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.
Jill 1, December 4, 2013 at 5:27 pm
Dredd, I believe a president can help to change the system and that a third party vote in the last election would have made a difference.
For one thing, it would have been a really in your face speaking up to the party that the people do not accept business as usual. The oligarchy is frightened of that. If they weren’t they would not need to propagandize people so thoroughly into continually voting for the same business party over and over again.
Also, although one person cannot by her/himself change the system. Voting for a person who wants to work with other citizens to do so is a much better option than voting for a person who is destroying your society from the inside out.
=========================
How did that work out for Kennedy?
The third party vote in Florida in 2000 is precisely what produced the mess that resulted in the Supreme Court giving the election to George Bush. The race was close enough to begin with, but Nader pulled enough Gore voters to change the outcome.
Star Trek
‘ and the project was discontinued because it had no “operational value,” he (NSA Director Keith Alexander) said.’
Wasn’t it at that same hearing that Alexander admitted he’d lied at a previous hearing? Rhetorical question … yes, it was Alexander who admitted he lied during an earlier hearing. The guy has zilch credibility unless he’s speaking Klingon to trekkies at a Star Wars convention.
In other words, of course they’re still tracking … “Collect It All” is his motto.
Anon Posted,
Thanks for those links and excerpts. I thought that Alexander quote was quite chilling. Not that I don’t think they are tracking everyone right now but that quote just got to me!
Cell phones are tracking devices that accept texts and calls!
From the Washington Post article by Gellman / Saltani (link provided above):
Excerpt:
“The possibility that the intelligence community has been collecting location data, particularly of Americans, has long concerned privacy advocates and some lawmakers. Three Democratic senators — Ron Wyden (Ore.), Mark Udall (Colo.) and Barbara Mikulski (Md.) — have introduced an amendment to the 2014 defense spending bill that would require U.S. intelligence agencies to say whether they have ever collected or made plans to collect location data for “a large number of United States persons with no known connection to suspicious activity.”
NSA Director Keith Alexander disclosed in Senate testimony in October that the NSA had run a pilot project in 2010 and 2011 to collect “samples” of U.S. cellphone location data. The data collected were never available for intelligence analysis purposes, and the project was discontinued because it had no “operational value,” he said.
Alexander allowed that a broader collection of such data “may be something that is a future requirement for the country, but it is not right now.”
The number of Americans whose locations are tracked as part of the NSA’s collection of data overseas is impossible to determine from the Snowden documents alone, and senior intelligence officials declined to offer an estimate.”
ACLU Press Release: NSA Analyzing Cell Phone Location Data Globally
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/nsa-analyzing-cell-phone-location-data-globally
December 4, 2013
NEW YORK – The NSA is tracking the locations of a huge number of cell phones around the world, according to an article published today by The Washington Post. The report, based on documents from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, says the agency is analyzing the movements of many millions of cell phones worldwide, including those belonging to Americans travelling abroad. Catherine Crump, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, had this reaction:
“It is staggering that a location-tracking program on this scale could be implemented without any public debate, particularly given the substantial number of Americans having their movements recorded by the government. The paths that we travel every day can reveal an extraordinary amount about our political, professional, and intimate relationships. The dragnet surveillance of hundreds of millions of cell phones flouts our international obligation to respect the privacy of foreigners and Americans alike. The government should be targeting its surveillance at those suspected of wrongdoing, not assembling massive associational databases that by their very nature record the movements of a huge number of innocent people.”
Dredd, I believe a president can help to change the system and that a third party vote in the last election would have made a difference.
For one thing, it would have been a really in your face speaking up to the party that the people do not accept business as usual. The oligarchy is frightened of that. If they weren’t they would not need to propagandize people so thoroughly into continually voting for the same business party over and over again.
Also, although one person cannot by her/himself change the system. Voting for a person who wants to work with other citizens to do so is a much better option than voting for a person who is destroying your society from the inside out.
Dredd,
Please explain…. I’ve reread your post to me and its compound. If this is your point… That if we vote outside the system in place our vote will be pointless….
One can hope that individuals can make a difference. Susan B. Anthony…. The Vanderbilts…. Made significant contributions…
Everyone makes a difference even if they subscribe to one philosophy…. Hitler, Hess, Budda etc made differences….. Apparently you just have to pick your poison….
