The Washington Post has a controversial take on yesterday’s hearing in its coverage by Dana Milbank. The hearing raised the serious question of a pattern of allegedly unconstitutional actions by President Obama in either barring enforcement of federal law or directly violating those laws. However, the Washington Post only reported on the fact that impeachment was raised in the hearing in the discussion of the constitutional means left to Congress to address presidential abuse. Republicans object that the Post piece misses 99 percent of the hearing detailing the rise of an imperial presidency under Obama and four hours of discussion of the dangerous shift of power in the tripartite system. Impeachment or presidential abuse. It seems that two hearings occurred simultaneously. Both sides appear to be claiming the other is blinded by bias. The Milbank and Republican accounts appear a modern version of the parable of the elephant and the six blind men.
Now, I was the lead witness but I was testifying through the haze of a raging flu. So I went back and checked. Impeachment was mentioned in passing but it was quickly discounted. Indeed, I specifically testified that, as someone who testified at the Clinton impeachment, I did not view such a measure as warranted given the ambiguity of past decisions. Indeed, the references to impeachment were made in the context of the loss of meaningful options for Congress to respond to such encroachments when the President reserved the right to suspend portions of laws and fought access to the courts in challenging such decisions. Yet, the Post simply reported that the word impeachment came up (not surprisingly) in a discussion of the options given by Framers to Congress in dealing with unlawful presidential conduct.
During the hearing, not only did I discount impeachment as an option, but a Democratic member specifically asked the panel about the references to impeachment. No one could remember how it came up but it was clear that no one thought it was a substantial issue — or significant part of the hearing.
It is certainly true that House members have raised impeachment issues previously (just as some Democrats raised impeachment during the Bush Administration). However, it actually came up little in the hearing which was 99 percent focused on the separation of powers and the rise of an uber-presidency under Bush and Obama.
In a discussion of checks on the presidency, impeachment is one of the enumerated options given to Congress. Notably, past judicial opinions involving such separation of powers controversies have also discussed impeachment with the power of the purse as devices given to the Congress. In discussing impeachment with these other powers, courts were not advocating impeachment or suggesting that it was a viable solution in that given case.
I understand that Milbank tries to offer humorous takes on hearings and this is an editorial. I often enjoy his wit. However, it left a rather distortive impression of the hearing that tossed aside hours of substantive discussion of the real problem faced by Congress. Notably, Republicans at the hearing criticized both Bush and Obama for this trend, which I thought was noteworthy.
What was also curious was Milbank’s quote of my testimony. He stated “[t]he majority’s witnesses added to the accusations. George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley said Obama had ‘claimed the right of the king to essentially stand above the law.'” What is missing is that I was discussing the controversy involving James I and expressly said that I was not suggesting that Obama was acting as a King. Rather, I was discussing the so-called “royal prerogative” to stand above the law and how that general controversy motivated the Framers some 150 years later to include the “Take Care” clause. This was later referred to as a “dispensing power” in the context of presidential excesses. This was also part of my written testimony posted earlier. In fairness of Milbank, I was indeed arguing that President Obama had violated the Take Care Clause and was placing himself above the law in these instances. However, in the midst of the impeachment focus of the piece, it seemed to suggest that I was calling for impeachment.
But back to the main thrust of the hearing. The focus in the Post on impeachment (rather than alleged abuses by Obama) left the impression that Republicans are simply all about impeachment. Republicans often complain that it is the Post that is blinded by its own view of Republicans. It bring us to the ancient story of the six blind men and the elephant.
Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, “Hey, there is an elephant in the village today.” They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, “Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway.” All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.
“Hey, the elephant is a pillar,” said the first man who touched his leg.
“Oh, no! it is like a rope,” said the second man who touched the tail.
“Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree,” said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.
“It is like a big hand fan” said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.
“It is like a huge wall,” said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.
“It is like a solid pipe,” Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.
They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, “What is the matter?” They said, “We cannot agree to what the elephant is like.” Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, “All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said.”
“Oh!” everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right.
Obviously, the best way to appreciate the elephant is to see it as a whole.
You can watch for yourself and judge for yourself what the hearing was about in the Judiciary Committee.
“This president’s failure – or any president’s failure – to honor his constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully is not a partisan issue. The fact that presidents from both parties violate this duty is cause not for solace. It is cause for even greater alarm, because it guarantees that presidents from both parties will replicate and even surpass the abuses of their predecessors as payback for past injustices. The result is that democracy and freedom will suffer no matter who occupies the Oval Office.” – Michael Cannon
12/03/2013 @ 9:00AM
Congressional Testimony: The President’s Failure To Execute Faithfully The PPACA
by Michael F. Cannon
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2013/12/03/congressional-testimony-the-presidents-failure-to-execute-faithfully-the-ppaca/
Excerpt:
The concerns I share with you today are not borne of partisanship. Though I have worked for Republicans, I am not a Republican, for reasons that Democrats on this committee can readily appreciate. I am acutely aware of the last Republican president’s failures to execute the laws faithfully. In 2008, though I did not support him, I preferred the Democratic presidential candidate to the Republican candidate in part because he promised to curb such abuses by the executive. I have praised President Obama for doing more than even many libertarians to celebrate the gains in equality and freedom our nation has secured for women, for African-Americans, for gays, and for lesbians.
