Jonathan Turley with Olbermann on the 14th Amendment (vid link)

[gateley]

(DISCLAIMER: Before you start dismissing this because it's from FDL -- it's what came up when I Googled Turley 14th Amendment -- this is from KO's show and has nothing to do w/FDL except they posted it on their site.)

*I went looking for this because I believe Turley is an acknowledged Constitutional expert, and I'm kind of baffled by some here presuming Clinton is the one who has the final word on this issue. As you'll see, there's more to it than Clinton makes it sound -- and no disrespect to Clinton intended.*

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/06/30/geithner-read-14th-amendment-passage-on-public-debt-to-reporters-last-month/

[DURHAM D]

1. JFTR - Turley's true area of expertise is environmental law.

I enjoy his comments and admire his work but within the profession he is not considered a constitutional expert. In fact, there is a lot of eye rolling when he makes an appearance. I think it is his tendency to speak in absolutes that makes them uncomfortable. But he does make good copy.

On edit - The Con law group tends to be a rather nerdy bunch. I would assume part of the ridicule is the result of jealousy.

[gateley]

2. Some professional association voted him numero uno in 2008,

I think, so I'm not sure how widespread the eye-rolling in the profession is.

You've responded to a couple of my posts on this - in the other one citing that Clinton taught constitutional law for three years (Obama taught it for twelve years). Would you consider Clinton to be a better interpreter of the Constitution than Turley? Not being snarky, sincerely curious.

And, if not Turley (who, from my non-legal/constitutional expertise vantage point think of as a good source), who would you consider to be THE best at understanding/interpreting the Constitution?

And finally :7, in both your posts you prefaced with JFTR -- I don't know what that means -- enlighten me, please. Thanks! :hi:

[DURHAM D]

4. JFTR = Just for the record

I have already responded to your question about Obama v. Clinton in another thread.

As to the best - there are those who teach and those who practice. I am no longer married to one of those who teach so will probably need to get back with you after I get an update. I will say that the conversations I heard most often had to do with court decisions/opinions so they were critiquing reasoning/findings. One Justice that always seem to get a favorable review is Ginsburg. But it is important to note that I don't ever remember meeting a conservative law professor. You might imagine how much they hated Rehnquist, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas (no words to vile for him). Each of them diminishes the court.

I have a comment about Obama and the 14th. His no vote in 2006 and not voting in 2007 and 2008 is one of the reasons I don't think he wants to even think about using it. And, if that is the case, it illustrates why we tend to select our Presidents from the governors pool. It is so hard to get through elections for a higher office without having to eat some of those House or Senate votes. Almost every one (vote) has the potential to derail a bid or be used against you later and is no doubt why Obama missed so many votes over the years.

[gateley]

5. Thanks! I was twisting my brain trying to figure it out!

Yeah, the Not Voting always bugged me, so transparent. That was one of my criticisms of Obama when trying to select who I was going to back (ended up choosing Biden and honestly don't know if I even checked out his voting record other than he was consistently more liberal leaning than most of the others).

The bottom line is, whether it's viable or not, if Obama is not going to pursue that avenue, then that's that. And as far as I'm concerned, that's okay because I don't know whether it would be a good move or not. And ultimately, again, it doesn't matter what I think because I'm not the one voting, damn it anyway!

[ladywnch]

3. I thought he was working as a professor of Constitutional law at some University. n/t