57 votes

John Cusack Interviews Prof. Jon Turley on the War Against the Constitution

With rare exceptions, this is what has been missing from our national dialogue, the voices of artists and actors who command respect as a result of their talents, weighing in on the vital issues, and showing they are more than a pretty face. Cusack packs some intellectual heft indeed.


a Rubicon line that I couldn't cross, right? 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. - John Cusack

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Nice interview But...

The constant statements that inferred Obama's healthcare and auto bailout were "good" makes me sick.

And this posters statement that "the voices of artists and actors who command respect as a result of their talents" is pure bullshyt. Anyone who respects these people based on there whoredoms in hollywood are beyond ignorant.


Very good article A MUST READ! and share

Very good article

It appears more and more people in both parties are waking up :-)

This is the best time since I can remember for a person with name recognition who cannot be bought to run third party.

great article

or at least it's a start.
love the constitutional analysis.
it's just a shame they don't apply it to subjects like healthcare.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

another reason why the lines . . .

between 'left and right', democrat and republican, conservative and liberal--

need to be erased.

Cusack is doing a good thing here--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Interesting, thanks for

Interesting, thanks for posting.

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

We need to copy this article

And put it on every car with an Obama or Romney sticker.

there's a great desire of many people to relieve themselves...

Turley: ...there's a great desire of many people to relieve themselves of the obligation to vote on principle. It's a classic rationalization that liberals have been known to use recently, but not just liberals. The Republican and Democratic parties have accomplished an amazing feat with the red state/blue state paradigm. They've convinced everyone that regardless of how bad they are, the other guy is worse. So even with 11 percent of the public supporting Congress most incumbents will be returned to Congress. They have so structured and defined the question that people no longer look at the actual principles and instead vote on this false dichotomy.

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

Denise B's picture

I think what you've

indicated as far as the actual poll #'s being completely disconnected with the fact that incumbents continue to get voted back into office is much more an indication of how badly corrupt and co-opted our voting system has become, than anything else.

Simply stated, they are stealing our votes! Corruption in our voting system should be up there at the top of the importance list and something everybody needs to work to find a way to correct. I had suggested Ballot Initiatives in another post to not only try to correct this problem on a state level, but also to help bring the issue front and center in people's minds, where it belongs. But once again, it is something that would require a substantial amount of manpower and funds to accomplish..

Although I am sure that some of what you are saying is also in play, I think that voter fraud is as much, if not more, in play as well and MUST be corrected if we are ever to get back full control of the political arena.

Cyril's picture

Despite many counter examples

Despite many counter examples, being in the movie industry/show biz still doesn't prevent one...

... from using one's BRAIN AND HEART, seemingly, and fortunately.

Thank you for sharing this. That is much encouraging.

If it were not for Cusack's name, I'd have almost thought it was an interview with Ron Paul !

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I just saw this

Another celebrity support. I knew about director Oliver stone, but never saw the video.


Excellent read

my respect for Mr.Cusack, whom I knew merely from movies, has doubled.

This is the kind of reporting

This is the kind of reporting we need in this country!

If John

Cusack is so against Obama and his authoritarian views why didn't he get behind and endorse Ron Paul for nomination?

“The final forming of a person's character lies in their own hands.”

Baby steps my friend, baby steps

we'll make a Ron Pauler out of John-boy yet!

A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.
-- Muhammad Ali

Excellent article. Well worth reading. Also very accurate.

Thanks for posting. Just finished reading 'The End of America' by Naomi Wolf. Also well worth reading.

Yes, a MUST-Read, Friends!

Bumpety - Bump - BUMP
Once you start, you'll keep going....

More from the article:

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.

CUSACK: But yet the speech that Eric Holder gave was greeted generally, by those others than civil libertarians and a few people on the left with some intellectual honesty, with polite applause and a stunning silence and then more cocktail parties and state dinners and dignitaries, back the Republican Hypocrisy Hour on the evening feed — and he basically gave a speech saying that the executive can assassinate US citizens.

