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. If one substitutes the word Constitution, for the word Boomerang, then the song from Australia has some bearing here.
    [music]
    Myyyy Boomerang wont come back!
    My Boomerang wont come back.
    I’m the biggest disgrace to the aborigine race..
    My Boomerang wont come back.

    I can….
    Ride a Kangarooo.
    Yeah man.
    etc

  2. And more hearings while scandal after scandal pile up. America has lost faith in politicians and its government.

  3. SwM,

    President Bush was pretty centralist on the immigration issue but I do believe they, the Republicans, are saving it for Jeb’s run in ’16.

    Gotta remember George W. Bush won in 2004 with 44 percent of the Hispanic vote, something no republican other than Jeb can match. Boehner isn’t going to steal Jeb’s thunder by taking his issue off the table and reforming immigration before Jeb gets to use it to win Hispanic votes and, hopefully, the White House.

    If it’s Hillary in ’16 then the battle will be a royal one … in all kinds of ways. You and I will have a ball poking all the angry white men with a stick.

  4. SwM,

    Michelle Bachmann is just a Karl Rove Neo-Con which had no where to go after GW Nazi Bush so they started pretending to have been something of a Ron Paul want a be & now she almost out the door. Good, take the rest of the Nazi with her!

  5. Why doesn’t Boehner bring the immigration bill up for a vote? A lot of the controversy these republicans are bringing up about Obama’s refusal to go along with the laws on the books with regards to the deportation of children could be eliminated by passing immigration reform. How many votes did they have on Obamacare?

  6. Blouise,

    Notice Professor Turley did not get hung up on My Team is Better Then Their Team/ Divide & Conquer scam, instead he stayed focused on what is the authority granted under the USC in which legislature, executive, and judiciary operate under.

    I wasn’t able to catch all of the hearing yet, but I didn’t hear anyone address the inalienable Rights of the Citizens & the ultimate Authority under which they are required to act. Of course other then the current scam called Electronic Voting/Registration Rigging.

    A few issues I believe the citizens should consider their positions and what action on their part are called for are:

    Public Law 105-85

    Patriot Act,

    NDAA

    PD51 (sic)

    John Warner Defence Appropriations Act.

    etc.

    ie: Some of those issues are not only still International War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity, but are also blatant/intentional violations of the USC, Inalienable Rights,etc…

    Just a couple of examples are GMO crops, Nuclear Power Plants (leaking), vaccines.

    On a side note, if nothing else comes of this hearing perhaps Professor Turley allowed those that attended an excellent opportunity to test their flu vaccine’s effectiveness. lol

  7. The strongest voice of partisanship was the (mostly) absent voice of the Dems.

    To re- requote Professor Turley,

    “The Framers warned us of such a system and we accept it – either by
    acclaim or acquiescence – at our peril.”

    I am curious as to the number of Dems v Repubs that asked questions.
    If someone has a link to a site that has these figures would you please post it. I have much space on my computer yet to be filled. … I even have some empty space between my ears. 🙂

  8. Wow … if this hearing had taken place in 2002, or 2003, or 2004, or 2005 then perhaps, perhaps we stood a chance.

    Of course in order to hold such a hearing during that period and stop the abuses to our civil liberties
    one had to get past the “War on Terror” rhetoric that produced all the verbal charges of traitor.

    When I look back at the initial policies of the beginning of George Bush’s time in office, I see a relatively centrist presidency in the works though there were firm indicators that he had a problem with the First Amendment (attempts at banning flag desecration and the establishment of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which awarded billions in federal funds to religious charities). It is thus not at all surprising that federal law enforcement civil liberties abuses after 9/11 abounded.

    By the end of his presidency, President Bush had issued 161 signing statements affecting over 1,100 provisions of federal law which was more than all former presidents combined. This firmly launched the “unitary executive.” In a practical sense these signing statements acted as direction from the White House to federal officials and agencies to disregard laws passed by Congress.

    On the other hand, President Obama has issued 22 signing statements affecting 87 specified provisions and making six mentions of unspecified provisions of law in 21 Congressional enactments.

    “…take care that the laws be faithfully executed”

    So now we have a hearing and oversight? Too little, too late but just in time for the ’14 and ’16 election cycle to meet the rebranding needs of the Republican product.

    The barn door came off its hinges in 2002, stop trying to pretend otherwise.

  9. As much as I despise both political parties and the greedy tools who make up their ranks in congress, you have to hand it to the GOP when they’re in control they do whatever the he’ll they want, the people’s wishes be damned. The current Congress is what allowing anarchists into politics looks like although I don’t want to sully the reputations of anarchists I know by using that term to represent the lizard – brained thieves in Washington.

  10. Turley is absolutely right. Congress is becoming less and less relevant because of the abuse of Presidential powers by Bush and Obama.

  11. Darrel Issa brought up, Fast &Furious, ACA, and the IRS. I’m surprised he didn’t work Benghazi into his pontificating. The partisanship is leaking out of my TV and stinking up my floor. I think Fox news and Limbaugh supplied 90% of the “facts” the Repubs used. …. OOPs Marino of PA. (R) just mentioned Benghazi !! LOL

  12. Guys like Rep. Marino exude this sanctimony about their concern for the Constitution. He whines (perhaps wines) about his sacrifice of his lucrative law practice to work for the people and the Constitution. Yet his rant was drivel.

Comments are closed.