I used to be a straight party person…. I didn’t like it when the GOP stalled Clinton….. I didn’t like it when Bush became the imperial president… Nor do I care for Obamas rendition of the Bush years…..
He was supposed to make a difference…. I won’t be juvenile and contest his legal status or residency….. He is the CiC he should follow the rule of law as well as uphold his oath of office….
New Washington Post articles by Barton Gellman and Ashkan Soltani about location tracking:
NSA tracking cellphone locations worldwide, Snowden documents show
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-tracking-cellphone-locations-worldwide-snowden-documents-show/2013/12/04/5492873a-5cf2-11e3-bc56-c6ca94801fac_story.html?hpid=z1
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/how-the-nsa-is-tracking-people-right-now/634/
Blouise 1, December 4, 2013 at 1:27 pm
AY,
I’m a Nader voter … I feel your pain
=======================
We are all nadir voters, we feel our pain.
Anonymously Yours 1, December 4, 2013 at 1:29 pm
Blouise,
I have often said I was one of the few that voted for Nader….. And this last time Jill…. We need better options ….
======================
Counselor, doesn’t that presume that our vote outside the one party (“the business party”) composed to two competing samenesses will have a positive effect?
That is, that an individual president can change “the system?”
I find this all very frustrating. I watched the entire hearing, and I was very impressed with the discussion and the witnesses’ perspective and insights. Of course, some Representatives, on both sides, took the hearing as a mere partisan opportunity to either attack or defend the President and his policies, rather than engage in meaningful discussion about the separation of powers. However, overall it was a very good hearing on an important constitutional issue that must be addressed. Impeachment was only briefly mentioned, and I don’t recall hearing any Representative directly calling for the President’s impeachment. Steve King, a Representative I generally detest, even approached the subject with a certain degree of tact and within the context of constitutional limitations on executive power.
Unfortunately, the vast majority will never watch this hearing or read the witnesses’ written statements. Far more people will read Mr. Milbank’s distorted portrayal. I acknowledge that this is an editorial piece, not straight reporting, but it is aggravating that op-ed pieces like this are becoming the filter to our national dialogue. How can we meaningfully address these constitutional issues when the conversation is so intentionally distorted?
Jonathon, I’m generally a big fan of yours, but in this case you made a dumb statement and should just admit it.
So many interesting posts.
First Mr Turley, you done good. Keep up the good work you do for the wonderful document we call the Constitution.
Bill Clinton impeachment – He admitted lying in front of a United States court of law. I don’t care what the reason. He broke his oath to uphold the constitution when he lied.
TEA party. Obviously there are many on this blog that do not like the TEA party. So what, grow up. Any Congressman or Senator that was elected under such a banner has as much right to sit in Congress as your favorite. These are called disagreements between people. And we do have a way to overcome idiots in office. It’s called an election and it’s held every two years for Congressman, 6 years for Senator, and 4 years for a President.
Obstructionist Repos. So what. They feel the direction our country is going in is wrong and the only way they can make a change is to oppose whatever law comes up that takes the United States further down the wrong path (wrong according to them). That’s how it’s supposed to work. No heads of departments? Tough. No Judges? Tough. Elect a new Senator the next time there is an election for such.
The story of our day is not racist Repos (tho there may be some) or socialist Demos (tho there may be some, and there are probably as many racist Demos as socialist Repos as well). The story of our day is our president that says he can kill anyone anywhere he wants if he thinks said person is an imminent threat. Keep in mind imminent means what he says it means, not what the dictionary says it means. Oh, and if a few innocent civilians are near the person targeted and also die? Sorry, you shouldn’t have gotten so close to someone we targeted in secret. The story of our day is the NSA reading all your documents in violation of the 4th amendment to the Constitution. The story of our day is our government spending $ trillions of borrowed money and then not authorizing debt payment in a timely manner, or authorizing a fair tax system to pay for everything everyone wants (and I want it now).
Grow up! Our constitution and country is in peril and too many people grouse about racist TEA party people.
“BOTH seem to think that when their team spies, tortures, delays justice for years, incarcerating people without due process and of course, acts of aggressive war are NEVER impeachable when their team captain does it. It is classic partisan loyalties.”
