Democratic members are again claiming that they can demand access to any federal facilities without approval or even notice to a given agency. We saw previously how Rep. LaMonica McIver stormed an ICE facility and allegedly assaulted an officer. She and others claimed that they had the right of entry without the pre-approval of the agency. Now, after another attempted entry at an ICE facility in Baltimore, an array of Democratic members have sued over their denial. The lawsuit is, in my view, fundamentally flawed, but the members appear to be hoping for another obliging judge. Both sides could be adopting Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s position outside of the ICE facility that “This is BS, plain and simple.”
This week, Van Hollen and several other House and Senate Democrats showed up in Baltimore at the Fallon Federal Building and demanded entry. The group included Sen. Angela Alsobrooks and four members of Maryland’s House delegation: Reps. Glenn Ivey, Johnny Olszewski, Sarah Elfreth and Kweisi Mfume. They then carried out a brief sit-in outside of the door and Van Hollen even objected that the sign said “Welcome,” but they were not welcomed.
As with McIver, the Democrats insisted that they could just show up at any federal office or facility and demand access as a matter of oversight authority. If that were the case, members could barge into any executive office from the White House to the weather service without warning or approval. No court has ever recognized such authority since it would eviscerate the inherent powers of the Executive Branch in our tripartite constitutional system.
The complaint offers a jumbled collection of claims and is poorly conceived and crafted, in my view.
The most relevant seems to be Section 527(a) of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118–47), which states that:
“None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Homeland Security by this Act may be used to prevent…a Member of Congress…from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.”
The Fiscal Year 2024 Appropriations Act also included a provision that states “the Department of Homeland Security may require that a request be made at least 24 hours in advance of an intent to enter a facility described in subsection (a).”
First, even if constitutional, this provision only applies to facilities that are used to “detain or other house aliens.” The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has contested that status in past protests. Second, the law cannot, and arguably does not, give carte blanche for instant access. An agency can demand notice to allow it to protect the security and safety of personnel and visitors. DHS can argue that it is not denying entrance so long as they are given notice in advance.
The issue is not the right to inspect but the right to instant access. Of course, the members filed in Baltimore and may hope for a judge who is more accommodating than scrutinizing on authority.
The members could argue that oversight, at times, requires inspections without prior warning to prevent the loss of evidence or agency efforts to conceal poor conditions. However, if the Congress can force such immediate access to ICE facilities, it could presumably demand such access on any federal property. All agencies are subject to the oversight of one or more congressional committees. That sweeping authority runs against the grain of Article II and can create dangerous and obstructive elements for federal officials.
Courts are tasked with reading laws narrowly to avoid such constitutional questions. The question is what constitutes “preventing” under the law. The Administration is not denying access, just requiring advance notice.
This sets up a conflict between Article I and Article II authority. The Administration will argue that immediate and unrestricted access to any ICE facility intrudes on the ability to exercise executive authority. In my view, there must be some area for reasonable limitations on the exercise of oversight authority. What is absolutely clear is that members cannot seek, as did Rep. McIver to force their way into facilties.
Here is the lawsuit: Neguse v. ICE
It is BS but every liberal district judge and every liberal appeals judge is going to give them access. Then shut the facilities down on false claims. The Supreme Court is going to have a very busy four years with three whining women dissenters every ruling.
When I spent an hour yesterday to disclose facts, you refuse to print them, coward. Your actions prove your own ruse.
How do we know everyone here goes by anonymous? Just make up a name like libtroll2 sober can keep track of you. No one is asking for your legal name address and telephone number. Use the same name.
I have no fear. I use my real name. And in the America I grew up I never had to think twice about using my real name. I want to get back to those days.
Oversight, outta sight. Their all so concerned about inspecting the criminal’s toilets and someone’s talking oversight! They haven’t tracked a single billion dollar payout to any of the thousands of global NGO’s they were shoveling our tax dollars in the billions to out of the back of C-130 flyover. In point of fact, since when has Congress (either party or independents), got off it’s illustrious duff on any occasion and provided oversight for anything!?!
Where was the “oversight” when the “run-away, run-away”, skedaddle was announced in Afghanistan?
or
Were was the “oversight” when… (fill in the blank from any number of choices from the last fifty years).
And suddenly they discovered the word “oversight” in the dictionary. Right.
——————————————————————-
-Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
*. Prisons and jails must always be regularly inspected. Ministers, priests, rabbis and other clergy have done so historically.
They couldn’t give a rats behind about the housing of illegal immigrants. It’s about grandstanding for their own benefit. Show up to protest the enforcement of the law by Trump and the campaign funds assuring the winning of your next election will come pouring in. Spare me the dabbing of your eyes with your dainty little lace handkerchiefs.
