Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor and attorney, announced on his blog Tuesday he will be representing the House of Representatives in its lawsuit against the Obama administration. Here's Turley:

As many on this blog are aware, I have previously testified, written, and litigated in opposition to the rise of executive power and the countervailing decline in congressional power in our tripartite system. I have also spent years encouraging Congress, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, to more actively defend its authority, including seeking judicial review in separation of powers conflicts. For that reason, it may come as little surprise this morning that I have agreed to represent the United States House of Representatives in its challenge of unilateral, unconstitutional actions taken by the Obama Administration with respect to implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It is an honor to represent the institution in this historic lawsuit and to work with the talented staff of the House General Counsel’s Office. As in the past, this posting is meant to be transparent about my representation as well as my need to be circumspect about my comments in the future on related stories.

Turley has been an outspoken supporter of both liberal causes and of curbing the growth of executive power. The lawyer has also spoken out recently against the proposed executive order on immigration, calling it a "sad" and "dangerous moment."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/libe...ama_819563.html

Zitat

---

Turley has been an outspoken supporter of both liberal causes and of curbing the growth of executive power. The lawyer has also spoken out recently against the proposed executive order on immigration, calling it a "sad" and "dangerous moment."

---

I would argue it goes beyond being sad and dangerous.

U.S. Constitution Article IV Section 4 states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." Link

The main purpose of even having a government is to protect against invasion....that means keeping a secure border. To say otherwise is clearly unconstitutional.

If our government refuses to adhere to the above article IV Section 4....then we the people should reject our government. If we have to protect ourselves against foreign invasion, (not to mention domestic violence now being aided and abetted by the Executive Branch, i.e., Ferguson, MO) then we the people are left with no choice but civil disobedience to a government which refuses to enforce its own laws. And that's when things really go beyond being sad or dangerous. We are living in perilous times indeed.

That's my 2 cents.