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.
LJC,
I sent a reply to you, also lost in space. Sorry that you were disrespected for having a disability. That is horrible. Many other people have had terrible things happen to them. We can’t just go by our own experience, but must understand what is happening in the society as a whole.
Mike A. I hope that is a joke question because it wasn’t nasty.
LJC, Snowden’s revelations make it quite clear that activists are targets of this govt. Many people who have protested have been treated horribly-beaten up and you remember the spraying during OWS. I actually know people with large files! Chelsey Manning was tortured and jailed for a real long time. Snowden is in fear of his life. Glenn won’t come back into the US. Many people can’t get through our airports.
I’m glad nothing overt is happening to you, but you must be aware that bad things happen to many, many other people.
Jill, I am very low ranked so maybe they don’t bother with the plebians but I have been a part of Occupy and the NSA protests and Planned parenthood rallies, and sign petitions, make phone calls, including to the white house repeatedly against the NSA, against the drones, a lot of against things the president has done, is doing, or it appears he will do, (agreeing to teh “grand bargain” as one example that immediately comes to mind, despite having been a foot soldier for Mr. Obama in both elections. No one to my knowledge has been bothered by the government, (although 3 of Mike Fitzpatrick’s office staff came out when we protested in front of his Doylestown office and was horrendously nasty about the fact that I have a disability)
(Now who knows maybe I have a gigantic file with the FBI, homeland security, etc)
Anonymously Yours 1, December 4, 2013 at 5:25 pm
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….
===============================
Ok.
The one party system is subservient to epigovernment.
The two circuses posing as opposing parties do not change the directives of the epigovernment.
We could have two presidents at once from each circus and that would not be enough to change the dynamic.
Yes, one party in the circus has better ideas than the other, often extremely better ideas.
But they do not trickle up to the epigovernment, and frankly, they do not often even trickle up to the circus party members of government either.
And when they do, it is vain.
This is a clear and present danger.
A very real danger.
Sorry, Jill. I don’t know how to rescue posts. Is it really nasty?
Evidently, knowledge of the formation of the Democratic party is too dangerous to possess! Still can’t get the response to post. It won’t even go through the first step in posting.
The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party or Jeffersonian Republicans was the political party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791-93. It stood in opposition to the Federalist Party and controlled the Presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1824, during the First Party System. It split after the 1824 presidential election into two parties: the Democratic Party and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party, some of whose adherents eventually helped to found the modern Republican Party).
Most contemporaries called it the Republican Party. Today, political scientists typically use the hyphenated version while historians usually call it the Jeffersonian Republicans, to distinguish it from the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854 and named after Jefferson’s party.
The organization formed first as an “Anti-Administration” secret meeting in the national capital (Philadelphia) to oppose the programs of Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson needed to have a nationwide party to counteract the Federalists, a nationwide party organized by Hamilton. Foreign affairs took a leading role in 1794-95 as the Republicans vigorously opposed the Jay Treaty with Britain, which was then at war with France. Republicans saw France as more democratic after its revolution, while Britain represented the hated monarchy. The party denounced many of Hamilton’s measures (especially the national bank) as unconstitutional.
Can’t get a comment back in to Mike A. Could someone try grabbing it?
Nope, I can’t even get part of my comment in!
let’s try with no quotes but it’s from wikipedia The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party or Jeffersonian Republicans was the political party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791-93. It stood in opposition to the Federalist Party and controlled the Presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1824, during the First Party System. It split after the 1824 presidential election into two parties: the Democratic Party and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party, some of whose adherents eventually helped to found the modern Republican Party).
Most contemporaries called it the Republican Party. Today, political scientists typically use the hyphenated version while historians usually call it the Jeffersonian Republicans, to distinguish it from the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854 and named after Jefferson’s party.
The organization formed first as an “Anti-Administration” secret meeting in the national capital (Philadelphia) to oppose the programs of Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson needed to have a nationwide party to counteract the Federalists, a nationwide party organized by Hamilton. Foreign affairs took a leading role in 1794-95 as the Republicans vigorously opposed the Jay Treaty with Britain, which was then at war with France. Republicans saw France as more democratic after its revolution, while Britain represented the hated monarchy. The party denounced many of Hamilton’s measures (especially the national bank) as unconstitutional.