The same kind of people made folk heroes of Bonnie and Clyde telling us that they were just two lovers trying to make their way through tough times. Glorified criminality is nothing new. It still sells comic books to the immature. Grown ups know better.
The word “oversight” does not appear in the Constitution. It is a function granted to Congress by Congress.
Oversight is fine.. but.. in a civilizaed society, this needs an appointment.. otherwise just showing up, demanding immediate access is a GESTAPO Practice and Tactic.. something the Dems are getting good at…. Even a 24 hour appointment is good… I just can’t show up and barge into my Congressman’s Office and demand to go into his Inner Office on the spot, right then and there, saying I have the right of ‘oversight…’ The same applies to all of us, including Members of Congress. Question: did Chris Van Hollen bring his Margharitas with hIm? ..the photo version of Van Hollen with ‘Maryland Man’ illegal used here is the airbrushed version as the original has salt rimmed Margharita… Thus.. for ‘oversight’ purposes. we have the right to ask!
Perhaps the Democrat Congress members should be more direct and go straight to storming the Supreme Court. As Miracle Max might say, they are only “mostly dead”. Have fun storming the castle!
OUCH, another mark on Billay’s face.
____________________
Breaking… Durham Appendix: Clinton Supporters in FBI Lacked “Conclusive Irrefutable Evidence” of Russia’s Involvement of DNC Email Scandal — And Lisa Page Knew This!
” Democrats insisted that they could just show up at any federal office or facility and demand access as a matter of oversight authority.”
I mostly agree with this.
“If that were the case, members could barge into any executive office from the White House to the weather service without warning or approval.”
I only somewhat agree with this. I worry the representatives could be shown Potemkin villages if they show up otherwise.
“No court has ever recognized such authority since it would eviscerate the inherent powers of the Executive Branch in our tripartite constitutional system.”
The inherent or acquired powers? You yourself, Professor Turley, have described the Executive Branch as Imperial. Shouldn’t Imperial Power be eviscerated? How does such power get properly scaled back without completely destroying the whole thing?
Prof. Turley – while I agree with you on the reading of the law. Mostly I do not care about this issue.
Whatever the courts adopt – and this likely will go to SCOTUS who likwly will be pissed about having to micromanage access laws to federal fascilities, regardless, whatever is decided it will apply to democrats and republicans alike, both congressmen, and presidents.
I am personally a very strong fan of congressional oversight powers – even to the extent that oversight might interfere with the executive doing its job.
There are 535 congressmen. There are several million members of the executive branch. There is a limit to the disruption that can be caused.
With respect to your arguments – the White House itself is actually different. It is both the cheif executives office, his home and the political operations center of the party controlling the WH. Congresses power to intrude on the WH has always been much more limited.
I would suggest that members of congress can go anywhere in the federal government as they please, but that they must provide their own security detail when they do so, and that access without prior notice is limited to the congress members themself and a security detail.
“I am personally a very strong fan of congressional oversight powers – even to the extent that oversight might interfere with the executive doing its job.”
I agree. Though, is it interfering with the “executive doing its job” or interfering with the executive doing a job (which could be willful misinterpretation of Congress’ intent, could be Imperial in nature, etc)?
“They then carried out a brief sit-in outside of the door . . .”
Let me know when the D’s stage a sit-in at the door to Mayorkas’ house, for releasing into the country subhuman creatures such as this:
Illegal immigrant Hector David Sagastume Rivas. He murdered Camilla Williams, a mother of five.
Morning all. It’s Friday and some good news. Traffic accidents in both LA and NY have gone down. Some think it’s from Prez Trump removing the illegals.
Nice.
No legislation by the legislative branch may usurp and exercise any facet, aspect, degree, or amount of the executive power of the executive branch.
Any legislation by the legislative branch that usurps and exercises executive power is unconstitutional.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Marbury v Madison
The Court found that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not order Madison to hand over Marbury’s commission via writ of mandamus. Instead, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2, established.
Marshall expanded that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to seek a remedy, but concluded the Court could not issue it. Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution. Congress did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws.
The problem is. The dem-o-rats don’t care and our Supreme court doesn’t wish to stop this non-sense.
Prof T, I hate to say it, but you’re slipping.
The Fiscal Year 2024 Appropriations Act also included a provision that states “the Department of Homeland Security may require that a request be made at least 24 hours in advance of an intent to enter a facility described in subsection (a).”
This is just outright wrong, and if you have read the section then you know it. The law is very clear, and couldn’t be clearer. Members of Congress have the absolute right to INSTANT access to all facilities used by DHS to house aliens, without ANY notice whatsoever. Congressional staffers ALSO have the right of access, but in their case and their case alone DHS may require 24 hours’ notice.