TURLEY: That was the truly other-worldly moment of the speech. He went to, Northwestern Law School (my alma mater), and stood there and articulated the most authoritarian policy that a government can have: the right to unilaterally kill its citizens without any court order or review. The response from the audience was applause. Citizens applauding an Attorney General who just described how the President was claiming the right to kill any of them on his sole inherent authority.

CUSACK: Does that order have to come directly from Obama, or can his underlings carry that out on his behalf as part of a generalized understanding? Or does he have to personally say, "You can get that guy and that guy?"

TURLEY: Well, he has delegated the authority to the so-called death panel, which is, of course, hilarious, since the Republicans keep talking about a nonexistent death panel in national healthcare. We actually do have a death panel, and it's killing people who are healthy.

for someone who is well aware of whats been going on

this is still shocking to read. "the most authoritarian policy that a government could POSSIBLY have!"

shiver me timbers...

I'll have to remember that death panel comment, that is gold.

Excellent constituional discussion By Cusack & Turley

Thank you so much--I'm very appreciative that you posted this link.

To all Daily Paul followers--This article is a "Must Read".

Yes its a long article. But it defines lucidly and with great clarity how Obama and his administration have violated and usurped the Constitution to his own ends.

Choice excerpt:

CUSACK: The framers didn't say, "In special cases, do what you like. When there are things the public cannot know for their own good, when it's extra-specially a dangerous world... do whatever you want." The framers of the Constitution always knew there would be extraordinary circumstances, and they were accounted for in the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow for the executive to redefine the Constitution when it will be politically easier for him to get things done.

TURLEY: No. And it's preposterous to argue that.

CUSACK: When does it become — criminal?

TURLEY: Well, the framers knew what it was like to have sovereigns kill citizens without due process. They did it all the time back in the 18th century. They wrote a constitution specifically to bar unilateral authority.

James Madison is often quoted for his observation that if all men were angels, no government would be necessary. And what he was saying is that you have to create a system of law that has checks and balances so that even imperfect human beings are restrained from doing much harm. Madison and other framers did not want to rely on the promises of good motivations or good intents from the government. They created a system where no branch had enough authority to govern alone — a system of shared and balanced powers.

So what Obama's doing is to rewrite the most fundamental principle of the US Constitution. The whole point of the Holder speech was that we're really good guys who take this seriously, and you can trust us. That's exactly the argument the framers rejected, the "trust me" principle of government. You'll notice when Romney was asked about this, he said, "I would've signed the same law, because I trust Obama to do the right thing." They're both using the very argument that the framers warned citizens never to accept from their government.

CUSACK: So basically, it comes down to, again, just political expediency and aesthetics. So as long as we have friendly aesthetics and likable people, we can do whatever we want. Who cares what the policy is or the implications for the future.

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

The man is a rarity in

The man is a rarity in Hollywood. How many others have the intestinal fortitude to tell the truth, even if it costs them dearly.

From the article:

TURLEY: ...Now, belief in human rights law and civil liberties leads one to the uncomfortable conclusion that President Obama has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. But that's not the primary question for voters. It is less about him than it is them. They have an obligation to cast their vote in a principled fashion. It is, in my opinion, no excuse to vote for someone who has violated core constitutional rights and civil liberties simply because you believe the other side is no better. You cannot pretend that your vote does not constitute at least a tacit approval of the policies of the candidate.
This is nothing new, of course for civil libertarians who have always been left behind at the altar in elections. We've always been the bridesmaid, never the bride. We're used to politicians lying to us. And President Obama lied to us. There's no way around that. He promised various things and promptly abandoned those principles.
So the argument that Romney is no better or worse does not excuse the obligation of a voter. With President Obama they have a president who went to the CIA soon after he was elected and promised CIA employees that they would not be investigated or prosecuted for torture, even though he admitted that waterboarding was torture.