Max, you DO grasp that “Extraordinary Rendition” (which term covers the vast majority of your commentary, there) was initiated not by Bush, but by Clinton. Seriously. While you’re there, search on “Project Echelon”, which was the Clinton term for eavesdropping on the communications of American citizens.Amazing how many things were A-OK with the media when Clinton was doing them, but they were — GASP! Shocked! Shocked, I say!! — when Bush continued the procedures.
And one of the chief questions, here, is whether or not non-citizens have a right to due process. Since The Left has been doing everything possible to destroy the essential limits on Government tied to the Rights of Free Men, it’s amazing how much noise, but little effort, they’ll undertake discussing invasions of them by Teh One, including Fast and Furious as well as the whole IRS abuse scandal.
If a Republican had done these things then Impeachment calls would not be a minor noise in the background, it would be a deafening thunder.
From both parties.
Welcome to today’s liberal media, Mr. Turley.
Those on the other side of the political spectrum have seen this thousands of times (The Libertarian/Statist axis OR the Conservative/Liberal one).
I guess the main question, here, is if you’ll use it as a goad to see if it doesn’t happen a lot more, and thus learn to view the media’s take with a measure of doubt and reproof, or will you simply chalk it up as a one-time thing and never look for it again?
Will you learn to question the view you’re presented, sir?
“What We Should Not Be Thankful for…”
By John W. Whitehead
November 25, 2013
“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”—Daniel Webster
.
…
Thus, while there’s much to be thankful for—the blessings of family, security, food, opportunity, etc.—it’s the things I’m not thankful for that have me greatly concerned about the emerging American police state. So do me a favor. Before you get distracted by the gathering of family and friends and the feasting and the football and the fleeting sense of goodwill and the traditional counting of blessings, take a moment to remind yourself and those around you of the things we should NOT be thankful for this year—the things that no American should tolerate from its government—the things that don’t belong in the “city on a hill” envisioned by John F. Kennedy as the standard for a government “constructed and inhabited by men aware of their grave trust and their great responsibilities.”
Mind you, if we do not push back against the growing menace of the police state now, future Thanksgivings may find us giving thanks for creature comforts that serve only to lessen the pain of having lost our most basic freedoms. In other words, it’s time for “we the people” to heed Abraham Lincoln’s advice and take our place as “the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts—not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
“Is this overreach a danger to the rule of law? Yes it is.” –Jill
And with the breakdown of the rule of law, corruption rises, which takes us back to Juan Cole’s article (for anyone who might have missed it yesterday) and its relevance to yesterday’s discussion.
“Top 10 Ways the US is the Most Corrupt Country in the World”
http://www.juancole.com/2013/12/corrupt-country-world.html
Teaser:
“Why, George W. Bush took millions from arms manufacturers and then ginned up a war for them, and the police haven’t been anywhere near his house.
American politicians don’t represent “the people.” With a few honorable exceptions, they represent the the 1%. American democracy is being corrupted out of existence.”
@Mike Spindell 11:47 a.m.
I was with you until the last sentence or two. It ought to be obvious that Tea Party Republicans do not have much tolerance for establishment Republicans. That’s why they’re primarying so many of them. Tea Partyers consider both establishment Republicans and Democrats a threat to the Constitution and our liberty. They DO hold Republicans accountable beyond just primaries. As Charles Schumer recently pointed out, they have trashed Marco Rubio for supporting the immigration bill that will grant amnesty to several million people who illegally invaded the country or overstayed visas. Similarly, Tea Partyers love Ted Cruz while establishment Republicans hate him as much as Democrats do.
So I don’t agree with you that Tea Partyers will excuse abuse by a president who happens to have an “R” on his jersey. They want a government that lives within the confines of the Constitution – regardless of party affiliation.
“So I don’t agree with you that Tea Partyers will excuse abuse by a president who happens to have an “R” on his jersey. They want a government that lives within the confines of the Constitution – regardless of party affiliation.”
Groty,
Here’s what I know regarding the Tea Party:
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/08/02/tea-party-and-the-myth-of-a-grassroots-movement/
And this:
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/16/tea-party-a-phony-movement-mantled-as-legitimate/
They are as phony as a three dollar bill and are merely corporate shills posing as populists.