As far as I know there is no statute giving Members of Congress access to any other federal facilities. But members have been turned away from facilities that are clearly covered. There was video of a confrontation at the Javits building in NYC, where a DHS spokesman was spouting some nonsense about how this was not a detention facility, it was merely a facility where they were detaining aliens and housing them overnight. That is exactly what the law specifies! Keeping the members out of that facility was indefensible.
Go back to legal insurrection. Nobody cares.
Millhouse – these points have been debated all day. There are some comments below that might make be of interest to you. For example, there is a closely-contested issue about what constitutes oversight for purposes of the statute, and whether the members showing up individually could have been involved in oversight as it is legally understood to be carried out by Congress. Additionally, the access provision is limited to monies spent under the March 2024 appropriations act, but there have been other acts and CRs in the meantime, and it is not entirely clear whether DHS was funded at the time of these incidents by the March 2024 act.
I do not personally care about this issue – so long as whatever final decision applies to all members of congress and all future presidents.
But YOU are slipping. The law cited says NOTHING about “instant access” for members of congress. Only that they can not be denied access. Yes, there are explicit notice reuirements for congressional staff – and that implies the congressmen themselves have less limitations. But that is NOT clear from the law, and the administration could argue that demanding 48 hours notice for a congressmen is NOT denying access.
Regardless, the courts can sort this out.
In the end it does not matter what they decide as a court decision will not only bind this administration – but future administrations.
The lawsuit is, in my view, fundamentally flawed, but the members appear to be hoping for another obliging judge.
Americans have now come to see that US District Judges are paid activists dressed in black robes. They did this to themselves and we are thankful that they exposed themselves as hacks.
Both sides could be adopting Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s position outside of the ICE facility that “This is BS, plain and simple.”
When well reasoned, persuasive arguments are beyond their reach, they lie, grandstand, and prove that they are despicable. There isnt a single Democrat with integrity, and Republicans arent any better. US District Judges are now in that category. Im generalizing but there is truth to it. It is time for another “no taxation without representation” inspired American revolution. Politicians no longer represent Americans but they do “tax” our lives, our values, and our once sacred institutions, all decimated.
David Burge
@iowahawkblog
1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
#lefties
9:39 AM · Nov 10, 2015
https://x.com/iowahawkblog/status/664089892599631872
The stench from DemocRATs is becoming overwhelming. Eliminate the DemocRATic party and you eliminate at least 95% of this nation’s problems. There are a lot of people both in and out of government that need to just disappear.
*. I’ll make it a little worse. LaMonica McIver has been in congress less than one year.
Genius. She’s from Newark, NJ.
*.^^^ It’s frightening. In some really way it’s similar to a kind of riot. The gate crashing at the facility where serious criminals are held should should be treated with harsh consequences. There was a mob there, as well.
These same people are making trillion dollar budget decisions? The chainsaw needs to reappear. These people are incompetent. Amendment for number of reps is in order. 2 reps per state maximum. No need to pay incompetent people. Do real cut backs.
Very frightening
*. Excuse typos^^^^. It’s obvious incompetent people are elected. This is when bureaucrats run government. They’re voting in blacks because someone tell them how to vote. They’re useless. 500 reps? 500 useless reps. 100 is plenty. It may be too many.
Change the # of re0s and you’ll stop a great deal of this incompetence. Cortez in ball gowns as tax the rich, nail salon Crockett, crucifix earrings Mace, Spartacus, fire alarm guy, embezzler man …
Seriously PT, 500 incompetent people causing grandstanding messes and mayhem.
Do drug tests now! That should take out a bunch.
*. One last idea. Read the legislation as if you’re a facility manager and your facility must have a policy that has these components. You’re a DHS facility because you receive DHS money. Noem most likely has a policy with these components and has distributed it.
Check with DHS or the facility for policy before visiting. The chairman of the oversight committee probably has that policy. Ask the chairperson.
The policy may contain a surprise visit portion. Everyone enjoys surprises. Nothing to prevent it except the smooth running of facilities housing murderers and rapists and staff coverage.
Thank you, we hope your visit was a pleasant visit.
*. ^^^ typos. One is “blacks” should be Blocks.
*. Professor Turley is correct of course. This is simple language. It’s not difficult. The congress people no doubt would be issued photo IDs encased with plastic after request to do oversight attached to a neon green lanyard for easy identification. These are secure facilities. There’s a process to be inside a secure facility.
This is an example of what not to do and on video as is Senator Alex Padilla barging into a press conference, no tags, yelling oversight. This demonstrated what not to do. It’s an incorrect process and on video. Power in the hands of such incompetent people puts lives in danger.
