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.
Oops spelling errors, should be “haven’t given in and sold their farms”.
Yes I think you’re right Blouise, Johnson is nothing more than a Tea Party tool. You folks in Ohio did the right thing, we here in Wisconsin are so screwed. SWM, yes Minnesota is doing far better than us. I’m visiting my sister in western Wisconsin (I’m from SE WI) folks up here in the NW have been affected negatively by the silica sand mining for fracking in ND. Some of the farmers haven oven n and sold heir farms to the mining companies and are surrounded by the mines, it’s a terrible situation. Thanks Walker.
** Mike Spindell 1, December 4, 2013 at 11:47 am **
Ya Mike, on target.
Though I now see many other sides engaged in this long term struggle & they are not associated with the Dem/Repub/CMIC & the players most normally think of.
Imagine we’re back in highschool, before that Timeout stuff, 2 guys are hooking it up.
They’re so preoccupied they don’t even notice different groups of gang members have shown up, are watching & are about to join in & kick both of the original boyz azzes.
OT: It’s another beautiful day here. God’s about to let us know we’re still alive. Big storm blows in starting in a couple hours.
(You know you’re alive when you’re half frozen lol )
Blouise, Sounds like a member of the northeast tarrant county tea party. lol
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/right-vs-left-in-the-midwest.html?_r=0 Blouise, Annie: Here is an article about how Minnesota under liberal Gov. Mark Dayton is doing much better than Wisconsin.
AY,
Your slip is showing
Annie,
Feingold’s was the ONLY vote against in the first round.
You have my sincere sympathy knowing you are suffering under that tea party fool, Johnson. What’s your opinion of his stance against pursuing child abusers? Do you think it has anything to do with his old position on the Finance Council of the Catholic Diocese of Green Bay? Creepy, in my opinion.
I enjoy the representation of Sherrod Brown in the Senate and Marcy Kaptur in the House … we kept the Tea Party infection commonly known as “Joe the Plumber” from winning anything in our district.
smallguvguy 1, December 4, 2013 at 11:02 am
Dredd is correct it should be the continuation of… or speeding up of. There is also TEAM BLUE tribalism / it’s OK when our guy does it. I can’t wait for TEAM BLUE to demand the impeachment of Pres. Palin and VP Bachmann when they act as imperial as Pres. Obama.
========================
The Pentagon came after him early on, as they do all presidents they think may not be warmongers, according to an investigative reporter:
(Is Obama Dominated By MOMCOM?). Remembering that the military “spy on everybody everywhere” NSA can be “persuasive” with all the info it has on everyone.
Milbank is an ass, and his misquote of you is par for the course with him. But…you’re lucky he didn’t take on your actual arguments, which are so strained and tendentious as to be embarrassing. For example, do you really think the fact that this DOJ has interpreted the Wire Act — a criminal statute, remember — more narrowly than its predecessors is some kind of abuse of power by Obama? Do you really think the OLC, which issued an analysis supporting that position, is just a pawn in some made power grab? Frankly, Milbank’s quote of you is at least a fair representation of the intellectual vapidity of your arguments.
Not wanting to starve women and children is not the same as not wanting to feed them. They each can work to eat. That is the program of the Republicon Party that I work for here in FL. We preach that each woman in America has the duty to go to work within one month of giving birth. Each daddy has to work since the date of conception. This concept goes further. Each child has to work at age 11 while still going to school and at age 14 during the summers. At age 18 it is Up and Out. No more food stamps or credit cards. If there is surplus food available give it out to the truly needy on Sunday after church at church. We have a motto down here in our Republicon Party. Praise the Lard and Pass The Ammunition. Let others wallow in Watergate.
The problem that arises here is that Jonathan’s testimony and others, directly confronted the greatest threat to this country which is the rise of the Imperial Presidency. This trend did not begin with George W. Bush, nor with Barack Obama. It arose with the false exigencies of the “Cold War” and the movement to control our government by the Corporate Military Intelligence Complex. The lines of who is really in charge have been so blurred as to almost be indistinguishable. Jonathan’s testimony hit directly to the heart of the matter in terms of these manifestations of unconstitutional behavior. Unfortunately, there were other agendas operating in this committee and foremost among them was the hatred of Obama by the Tea Party. As Jonathan pointed out there is much to be dissatisfied with in the Obama Administration that affects our liberties, but some on the committee with a different President would most likely be on the other side of the condemnation.
Blouise it seems to me that Professor Turley was sorely used by both the WaPo and the Republicans at the hearing. His testimony was taken, or mistaken as a green light for an impending impeachment attempt by those who want nothing more than to see President Obama gone. When and if they have their Republican President all the anxiety regarding Presidential overreach will have vanished. Our Senator Feingold was one of the few Democratic voices against the Patriot Act, which I was very proud of him for. I understand the necessity to reign in the Executive to it’s correct Constitutional limitations, but it’s so darn frustrating watching this excessively obstructionist Congress in all their glory.
SwM and Annie,
But I do take JT’s point regarding his own testimony.
However, here is his statement to the House regarding the Clinton impeachment … which he favored
http://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/20/clinton-impeachment-testimony-house-judiciary-committee/
On the other hand, let us not forget that he testified against President Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program.
The box into which he fits has nothing to do with the personalities or politics of those who hold the office … his box is the Constitution.
Given his support for the Clinton impeachment … he’s going to find himself more easily placed in the Obama impeachment box than he might wish.
SWM, I “firend” Huckabee on FB to see what he has to say and his lemming like followers. It is the rare post where the comments section do not have calls for impeachment. The right knows that its constituency does not care if there are or are not potential grounds for such an action. They like to bandy about the word and their representatives follow.
But do you do when the congress refuses to do its job and judicial vacancies go unfilled, cabinets go without their heads, etc? The people’s work needs to be done and when there is a vacuum should no one step in?
BillH,
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread….. So long as it’s my king…. He’s ok….
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/04/house_republicans_yearn_to_impeach_obama/You may not know this, but House Republicans don’t like President Obama. Really, they don’t! And as a new piece from the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank shows, the antipathy on the far-right for the president has begun to slowly but surely turn into a growing chorus calling for impeachment.
A prime example can be found in Tuesday’s House Committee on the Judiciary hearing, a spectacle of impeachment innuendo that laid bare Republicans’ current desire to find a way to unseat the president. Iowa Republican Steve King ominously and obliquely referred to “the word that we don’t like to say in this committee, and I’m not about to utter here in this particular hearing.” Texas Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold, meanwhile, said, with evident disappointment, “We’ve also talked about the I-word, impeachment, which I don’t think would get past the Senate in the current climate.”
As Milbank shows, however, Tuesday’s hearing was hardly the only venue where Republicans — in the Senate as well as the House — have mulled aloud impeaching the president:
Amen Blouise! Truer words….
Blouise, Prof. Turley may have the noblest intentions but Goodlatte, King and Gohmert, nah. They are playing to their tea party constituents that want to impeach Obama or worse. Milbank called them out.
Dredd is correct it should be the continuation of… or speeding up of. There is also TEAM BLUE tribalism / it’s OK when our guy does it. I can’t wait for TEAM BLUE to demand the impeachment of Pres. Palin and VP Bachmann when they act as imperial as Pres. Obama.