Constitutional Law, Courts, Politics, Society, Supreme Court, Testimony

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. Gus wrote: “What the world needs now …. is love … and the elimination of many existing laws… not more layers.”

      Wow! Totally agree with you here.

  4. Kraaken: forgot about that – but hey if you want to adhere to the mode of that poem – you just SAY SO and let everybody know what the policy is ! – Not my decision one way or the other. There is an argument for that of course, but I doubt that the majority of Americans would agree with an open-doors policy now – maybe in 1883 when it was written ?

  7. 2006: “Hillary presumptive nominee.”

    2014: “Hillary presumptive nominee.”

  8. At what point, Veronica, should we remove the Emma Lazarus poem from the Statute of Liberty?

  9. This blog’s commenters represent the kind of thinking I’d like to see in Congress. Not bought and paid for. Not self-serving. Let’s all run!

  12. This is the Georgetown prof., Constitutional scholar, and voter for Obama that I mentioned to you earlier. He is all over the place right now and I’m watching. Share with Mike if you think appropriate.//Mom

  13. annieofwi I think has the right idea. We have lived through five years of a do-nothing congress to the detriment of the American people. SOMEONE has to do SOMETHING. While I realize that the original concept of the founding fathers was three branches of government, separate but EQUAL, I don’t think that they had any idea that a situation such as we find ourselves in today would ever occur. Sometimes when the creek gets jammed with logs, SOMEONE has to throw in a stick of dynamite to break up the obstruction. Of course there is always the ‘moral argument’ namely, ‘is it right to enforce laws that are immoral or unjust on their face’, but we have done so for 240 years so why stop now?

  15. Swarthmoremom… Thanks for the assist. (My point was no one is above the law… though we all break it.) So I will do my best to keep partisanship out of this. When I speak about Obama, it’s only because he is in the hot seat. The hottest yet. The seat hasn’t been ours since Woodrow Wilson sold it to the Fed Reserve,

  16. hogident.”. To the commenter comparing the hearing to the absence of one for Bush, I’d add that the P.A.T.R.I.O.T.A.C.T. was the only unconstitutional event of his term”. So Bush’s 171 recess appointments were contsitutional.

  17. Just got home for lunch and have thoroughly enjoyed (and pretty much agree with) most all of the comments. Wow. Thinkers’ forum… To the commenter comparing the hearing to the absence of one for Bush, I’d add that the P.A.T.R.I.O.T.A.C.T. was the only unconstitutional event of his term, to my knowledge, but we were all so snowed by the 9/11 conspiracy, and the promise it would root out terrorists, that we signed on, In a sense, the Sovereign Rule ruled in favor, though it was clearly not a formal (or informal, for that matter) amendment to the constitution. To those, including the professor, who feel the Judicial Branch plays second fiddle to the Executive, it has been true in the past few billion years that politics put them there, so politics is the debt they bear. Their primary aim is to keep the Legislative Branch from encroaching on the Executive. Terribly unjust, I realize. Such is the tale of one John Roberts – the man who so famously proclaimed, “while it is unconstitutional to require citizens to engage in commerce, it is reasonable to construe that what Congress meant, was…’ (In one sentence he overruled himself and, by usurping the authority of Congress, which did NOT levy a tax, put them in a positioh of having to admit to the citizens that they were being taxed without representation.

    1. hogident wrote: “Such is the tale of one John Roberts – the man who so famously proclaimed, “while it is unconstitutional to require citizens to engage in commerce, it is reasonable to construe that what Congress meant, was…’ (In one sentence he overruled himself and, by usurping the authority of Congress, which did NOT levy a tax, put them in a positioh of having to admit to the citizens that they were being taxed without representation.”

      Nice analysis.

  18. Just saw that 82 percent of democrats support a Hillary run, nick. Jeb is looking better now that Christie is out. Saw Rick Perry on tv the other day. I think he is running and he hates the EPA. I think he must like all those red ozone alerts they have in Texas. Somebody picked some good looking glasses for Perry. He looks attractive and smart.

  19. Swarthmoremom : If a person has served in the military I would assume that they are considered worthy of a permanent visa – that sounds like common sense to me (:>)

Comments are closed.