President Obama

Jonathan Turley, a highly respected professor of public interest law at George Washington University who admits he voted for President Obama and supports many of his policies, did not mince words recently when he accused our commander in chief of violating his oath of office.

The nationally recognized constitutional law professor made the comments in written and verbal testimony during the confirmation hearing of Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch, in which he explained how the Justice Department and the executive branch have effectively colluded to exert power over this nation.

Turley voiced concern over Lynch’s nomination because of the “constitutional crisis” this country faces with the rise of the president as some sort of “chief executive” officer that acts like the country’s boss. Obama’s abuses tip the balance of power the founding fathers established Obama-serious-sliderbetween the federal, executive and judiciary branches, Turley explained.

“While I happen to agree with the president in many [policy] areas, I believe that he has chosen unworthy means to achieve worthy ends,” Turley stated. “The effort to establish unilateral authority presents an existential threat to our system of government.”

He also said that Obama’s “uber presidency … has reached a dangerous constitutional tipping point under the current administration. That aggrandizement of authority could not have occurred without the active support and catalytic role of the United States Justice Department.”

“The balance sought by the Framers has been lost in recent years precisely as the Framers had feared: with the rise of a dominant executive who promises to achieve all of the things that the constitutional process could not,” Turley noted.

“Some of the President’s actions can be viewed as within permissible lines of discretion. However, many of his actions cannot and are violations of his oath of office. That oath is not merely an affirmative pledge to defend the Constitution but to yield to its limitations on his own authority. To put it simply, that was the deal struck on January 20, 2013.”

h/t: CNSNews

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

Writing in Michigan State’s State News, Emily Jenks is highly irritated that students at last week’s football game against Nebraska had the audacity to boo President Obama. Not because he’s an unpopular president, mind you, but because he had an important message that you’d better hear!

That message was the “It’s On Us” campaign, you see … which, as Jenks writes, “is a call to arms for everyone — not just men — to stop perpetuating a culture that generates sexual assault on campus.”

The stadium watched quietly as the commercial played. Faces on the screen mumbled words that, let’s be honest, couldn’t be heard well over the stadium’s shoddy sound system, yet “it’s on us” was repeated again and again.

Near the end, the faces and voices unified to say, “It’s on us to stop sexual assault.” There was a pause, and President Obama appeared on the screen.

But before he opened his mouth, the student section booed — arguably louder than they booed the Nebraska band.

I was stunned. Not stunned that the stadium booed Obama, but that they booed the message Obama’s face was attached to.

As many commenters point out in the article, how Jenks makes that assumption is pretty head-scratching.

Later in her piece Jenks seems to equivocate somewhat, but her consternation always discards the fact that right now many people simply do not like the president very much, and flat-out don’t believe what he says anymore — no matter what he’s talking about.

It’s difficult to fathom that MSU students are disapproving of an anti-sexual assault message. Perhaps it would have been a good idea to choose a different messenger.

Read the full article.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

King Obama.

It’s getting so bad that more and more scholars are joining in with left-leaning law professor Jonathan Turley in expressing outrage over President Obama acting like he can do whatever he wants with this nation and completely ignore the laws and the Constitution of this land.

The latest to join the chorus is Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman, who penned an op-ed in the New York Times regarding Obama’s declaration of war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.KingObamaSlider

“Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris,” Ackerman notes. He goes on to argue that:

Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written. …

Mr. Obama may rightly be frustrated by gridlock in Washington, but his assault on the rule of law is a devastating setback for our constitutional order. His refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing.

… for now the president seems grimly determined to practice what Mr. Bush’s lawyers only preached. He is acting on the proposition that the president, in his capacity as commander in chief, has unilateral authority to declare war.

In taking this step, Mr. Obama is not only betraying the electoral majorities who twice voted him into office on his promise to end Bush-era abuses of executive authority. He is also betraying the Constitution he swore to uphold.

The Mint Press News reports there are other professors chiming in on the same topic, such as Robert Chesney, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, who told the Daily Beast Obama’s claim of authority to bomb ISIS targets in Syria was “on its face” an “implausible argument.”

Despite my personal desire to bomb the hell out of ISIS, we must as a nation follow our Constitution. And we must demand the same of our president. And now, as more and more liberal professors voice consternation at this president’s “imperial hubris” – perhaps we can finally force Mr. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone” to follow our laws through public humiliation and unrelenting pressure.

Click here to LIKE The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter – click here.

Via Boise State Public Radio: American workers aren’t happy. Despite President Obama’s assurances (“By almost every measure we are better off now than we were when I took office”) a Rutgers University survey details the public’s economic pessimism:

Heading into the Labor Day weekend the American labor force is not all that happy. There are various signs that the U.S. economy is on the mend but a new survey from Rutgers University found two of three Americans have felt no improvement over the last year and only about one in four expect things to get better in the year to come [my emphasis].

Notwithstanding NPR’s not-so-veiled administration cheerleading (“Private employers have added nearly 10 million jobs in recent years, unemployment has fallen to just above 6 percent,” etc.; Americans have “even less faith in giving congressional Republicans control of the economy”), several average citizens offer why they are, and remain, wary:

ROBERT STOVEKEN: In the last six years I’ve switched jobs three times and I’m not making more money than it did three years ago and not as much as I did six years ago.

