Academia, Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Politics, Society, Supreme Court, Testimony

House Judiciary Committee To Hear Testimony On President Obama’s Authority To Suspend Or Change Federal Laws

260px-capitol_building_full_viewThis morning I will testify in Congress before the House Judiciary Committee on “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws.” The hearing will address areas where President Obama has ordered the delay or nonenforcement of federal laws. While I happen to agree with some of these policies, I have great reservations about this record and its implications for the separation of powers.

I hope to make it because I am fighting to get over the flu. My greatest concern is not to lose it before live on C-Span. Hopefully, that pained expression on my face will be interpreted as concern for the Constitution and the Republic. Also testifying with me will be Michael Cannon, Simon Lazarus, and Nick Rosenkranz.

Here is the testimony: TestimonyTurley.Faithful.House.Final

65 thoughts on “House Judiciary Committee To Hear Testimony On President Obama’s Authority To Suspend Or Change Federal Laws”

  1. Pingback: House Judiciary Hearing On The President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws

  3. I hope you are fair with your assessment, JT. I just have this odd feeling that when Obama administration says that the justice dept will stop pursuing and punishing marijuana users in states that have legalized its possession, that’s a bad decision. But I thought the GOP was for state’s rights? How about when Obama administration says the military will enforce gay rights for couples, that’s wrong? He should just let GOP run states continue to discriminate as Oklahoma is now doing?

    I am against unfettered executive powers, but when Congress is unable to act and action is needed, where is that action initiated? The GOP was a fighter for executive powers during Reagan and the Bush boys and now they hate what they created. It’s the constant hypocrisy of both parties, but especially the GOP that makes this another carnival act more than a act of Constitutional protection. The GOP has damaged the Constitution by declaring war where none was granted, by allowing torture of ‘enemy combatants,’ by allowing illegal warrantless wiretaps. Where were the GOP clowns when those transgressions were committed? They were saying “Go George, go!” Dems may be spineless weasels, but GOP are hypocritical lying thugs. Thanks for listening….

  5. Paul, that is correct. It could not have gotten this out of control w/o the participation of both parties. So yes, they are both hypocritical.

    Each group has allowed itself powers whose use it then decries when exercised by the “other” party. At least, that is what happens within the ordinary members of the party, along with lower order apparatchicks.

    However, clearly, at the highest levels, party does not matter. This is oligarchy. Not only in the US either, but world wide. Paid supporters of the oligarchy have been successful in propagandizing ordinary people, who still believe it is fine when “their” party does it.

    I feel we must somehow reach the base of these parties to show that we all have to have real principles, not party based, which we apply to every governing official. If the president does it and we like him, it is still not legal. We need to stop liking people so much that no matter what they do, torture, murder, mass surveillance, we are willing to stand up as citizens and say: “STOP”.

  6. Besides Prof. Turley, I like that Michael Cannon guy. All of them are doing a great job.

    Oh yeah, just now while typing, Prof. Turley just gave a fantastic answer.

  7. Thank you Professor.
    I don’t care how hypocritical the DemoRepo or ReopoDemos are. The usurpation of power by our Presidents for the past 50 years is now out of control.

    I don’t care if a Demo gets a backbone or a Repo get a backbone. As long as someone stands up and says enough. The next big trick is to get the major news media to take notice and start reporting.

  9. Dredd,

    I’m in agreement with your statement…..

    Professor,

    Good luck…. Hope you hold it together….. Your the favorite……

  11. Starting 21 minutes late without an apology or excuse. Common, but nonetheless…

  14. One of the Obama policies that the republicans on the Judiciary Committee are complaining about is the one that stops the deportation of children while at the same time they sit on the immigration bill.

  15. If any President does not think a congressional bill is proper he should veto it rather than signing it into law.

    If any President thinks a bill signed into law by a previous President is unconstitutional he should suggest to the DOJ that they challenge it in court.

    Unilaterally disobeying a constitutionally valid law is unsound.

  16. I too have concerns regarding presidential power to modify implementation of a law.

    I just find GOP concern a bit puzzling, considering the seeming support of the GOP for Bush’s broad claims of presidential discretion and authority to modify the implementation of law by way of signing statements.

    So what’s up? Is GOP presidential discretion more constitutional than Democrat presidential Discretion?

  17. Professor Turley says,

    “I was equally concerned about the
    overall expansion of unchecked presidential authority and the relative decline of legislative power in the modern American system. The recent nonenforcement policies add a particularly menacing element to this pattern. They effectively reduce the legislative process to a series of options for presidential selection ranging from negation to full enforcement. The Framers warned us of such a system and we accept it – either by
    acclaim or acquiescence – at our peril.”

    And so it continues….

    Democracy fails, slowly We turned, step by step, inch by inch, We have allowed the 3 branches of government to become the 3 stooges of the Plutocracy.

Comments are closed.