I will have the honor of appearing today as part of the confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee for Loretta Lynch, nominee to serve as United States Attorney General. Below is my written testimony for the hearing today.
Here is the full list of witnesses appearing today:
Sharyl Attkisson
Investigative Journalist
David Barlow
Partner
Sidley Austin LLP
David A. Clarke, Jr.
Sheriff
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
Catherine Engelbrecht
Founder
True The Vote
Janice K. Fedarcyk
Fedarcyk Consulting LLC
Stephen H. Legomsky
John S. Lehmann University Professor
School of Law at Washington University
The Reverend Doctor Clarence Newsome
Cincinnati , OH
Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz
Professor Of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies Cato Institute
Jonathan Turley
Professor, J.B. And Maurice C. Shapiro Chair Of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School
Washington , DC
The full committee hearing resumes this morning at 10 a.m. in Committee Room 216 in the Hart Senate Office Building.
Here is my testimony: Statement.Lynch Nomination.Turley Testimony.Senate
I read the entire posting by Turley and can see where he picks his battles. His sort of legal watchdog position is an integral and necessary part of any system of government. As he has stated several times this is not a new occurrence in the Executive part of the government but has had a raised profile during the past years of the Obama administration. That the process in which Turley is involved is a necessary and working part of the very check and balance system intended to keep the machinery of government true to its original design goes without saying. “All three branches are meant to be locked in a type of constitutional synchronous orbit – held stable by their countervailing gravitational pull. If one of those bodies shifts, the stability of the system is lost.”
The unfortunate reality in today’s perversion of the original design is that any one of these branches can also lock the whole into a stall, for political reasons bent on destroying one or two of the other branches only, to the detriment of the people. This has been seen in the performance of the Republican party, most graphically when they caused a halt to government activities by refusing to go along on the budget, but not on issues peculiar to the budget. In other words the Congress under Republican domination held the country hostage until they could have their way. The Constitution and other sacred rules of order can be breached or followed for reasons sacred and not so sacred.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
It is also an instrument that can be wielded by one of the two parties to restrain the other for reasons peculiar to power politics only, without any benefit and indeed to the detriment of the people. The Republican party has been against the ACA from the beginning. Whether or not the ACA has been more of a success than a failure has yet to be determined. Nothing is completely successful or completely a failure, especially at the outset. Poles taken since its inception up to the recent pole of 65% in favor show varying degrees of positive response.
Dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t. The unilateral extension of the date after which insurance companies would not be allowed to sell non-compliant policies was in direct response to the Republican party’s criticism that the original period was not long enough for those insurance companies to comply. Congress specifically criticized the short period of time. Obama worked with Congress. If he had gone back to Congress for approval of this extension, the very extension Congress demanded, Congress under Republican domination would have buried the ACA in unending debate, legal morasses, and done the harm they wished to do to the ACA and the American people. Sometimes, it seems, breaking the rules is in the best interests of the people. This is where the court’s decision regarding the law and the intent of the law comes in.
Again, Turley’s actions are necessary but only pertaining to one facet of how this country is governed. One of the most common themes throughout history and involving almost all nations and peoples is how laws set down in theory can be manipulated, circumvented, or followed to the letter in the best interests of the people or in the best interests only of a minority of the people. The most interesting chapters are yet to come. One might drift back to the Iran-Contra escapades by another great American President.
I’m looking forward to Isaac’s comment.
I look forward to what Sherryl Attkisson has to say about this DOJ. A brave reporter stalked and spied on by the DOJ. That should scare the crap out of everyone in this country.
Bravo! Bravo! I would like to point out one aspect of this superb statement that buttresses JT calling this Administration “Orwellian.” I would love to know if it was added to the statement, obviously prepared over a span of time, just yesterday. I speak of the Bergdahl section of JT’s statement. In it he points out this was a prisoner exchange w/ the terrorist Taliban. Yesterday, right out of Animal Farm, WH Spokesman Eric Schultz declared the Taliban are “not terrorists.” This Administration has jumped the shark, people. This is the most incompetent and corrupt Administration of my lifetime. They are more corrupt than Nixon and more incompetent than Carter.
Karen S,
One way to accomplish this is to have a directly elected attorney general. Several states have this and in my view having such creates a separation with the three branches of government where while the AG of course must adhere to the powers inherent with each of the branches, it offers a greater measure of objectivity. Moreover, the AG in this case is not subject to tethering to an executive as is the case with the federal system presently.
Jill – “For those who say we should have a black woman as attorney general, I agree.” “If you say there is only one black woman in our nation capable of this job, then that is racist.”
Jill, I find your post to be very racist. I know it is too much to ask, but instead of hiring someone to this important position based on their sex and color of their skin, how about we demand the best qualified person?
Professor Turley – congratulations on this great honor, and cogent testimony. You have raised very serious concerns about the direction this government is taking.
Darren – I agree, although how can we make he AG position independent, rather than political?
All Holder appeared to do was ensure the DOJ did Obama’s bidding.