Here’s part of my comment, from wikipedia:
“The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party or Jeffersonian Republicans was the political party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791-93. It stood in opposition to the Federalist Party and controlled the Presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1824, during the First Party System. It split after the 1824 presidential election into two parties: the Democratic Party and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party, some of whose adherents eventually helped to found the modern Republican Party).
Most contemporaries called it the Republican Party. Today, political scientists typically use the hyphenated version while historians usually call it the Jeffersonian Republicans, to distinguish it from the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854 and named after Jefferson’s party.
The organization formed first as an “Anti-Administration” secret meeting in the national capital (Philadelphia) to oppose the programs of Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson needed to have a nationwide party to counteract the Federalists, a nationwide party organized by Hamilton. Foreign affairs took a leading role in 1794-95 as the Republicans vigorously opposed the Jay Treaty with Britain, which was then at war with France. Republicans saw France as more democratic after its revolution, while Britain represented the hated monarchy. The party denounced many of Hamilton’s measures (especially the national bank) as unconstitutional.”
Could someone grab my comment to Mike A. please? Thank you.
LJC, If you look at the dirty deeds of this government towards those who protest whether in occupy or for other unapproved causes, the govt. knows how to make people think twice before they utter a peep of protest.
Our populace is particularly propagandized, thus ignorant in the face of great danger. However, the government would not need to both propagandize and terrorize its own population if it was not afraid of us getting together to peacefully oppose their unjust powers.
Obama has violated the Constitution as much or more than Nixon or Bush ever did. He is 100% controlled by Wall Street and by the CIA. We cannot afford 3 more years of a president who is a puppet of Wall Street and CIA criminals. Impeachment is the proper and Constitutionally provided remedy. Democrats more loyal to the founding principles of the Democratic party and to the American people than to their Wall Street controlled party leadership should join with Republicans to impeach this president.
Mike A.,
It is not incumbent on the people who do not believe in the fake two party system to be a part of that pretense. Nader was in the race because there are people who actually want something better and different. There are many many assumptions in your argument. 1. that we cannot have another party and people should not want that (see wikipedia info below about that) 2. that Gore would have been an excellent president 3. that Gore didn’t win, which he did, He didn’t fight very well though. That’s an awful lot of ifs. We can just go ahead with what actually happened.
By 2007 people were sick of Bush and his lawless policies. Had people kept faith with the belief that wars of empire, torture and wrongful imprisonment, along with mass surveillance and banking industry give aways were wrong, we could possibly have turned this nation around. Instead, too many people refused to fight for our nation in the same way that you correctly point out, Congress has not been fighting either.
We can not just stand by and let this nation go down. The wikipedia article on the Democratic party’s origins shows people going to the mat for their beliefs. Some of those people were complete scoundrels and some were not. But none of them backed off a fight.
“The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party or Jeffersonian Republicans was the political party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791-93. It stood in opposition to the Federalist Party and controlled the Presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1824, during the First Party System. It split after the 1824 presidential election into two parties: the Democratic Party and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party, some of whose adherents eventually helped to found the modern Republican Party).
Most contemporaries called it the Republican Party. Today, political scientists typically use the hyphenated version while historians usually call it the Jeffersonian Republicans, to distinguish it from the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854 and named after Jefferson’s party.
The organization formed first as an “Anti-Administration” secret meeting in the national capital (Philadelphia) to oppose the programs of Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson needed to have a nationwide party to counteract the Federalists, a nationwide party organized by Hamilton. Foreign affairs took a leading role in 1794-95 as the Republicans vigorously opposed the Jay Treaty with Britain, which was then at war with France. Republicans saw France as more democratic after its revolution, while Britain represented the hated monarchy. The party denounced many of Hamilton’s measures (especially the national bank) as unconstitutional.”
Anonymously Yours 1, December 4, 2013 at 7:15 pm
…
In Kentucky the diebold machines were rigged to count votes to favor the GOP… If I recall some were actually convicted for voter fraud…
…
=========================
That was the conspiracy theory advanced by the government.
The jury convicted:
(Election Conspiracy Theory Confirmed?). Approximately 25% of government prosecutions are based on a conspiracy theory of the case.
