JONATHAN TURLEY

Testimony of Jonathan Turley
Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, George Washington University Law School

House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution
Hearing on the Background and History of Impeachment
November 9, 1998

INTRODUCTION

Summary: My name is Jonathan Turley. I am a professor at George Washington University Law School where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law. Although I have taught constitutional criminal procedure and lectured on the Madisonian Democracy for years, my views have been most influenced by my litigation in past cases dealing with the separation of powers doctrine, executive privilege, and Article II authority. While the current debate over the impeachment standard can appear arcane and theoretical, these standards have concrete expression in cases involving the lives of average citizens and the conduct of Executive Branch officials. When Congress decides that certain criminal conduct does not rise to the level of impeachable offenses, it is defining a permissible parameter for future presidential conduct. Executive power will fill the space created by any decision of this body………………………………………Page 6

METHODOLOGY

Summary: While I greatly respect the academics on the other side of this debate, I do not believe that there is a basis to exclude the alleged criminal conduct from potential articles of impeachment on any definitional, historical or policy basis. The literature in this area is rich with different theories of constitutional interpretation. There is a danger when these theories are super-imposed on a sparse historical record to advance a claim of clear original intent or restrictive hidden meaning. As will be shown, the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is inextricably linked to the structural function of the House. Impeachment was created as a process by which the public could address serious questions of legitimacy in the Chief Executive and other officers. It was a process by which illegitimacy could be remedied by removal and legitimacy could be redeemed by acquittal. This is why criminal acts committed in office, regardless of their motivation or subject matter, should ordinarily be submitted to the Senate……………Page 9 Continue reading ‘Clinton Impeachment Testimony: House Judiciary Committee’

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
JONATHAN TURLEY
SHAPIRO PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL

ENDING TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION:
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF S. 1257

MAY 23, 2007

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
THE UNITED STATES SENATE

I.
INTRODUCTION

Chairman Feingold, Senator Specter, members of the Committee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the important question of the representational status of the District of Columbia in Congress. At the outset, I believe that it is important for people of good faith to acknowledge that this is not a debate between people who want District residents to have the vote and those who do not. I expect that everyone here today would agree that the current non-voting status of the District is fundamentally at odds with the principles and traditions of our constitutional system. As Justice Black stated in Wesberry v. Sanders: “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.”

Today, we are all seeking a way to address the glaring denial of basic rights to the citizens of our Capitol City. Clearly, this is a matter that is heavily laden with passions from decades of disenfranchisement. However, there is a tendency to personalize the barriers to such representation and to ignore any countervailing evidence in the constitutional debates. In the last Senate hearing, my friend Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton told Senators that if they are going to vote against this bill, “do not to blame the Framers blame Jonathan Turley.” Del. Norton went further to argue that it was “slander” to claim that the Framers intended to leave District residents without their own representatives in Congress. In reality, I have long argued for full representation for the District and abhor the status of its residents. As for claims of slandering the Framers, truth remains an absolute defense to defamation and the record in this case could not be more clear as to the intentions of the Framers. While some may view it as obnoxious (and indeed some at the time held the same view), the Framers most certainly did understand the implications of creating a federal enclave represented by Congress as a whole.

Unlike many issues before Congress, there has always been a disagreement about the means rather than the ends of full representation for the District residents. Regrettably, I believe that S. 1257 is the wrong means. Despite the best of motivations, the bill is fundamentally flawed on a constitutional level and would only serve to needlessly delay true reform for District residents. Indeed, considerable expense would likely come from an inevitable and likely successful legal challenge — all for a bill that would ultimately achieve only partial representational status. The effort to fashion this as a civil rights measure ignores the fact that it confers only partial representation without any guarantee that it will continue in the future. It is the equivalent of allowing Rosa Parks to move halfway to the front of the bus in the name of progress. District residents deserve full representation and, while this bill would not offer such reform, there are alternatives, including a three-phased proposal that I have advocated in the past. Continue reading ‘Testimony: D.C. Vote in Congress (Senate Judiciary Committee)’