That being said, you coukd have set the politico world on fire, made a point about the DOJ Breaches of Fiduciary Duties and helped to restore the integrity of our judicial processes and electoral processes
If you had just mentioned…in a footnote…the issues of nolle prosequi concerning the racketeering of eToys related cases.
You missed a great opportunity there
LaserDLiquidator,
I am curious about the issue you brought up regarding eToys and the racketeering matter. Is there a link I could look for this? Thank you.
Professor. …I applaud the honor received and the power achieved. Your work this tine was bold, exemplary and spot on.
Your country owes you thanks.
Statement to Congress most illuminating and instructive – an historian’s dream source. Has anyone noticed the deceptive strategy of “kicking the lie down the field”? You tell a lie, knowing that you have “x” weeks or months before it’s “outed”, giving you enough time to shrink it by doing something twice as outrageous in the meantime, or, if not, enough time to figure out a backup lie, providing “automatic renewal”. Yes, eventually it all comes tumbling down, but think of the glorious damage you can do along the way.
Justice Holmes,
Sadly, there are no longer responsibilities, these days. But everything is a right.
Too many people that have no ability to filter between rights, responsibilities, and privileges.
Ms. Lynch said that stopping terrorism in the US was her number one priority. This is thinly veiled code for more surveillance of the population, a further erosion of free speech and the right of the people to demonstrate for the redress of grievances. It is about about executive overreach in the name of “keeping us safe”.
For those who say we should have a black woman as attorney general, I agree. What does not follow is that we should not question whether Ms. Lynch should hold this position.
We should choose a black woman who will uphold the Constitution, to include the Bill of Rights. We need someone who will uphold the rule of law. She is not that person. If you say there is only one black woman in our nation capable of this job, then that is racist. There are many fine black women who would make an excellent attorney general. The fact that Obama can only choose a black woman who is hostile to the Constitution and pro executive overreach tells you how cynical this nomination really is. This nominee is about keeping executive power abuse going and nothing else.
We need a black woman AG who upholds the rule of law. Find her and confirm her immediately.
I don’t know the standards for testimony documents. However if the document were submitted as an academic paper, I would find the innumerable self-citations off-putting (as opposed to citing the deeper sources in those citations themselves). The reference to “Animal Farm” in the conclusion would appear startlingly sophomoric.
This brings up a pertinent question about the role expected of an attorney general in the federal system. Since this is a cabinet position, is the role to be one of executing the president’s policy or that of an independent position?
If the former an attorney general is tasked with crafting their approach to the will of the president. In this respect it would be expected that she / he will carry the policy of the president according to the law as well as the enforcement of the law. It’s priorities will be assigned to align with that of the president’s policies.
On the other hand if this is to be an position independent of the administration then the role of the president in the matter will be that of oversight with less expectation of adherence to a strict policy declared by the chief executive.
It is my belief that an independent attorney general is a better choice however the federal system does not provide this specifically and true objectivity lies with a president’s willingness to defer matters to the discretion of the AG. It becomes rather a matter of faith on the part of the president who wishes to side with the notion of equal protection and the administration of justice.
However as evidenced by the actions of previous presidents and most certainly the current office holder it becomes rather clear that that the office of the attorney general is to be one of strict adherence to the policy will of the president so once could expect that with any nomination of a candidate by presidents holding this belief that the candidate will be one who will faithfully execute the president’s will.
Because of this faithful execution, and given President Obama’s track record of unilateralism and usurpation of the other two branches of government there is a strong indication that any such candidates nominated will be highly likely to execute his unilateralism despite what might be any promises made by the nominee during Senate confirmation hearings.
That is why it is paramount for the Senate to consider what will likely be the result of any candidate offered. If the candidate’s past experiences show true objectivity and adherence to roles, rules, or the constitution, that would be a welcome asset. But if the candidate just “says so” and to promises that we should trust her that she will adhere to the constitution and equal administration of justice, giving what we have seen in the past that is insufficient evidence of the nominee being suitable to be considered.
Sorry to say she is just like Holder the female version. I guess the law isn’t the law for her, “illegals should be able to get a job “yeh in their own Country not here. It was amazing how she would pick and choose which question she would answer, the questions should be answered based on the law.
Lynch is pro-Death penalty, pro-NSA surveillance, pro-drone and anti-pot? Just. Terrific.
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”-James Madison
“If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist.”
— Edward Livingston 1798
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”- James Madison
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
– Patrick Henry
“The powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people.”- James Madison
“[T]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny”.- James Madison
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” George Washington
I have read reports that the AG canadate has said that illegal immigrants or undocumented aliens have a right to work. I was wondering when this right was created or discovered. I thought foreign nationals had to have green cards before they could take a job in the US. Whenever I have started a new job I had to provide a copy of my passport and I am an American citizen. I guess citizens don’t have a right to work.
Best wishes Professor. Outstanding speech btw. Yes I actually read it.
Obama has indeed expanded the Executive to extremely dangerous standards.
Wow. Fantastic statement. Thanks for giving a clear and cogent voice to all of us who have opposed the growth of the imperial presidency, Professor.