Jill, I disagree. Studies I’ve read indicate that approximately 60% of Green Party voters would have voted for Gore if Ralph Nader had not been in the race. That would have been more than enough, even if Pat Buchanan voters had all swung to Bush.
I watched the C-Span replay of the hearing in its entirety last night. I found Prof. Turley’s testimony and responses to be measured, reasoned, forceful and deadly accurate. However, I also came away with the feeling that the committee members from both parties were more concerned with partisan positioning than with examining the very serious issues raised by the witnesses. Indeed, for the most part committee members appeared to be doing their level best to prove the truth of Michael Cannon’s observation that neither political party is particularly distressed over presidential overreaching unless the President happens to be a member of the opposition party.
Democrats, when any of them were actually in the room, treated the proceedings with vague contempt, assuming without argument that the hearing was simply another Republican effort to criticize Pres. Obama. On the Republican side, Rep. King, although unwilling to voice the “I” word, seemed intent on developing a laundry list of potentially impeachable offenses. Rep. Merino thought it important to mention the financial burdens he has assumed by foregoing his “lucrative” law practice for the good of the nation, although given the number of days Congress is actually in session and its minuscule legislative output, I should think he could simultaneously maintain his regular case load. Rep. Gohmert was his predictable self, incoherent and inconsequential. Rep. Farenthold virtually begged the experts to tell him what Congress can do to regain its relevance. And Rep. Franks? Please, if I hear one more person describe filling vacant judgeships in the D.C. Circuit as court “packing,” I’m gonna lose my lunch.
What I found particularly annoying, however, was that the members seemed content to portray themselves as victims of presidential tyranny, as though henchmen from the Oval Office are sent out each morning to shake down Congressmen for their lunch money. The truth is that the legislative branch has been turning over its lunch money to the President on a daily basis for years. The imperial presidency did not emerge overnight. We’ve been treated to propaganda about signing statements and presidential prerogatives and the unitary executive for more than a generation.
Congress has been more than willing to gradually cede more authority to the President because it enables representatives to avoid that which they fear most, accountability. A vote not taken is a position that need never be defended. A war undertaken but undeclared permits blame for disaster to be laid at the President’s front door. The passage of sketchy bills with blanks to be filled in by nameless bureaucrats in nameless agencies gives Congress cover even for bad legislation. A filibuster, in the end, is merely a device to avoid having to make a decision, and decisions can be so difficult to explain during re-election campaigns.
Members of Congress are not victims of an imperial presidency because, after all, they created it. All of the hand-wringing yesterday will produce lots of talking points and veiled threats of impeachment. But the critical issues raised by Prof. Turley and the other witnesses will not receive the consideration they merit.
Mike A., That theory has already been disproved by vote counting. The film, “An Honroable Man” has details about this but there are completely independent analysis of this issue. It was not about third party votes.
Dredd, You assume Kennedy was on the side of the people. I do not. In his library, his tapes (just like Nixon he had secret tapes) have been put in the public domain. On these tapes you here Kennedy and various agency people discussing, laughing about who they killed and who they would kill next in Central and S. America.
If you are saying that any person who goes against the system takes a risk of their life, I agree. That is also true of ordinary people as we have seen in OWS, Chelsey Manning, Edward Snowden, etc. If we won’t act because we are in danger, we will never act. This is a very dangerous governing class. No one opposes them without risk. That is why I believe in peaceful, mass, resistance. If a president wanted to join in, they would be welcome. No one is safe under the current regime accept lackeys and people who don’t question or rock the boat.
Jill, I was at the rally against the NSA spying. Small turnout, people just don’t want to get involved. I think that is part of why Occupy seems to be pretty much gone.
nadir:”the lowest point; point of greatest adversity or despair” (Dictionary}.
Mike A,
While I generally agree with you, in this matter, I don’t think it would have mattered if gore had won in a landslide which I think he did…. If you recall dan rathers demise was predicated on the calling of the election for gore…. That’s my opinion…. Furher Ohio was the key elector vote to decide the Kerry/Bush… . If I recall Taft assisted in voter fraud…. In Kentucky the diebold machines were rigged to count votes to favor the GOP… If I recall some were actually convicted for voter fraud…
Mike Appleton 1, December 4, 2013 at 6:52 pm
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.
=========================
All we can do is vote for nadir.
The rest is fantasy and denial.