areas.
CUSACK: Can you speak to which ones?
TURLEY: Well, a good example of it is that President Bush ordered the killing of an American citizen when he approved a drone strike on a car in Yemen that he knew contained an American citizen as a passenger. Many of us at the time said, "You just effectively ordered the death of an American citizen in order to kill someone else, and where exactly do you have that authority?" But they made an argument that because the citizen wasn't the primary target, he was just collateral damage. And there are many that believe that that is a plausible argument.
CUSACK: By the way, we're forgetting to kill even a foreign citizen is against the law. I hate to be so quaint...
TURLEY: Well, President Obama outdid President Bush. He ordered the killing of two US citizens as the primary targets and has then gone forward and put out a policy that allows him to kill any American citizen when he unilaterally determines them to be a terrorist threat. Where President Bush had a citizen killed as collateral damage, President Obama has actually a formal policy allowing him to kill any US citizen.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11264-john-cusack-and-jonathan-turley-on-obamas-constitution

[Diana Howell]

08:20 PM on 09/03/2012

If Jonathan Turley really believes this, he is a total idiot. Can you imagine what this country would become if every time the presidency changed hands and a new party was in power, the former president was prosecuted for potential, alleged violations of law? You can always find something. We'd be a banana republic in no time. Honduras on steroids, only I should apologize to Honduras because it would be much, much worse than that.

And if you want to see endless war, Jon and John, vote for Mitt and Paul. Just for starters, they'd have us at war with Iran in no time.

Nobody is perfect, and every president has to work within the framework of what is possible. If Obama had been able to do it, I think he would have closed Guantanamo a long time ago, for example. But if you want to let the perfect become the enemy of the good, stay away from the polls this November and see how satisfied you are with Romney's policies and protections of civil liberties.

[KittensAndCruiseMissiles]

09:24 PM on 09/03/2012

Yours recipe against creating a banana republic also sounds like the recipe for creating a banana republic.

[snowballinhell]

11:12 PM on 09/03/2012

And is a recipe for becoming a Banana Republic. We're going to be Banana Republic Numero Uno.

[Julie Baker Morse]

11:37 PM on 09/03/2012

No, you can't always "find something". And it's not difficult to work within the boundaries of the Constitution. If a candidate can't do it, he or she shouldn't be running in the first place. I find it ironic thar you're worried about what Romney MIGHT do when we can point to a dozen unconstitutional things POTUS Obama has ALREADY done.