This president’s failure – or any president’s failure – to honor his constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully is not a partisan issue. The fact that presidents from both parties violate this duty is cause not for solace. It is cause for even greater alarm, because it guarantees that presidents from both parties will replicate and even surpass the abuses of their predecessors as payback for past injustices. The result is that democracy and freedom will suffer no matter who occupies the Oval Office.
The elephant parable is very appropriate to frame the atmosphere of politics and media coverage today.
I would like to point out “The invisible donkey” parable.
Where were the Democrats? I would like to see the dem leadership instructions to the dem jack ass representatives. My guess is simply, STAY AWAY.
This hearing could have been so much more if the rigidly divided and partisan parties had united, for a revealing exposition of separation of powers in the constitution.
If this had taken place with a repub prez in office the dems would still be there questioning the witnesses.
The tenor of Washington politics has been debased to the fanaticism of a bitter sports rivalry. Yankee fans are blind to anything anti-yanks, Boston fans are blind to anything anti-sox.
….. Yet the rivalry and bitterness is the generator of HUGE bucks and attention. Substance weeps. The constitution fades. Our Founders mourn. ,
The Public gapes at the bread and circuses.
Excuse me, I have to go get my 10th beer, my 4th hot dog, and go throw up in the commons bathrooms.
The Christian Science Monitor
“Obama ‘crossed the constitutional line,’ House panel is told”
“Two constitutional law professors told the House Judiciary Committee that President Obama exceeded his authority with unilateral actions on immigration and Obamacare enforcement.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/1203/Obama-crossed-the-constitutional-line-House-panel-is-told
“The focus of the hearing was the constitutional requirement that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
“I believe the president has exceeded his brief,” George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley testified.
“The president is required to faithfully execute the laws. He’s not required to enforce all laws equally or commit the same resources to them,” he said. “But I believe the president has crossed the constitutional line.””
…
“Professor Turley…warned that the structure of the US government was morphing into something the Founding Fathers would not recognize. “I really have great trepidation over where we are heading because we are creating a new system here,” he said.
The constitution does not permit the president to wield expansive powers at the expense of Congress, he said. Turley noted that the president’s expansive exertion of power was coming with the rapid growth of a fourth branch of government comprised of federal agencies that are writing their own regulations.
“We have this rising fourth branch in a system that’s tripartite,” he said. “The center of gravity is shifting, and that makes it unstable. And within that system you have the rise of an uber-presidency.”
Turley continued: “There could be no greater danger for individual liberty, and I really think that the framers would be horrified by that shift because everything they’ve dedicated themselves to was creating this orbital balance, and we’ve lost it.””
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.
Ah, the smell of politics in the morning.
Certain politicians need to be able to go back home and tell their constituents, “I called for impeachment!” And other politicians need to go back home and tell their constituents, “All they are looking for is another blue dress with semen stains.”
As for “Republicans often complain that it is the Post is blinded by its own view of Republicans.” What probably really stings is that the Post’s view is probably the view held by the majority of Americans. Thus the need for rebranding which the republicans are hoping to achieve through these hearings.
But they can’t get past Bush’s 161 signing statements and an impeachment over semen stains.
In other words, no matter the brilliance of JT’s presentation nor the accuracy of his answers, nor his sincere concern for the future of this democracy … a republican led reform of the Executive is hilarious and not taken seriously by anyone … especially republicans.
In a nutshell:
“It is certainly true that House members have raised impeachment issues previously (just as some Democrats raised impeachment during the Bush Administration). However, it actually came up little in the hearing which was 99 percent focused on the separation of powers and the rise of an uber-presidency under Bush and Obama.” -Jonathan Turley
Again: “…the hearing…was 99 percent focused on the separation of powers and the rise of an uber-presidency under Bush and Obama.”
Anyone who believes otherwise needs to watch the hearing again.
I haven’t watched the testimony but I hope there was the context of an obstructionist GOP that has fought every single thing that this president has put forth. To stop appointments and shutdown the government as your process forces extraordinary measures. I daresay when Bush did it it was not because he had a democratic congress that refused to do even the rudimentary work.
(In addition impeachment is “sexy” it gets people to take heed. There is also word count, You cannot restate or quote everything.)
IMO Dana Milbank did a disservice to his paper, readers and himself when he chose to characterize the hearings as an “Impeachment Fest”.