HORSLEY: Once more Stoveken worries the economy won’t be much better by the time his high school aged daughter enters the job market a few years from now.

STOVEKEN: She’s going to go to college and get a degree in something that she’s probably not going to be able to get a job in, you know. I want her to follow her dreams but I don’t think the dreams are going to be a good paying job.

Read the full article here.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: 401K/Flickr

The former Michigan governor whose leadership oversaw a severe economic downturn, skyrocketing unemployment, Detroit’s emerging bankruptcy, and the meltdown of the automotive industry, is now a professor specializing in job growth.

This fall, Michigan’s former Democratic Gov. Jennifer Mulhern Granholm is teaching a graduate course focused on “creating jobs through better government policies,” the class description states, adding “it is designed to help to launch the American Jobs Project at UC Berkeley.”

Yet as governor from 2003 to 2011, Michigan’s unemployment rate soared from 6.6 percent at the beginning of Granholm’s term up to 14.2 percent in 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

When she left office, the unemployment rate languished at 11 percent. The national average at the time was 9 percent.GranholmInside

Michael LaFaive, director of Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative and economist at the Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy, told The College Fix that “creating American jobs is not what she did during her tenure.”

“In fact, she presided over one of the largest economic declines in Michigan history and herself fled the state in search of employment,” LaFaive said. “Michigan, during her tenure, had the distinction of one of the highest unemployment ratings in the nation, one of the highest population declines, and being the only state in the union with negative economic growth.”

Granholm did not respond to requests by The College Fix on Wednesday and Thursday seeking comment.

The course description states “the American Jobs Project will focus on a bottom-up strategy of stoking jobs policy in the states, designing the road-map for each state to create innovative energy job clusters in the advanced energy and manufacturing job sectors.”

LaFaive said he questions her ability to teach successful job growth strategies.

“I wonder if she will be able to get up and talk about her tenure as governor and support her assertions with anything approaching empirical evidence,” LaFaive said in an interview with The College Fix. “In fact, you could argue that her participation in this class would be as the counter-example of what not to do.”

In addition to job growth, the course aims to assist politicians with the rollout of new environmental protection rules.

“The class will coincide with the rollout of EPA rules regarding CO2 emissions, wherein states must formulate state-specific plans for cutting carbon pollution,” the guide states. “The final state-based reports will be delivered to candidates and office-holders of both political parties in each of the states.”

“Customized innovative policy recommendations” based on “state-specific research” will be outlined for 10 states, possibly including Michigan. Other potential states include Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia or Illinois.

In her keynote speech at the 2013 Ted Conference, Granholm outlined her plan of a “Clean Energy Jobs Race to the Top” through investing in alternative energy, similar to the course description of the “American Jobs Project.”

Granholm served as Michigan’s 47th governor prior to joining UC Berkeley as a professor. She also held a role advising the soon-to-be President Obama’s transition team in 2008-09. She studied political science at UC Berkeley before going to Harvard Law School.

At the Goldman School of Public Policy, Granholm is listed as “Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy” and will make $84,300 for teaching the “American Jobs Project,” the only course she is scheduled to teach in the fall semester, according to an online database of public salaries. The two previous years she earned about $150,000 per year, the database shows.

In spring 2014, Granholm co-taught a similar course that focused on “creating jobs through better government policies for innovation and education.” Previously, Granholm taught a course titled “Governing during Tough Times” in fall 2013.

In fall of 2012, Granholm also taught a special topics course titled “The Legal Journalism Practice Project,” while at the same time her husband, Dan Mulhern, taught a course called “Holistic Leadership,” which he also taught in spring 2014.

College Fix reporter Derek Draplin is a student at the University of Michigan.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: Main – NHN_2009/Flickr

Today’s Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the president of (the Christian) Eastern University is being criticized by a group of almost 800 alumni because of his signature on a letter to President Obama requesting a religious exemption from a recent executive order.

That order forbids federal contractors “from discriminating in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation, with no exemption for religious groups.” The College Fix’s Greg Piper reported yesterday on the effects of the president’s order.

The Inquirer notes:

Robert Duffett, president of the Christian university in St. Davids, says Eastern does not discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender students or employees. He signed the petition, he says, because the school supports the separation of church and state.

“This means no government has the right to determine theological views and practices of religious institutions,” Duffett wrote in an e-mail to alumni, employees, and students who objected to his signature.

Ryan Paetzold, a 2007 Eastern graduate and director of the alumni group OneEastern, said nearly 800 people had signed a letter to Duffett asking him to withdraw his signature.

“We were really shocked by this,” Paetzold said.

He questioned Duffett’s argument about the separation of church and state.

“We’re confused,” he said. “We don’t believe the right to discriminate has any bearing on that.”

Paetzold went on to take issue with Duffett’s claim that Eastern does not discriminate, citing a section in the faculty handbook about termination due to “moral turpitude.” “Homosexual conduct” is listed as an example of such.

Duffett counters that “heterosexual sex outside of marriage” is also listed, so there’s no discrimination. “We’re trying to be evenhanded on that,” he noted.

Read the full article here.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: Ian Britton/Flickr