The people of the United States do need to amend the Constitution. 550 reps , incompetent reps leads to these disasters. 2 reps per State. 200 TOTAL congressional persons. Get rid of the rabble and it is rabble.
Every city, county, State and federal entity have these elected officials who run rough shod with the heady titles undeserved. Amendment in order!
As a retired old codger I can recall when one stayed up to watch the political conventions where the Presidential/Vice Presidential candidates were selected. Then the Dems decided that selection process ignored “the will of the people” and wanted the choices made in primary elections. The Republicans went along as they didn’t want to labeled as the party of deals cut behind closed doors.
The rather predictable result is that-my apologies to those who don’t fit the label-the lunatic fringe/those obsessed with politics (if there’s a difference) pick the candidates. And, major special interest money flows, both above and below the table. Aided and abetted by the 24/7/365 hysterical bleating by the media.
I’m not sure what the solution is, perhaps the market place will sort out the media mess. Curbing the loonies is another matter.
In 2016, the Obama/Hillary machine used nefarious means to suppress the will of the people vis-a-vis Bernie Sanders.
Then in 2024 the same machine sidelined the will of the people who had chosen Biden to be the nominee. Even after they got him to drop out, they did not consult the people for his replacement. They anointed her.
That was amazing. Was there anything to do about it?
FUNFACT:
In the American republic of 1789, turnout was 11.6% and only those who were male, European, 21, with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres were allowed to vote.
On election day, one day only, the participants presented at a polling place, were identified, and cast their votes, which were then counted.
Never was the American restricted-vote republic to conduct a one-man, one-vote democrazy.
My how things have changed.
__________________________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
______________________________________________________
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
FUN FACT 2: The justification for the original voting right (whether wise or not) was “vested interest” in the outcome.
Today, it is “vested interest” in the handouts/goodies/benefits/ at stake.
FUN FACT 3: Last week, I heard on NPR the convenient re-appropriation of Ben’s words at the announced ending of an afternoon broadcast, a woman’s voice lamenting, “Democracy-if you can keep it.”
The Founders knew that the vote was moot or marginal at best and that the only things that mattered or bore were those referenced and enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
There was and is most definitely no “free stuff,” “free status,” handouts, goodies, and benefits in those documents.
It’s all Freedom and Self-Reliance.
*. Parents have left their children as orphans, latch key orphans and the result is what you see.
Actually each state had its own requirements for who was eligible to vote beyond the Constitutional requirement of being 21 years of age
OT, what a perfect picture of the current state of the Democrat party: Sen. Lizzie “Pocahontas” Warren falls on her backside on the Senate floor:
https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1950992817175601630
not-so-old: well, I tripped over puppy last week, with a corningware casserole dish in my hand, and got eight stitches in my index finger. So I cannot laugh at your wit today (stitches removed today). But the underlying premise is acknowledged!
Lin – Ouch! I hope you’re all right. And the puppy too (I almost said, “and your little dog, too”).
Yours as always,
Uncle Henry
Thx. Maybe Warren needs to be apprised of what kind of support she really has behind her back?
How is the puppy? Ha ha ha
KIRK: Let’s just say, I know why he’s called “English SPRINGER Spaniel.”
(he’s fine.)
My wife and I have a Britney Spaniel. (-:
I’ve never fallen in my life, except for that time…
Lin, I assume last week’s accident created great concern among your friends and relatives about a condition requiring you to be taken to the hospital. But apparently the incident must not have been too alarming since you left the hospital in stitches.
thx for the smile.
yup, you know what they say, “a stitch in time saves nine.” -So the doc only put in eight.
At least I didn’t split my sides…
night night, whoever you are.
they are trouble alright
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ff/2b/29/ff2b29d5bfd22af4fa441a69f7f8c513.jpg
I served for two years on a California grand Jury which in addition to criminal work has a civil oversight function. One of the things that was impressed on us during training was that jurors have *NO* authority as individuals. Their only authority comes from their representation of the full panel. Not sure if the same applies to congress but as a juror you only had the authority granted you by the full panel. So for instance unless the full panel specifically said “go conduct a site visit” at such and such a facility you had *no* more authority to go there than an everyday citizen. If it does apply congress critters only have authority to conduct “oversight” visits if the full congress, either directly or indirectly via a committee, says to do so. I doubt the relevant oversight committees had granted such authority.
Why do people in California keep electing these America hating DemocRAT idiots over and over? Is there something in the water there that make them do that? Gavin Newscum is one big lying, cheating, crooked snake-oil salesman. One should never believe a word that comes out of that dirt-bags mouth, yet he keeps getting elected. Same for that pathetic ignorant moron Karen Bass.