Sure there was partisan grandstanding on both sides by some members of the House, but , upon actually watching the majority of the testimony and questions, the more introspective, critical thinkers amoung the House members seemed to concur that this abuse of executive powers has been on mission creep for a long time, involving both parties and is dangerous to our country’s foundation. The hearing was not about impeachment, it was about how the Congress, specifically the House , can bring balance to and ensure the separation of powers within the US government.
https://www.teapartycommunity.com/event/801/overpasses-for-obama-039-s-impeachment-harrisonburg-va-rally/ Tea Party members in Goodlatte’s district are pressuring him.
“However, the Washington Post only reported on the fact that impeachment was raised in the hearing in the discussion of the constitutional means left to Congress to address presidential abuse. Republicans object that the Post piece misses 99 percent of the hearing detailing the rise of an imperial presidency under Obama and four hours of discussion of the dangerous shift of power in the tripartite system. ”
*******************
In view of the Bush Presidency with its high-handedness and those same Republicans positively giddy about George II, I am left to recall the words of Mary Shelley:
“You are my creator, but I am your master; Obey!”
I watched your appearance at the hearings and you were dead on with your answers and responses as they were presented. It is too bad that people can’t get past each party blaming each other or taking sides and address the questions at hand. The only way we will be able to resolve the major problems this country face is to put aside partianship and resolve the issues and problems.
“Republicans often complain that it is the Post is blinded by its own view of Republicans.”
Pithy words. I would say that much of today’s political discussion, present company mostly excepted, is thoroughly corrupted by each side being blinded by its own view of the other side. “Republicans want to starve women and children” is an utterly ridiculous statement that is made by Democrats all too frequently.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-republicans-see-one-remedy-for-obama–impeachment/2013/12/03/e623d61e-5c65-11e3-be07-006c776266ed_story.html Milbank is right. Many of the members of the committee have spoken openly about impeachment. The tea party’s goal is to nullify the election.
That’s why I referred to it as ‘the second worst paper on earth’…. WaPo has gone from an almost rational, reputation-driven powerhouse when they forced a change at the top of our government to a Rupert Murdoch/Weymouth Family trash heap on the same level – OR BELOW – of ANYTHING Murdoch’s companies delivers worldwide. That’s a stunning plunge… BUT,
HOW can WaPo and Milbank construe what was actually said in context in the hearing, into the short statement attributed to you. ’…Jonathan Turley said Obama had “claimed the right of the king to essentially stand above the law.” Secondly, HOW DID YOU NOT HAVE THE CHANCE TO STOP THIS MIS-REPRESENTATION ??
This explains SOME of the reasons that we’ve seen displayed over the last few years, where information outlets that have flatly refused to have Dana Milbank as a source, others, as in the WaPo case, press him into service of the false narrative. In a hearing as politically charged as one named “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws” under the guise of a republican’s last gasp for ANY fake controversy, WHY would YOU not check the final words as they go to GLOBAL PRESS where Milbank has basically painted YOU as a strong (‘The majority’s witnesses’) advocate and champion of the impeach battle cry.
I’ve witnessed you incensed before. I’ve witnessed you enraged even to the point of having to bite your tongue and walk away from a discussion, but NEVER pigeon-holed into a position of global false witness for the nut house?
I’m still stunned.
[music]
We ….went to the Animal Fair.
The birds and beasts were there.
The old baboon, by the light of the moon,
was combing his auburn hair.
The monkey he got drunk.
And fell on the elephants trunk.
The elephant sneezed, and fell on his knees.
And that was the end of the monk, the monk, the monk.
Amen to Benny White’s commentary. I REALLY appreciated your analysis in front of the committee. Our collective feeling of dread for the trajectory of this country is keeping many of us literally up at night, I am so ashamed that we have allowed this country to dissolve into a socialist experiment, lead by Chicago thug politicians.
I would state that I believe we deserve better, however I am no longer certain of that any longer.
Jonathan,
Your testimony yesterday was brilliant despite your having the flu. You were the reasonable and rational voice. I was impressed with the amount of thought you have put into the nature of our republic and the reasons behind the formation of our form of government and the lack of adequate checks on the unconstitutional acts by the executive.
I hope some of the members take heed of your call for creation of statutory standing for members of Congress to challenge unconstitutional acts of the executive in the federal courts. Care must be taken in describing that authority so that it does not become a mechanism for running to court to resolve minor disputes over policy. However, as the testimony yesterday clearly demonstrated the executive must execute the laws as they are written and has no authority to rewrite the laws to suit his own personal agenda.
“… the rise of an imperial presidency under Obama …” – JT
That would be a very poor read of American History.
An accurate read would be “the continuation of the imperial presidency under Obama.”
Isn’t it amazing when one takes words out of context…. I suppose…..they are in the business of selling newspapers…. And what ever works at the time is paramount….. Did Dewey win…… It has to be so… It was in the news…..