Congress Considers Legislation To Respond To Executive Nonenforcement Of Federal Law

260px-capitol_building_full_viewThis morning I will be testifying before the House Judiciary Committee at 10 am. (I hope to post other stories after I return from Congress this afternoon) The hearing is entitled “Enforcing the President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws” and will explore the options for Congress in resisting the encroachment of executive power. I was critical of such encroachment under Professor George W. Bush and I believe that danger has grown under President Barack Obama. UPDATE: Here is the video link to the testimony.

Once again, it is often hard to divorce the policies objectives of this Administration from the means used to achieve those objectives. However, I believe we are witnessing a dangerous and destabilizing shift in our tripartite system of government. I hold this view despite my agreement with many of these policies.

Below is my testimony for the Committee:

Turley Enforcement Testimony

Jonathan Turley

109 thoughts on “Congress Considers Legislation To Respond To Executive Nonenforcement Of Federal Law”

  1. davidm–

    Proxy’d monies that don’t go into a candidates coffers is a double edged slice an dice of our system.

    It’s improper that those seeking to take the most and pay the least;
    spend the most – to make sure they can succeed at that very thing.

  2. Make no mistake, the problem does not lie with the Republicans or Democrats, but with the people who keep *re* electing them. And lest anyone suggest a lack of choice, there were 13 people on the ballot for president in florida, only one of which was Republican and one was a Democrat.The problem can be found by looking in a mirror.

  3. The Affordable Care Act says that the employer mandates will begin as of January 1, 2014. Neither the president nor anyone else has any authority to alter or delay that date. Yes, the same people who screamed “It’s the law!” when Republicans tried to use proper legal procedure to change the law to delay those mandates are silent as Obama openly violates the law to do the same thing. This is why it’s hard to take any of them seriously.

  4. Justin, Mr. Turley is singing, “I drink alone..w/ nobody else…you know when I drink alone, I prefer to be by myself.”

  5. Excellent segment on Fox News, Professor Turley. It may not ingratiate you with the Washington cocktail party clique, but I can tell you that you are highly respected by the principles and values crowd.

  6. I agree with David, a generic use of the word Corporation as being inherently evil is not reasonable. How about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, are they evil and polluting the world? David’s business is no more destroying the Earth than he is. Corporations are a tax and license entity that is recognized by state, federal, and international laws.

    A corporation cannot act in itself any more than a signed document on a table can. It is the persons who own or are employed by the corporation that do. If those persons act with malice then they should be addressed for this. Surely there are many times where interests within a corporation use the resources of the corporation to do nefarious acts and I can see labelling these with corporations since they are done in the name of the corporation.

    I personally don’t like the excesses and abuses that some corporations are steered into and for practical purposes one probably will use terms calling a particular corporation as being evil as being much easier than trying to find out which individuals in the corporation are misbehaving.

    But through the large amounts of finance and resources large corporations possess they are certainly used to magnify and amplify the will of the few that control them, giving them a much bigger voice or power than they would as just an individual voter, compared with other voters who have less means. That is where the abuses lie therein.

  7. davidm2575:

    I am in the process of verifying the allegations made in the video I posted online at , I’ve nearly completed the hard docs research (so far, the video is accurate, but my historian friends in Europe and I are at an impasse re the history of the Windsors and arousing them to prove or disprove the claims of an unbroken royal blood line, purportedly through King Louis and Marie Antoinette).

    Your references to “corporation” reminded me of the video’s references to same.

  8. We can come together on this when we have a publicly funded campaign system where each candidate gets the same amount of money to run their campaign.

    That way, each voice is heard and the candidate is judged on their merit – not how much money they have to broadcast their message and drown out their opponent.

    1. The Citizens United decision didn’t have anything to do with contributing money to campaigns. Corporations still cannot give money directly to candidates running for federal office. You know that, right?

  9. No David, I am sorry for you that you feel a corporation’s voice is more important than a human beings voice.

    Corporations don’t speak for people. Corporations exist to make a profit.

    The difference between a corporation and a human being is that humans have compassion and empathy – corporations don’t. That is why the oil industry is spreading cancer causing toxins across our once great nation – so they can make a profit and the expense of everyone else.

    When the corporations you speak of are done destroying all the US land, water and air, the average american tax payer will be expected to pick up the bill to attempt to clean up the toxic waste dump left behind by the wonderful job producing corporation.

    1. A corporation’s voice is not more important than a human beings voice. A corporation speaks for the people who are part of that corporation. The voice of the corporation is the voice of people.

      I own a corporation. My corporation speaks for me and all my employees. Why would you want to pass laws to stop my corporation from making videos or placing radio ads that express what me and my employees want to say about an upcoming election?

      My corporation does not destroy land, water, and air. We are not destroying the environment with toxic waste. My corporation is a vehicle that generates money to stop all that nonsense. Me and all my employees pay taxes from the money we earn through the corporation. You have been fed a lot of misinformation about corporations, and it has made you bigoted against corporations. How can we come together on this?

  10. David,

    Citizens United gives the corporations, special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington and it completely destroys the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. Citizens United crushed the Republic.

    It takes power from the people and gives it to the corporations and super wealthy and they are using that power to destroy our environment, our planet, our water, our air, etc. It’s bad for our country.. We are no longer a Republic, we are an Oligarchy.

    1. help america, that is just propaganda from people who hate America. There are a lot of people who hate free enterprise and hate our economic system based upon capitalism. They spread these lies about people who form corporations. Please don’t believe them. I’m sorry that you have been subjected to all their negative speech and been affected by it.

      Corporations are good. They create jobs for people. Corporations provide the mechanism by which to bring common people together to work together. Most people who do not work for government work for a corporation.

      Citizens United is not about hurting the common citizen. It is about helping them. It enables the company that a person works for to speak for them and the rest of the people who work for them about candidates that they like. Citizens United promotes greater democracy by defending the voice of the company you work for.

Comments are closed.