We have been discussing the meltdown at airports due to the latest gross negligence by the Transportation Security Administration. At O’Hare, passengers are facing three hour delays with thousands missing flights and even having to rent hotel rooms when unable to make it to their gates in time. What is incredible is that Homeland Security Secretary not only denied that there was any crisis in grinding airports to a standstill but also seemed to blame passengers for failing to yield to the pressure to accept the expedited screening program called PreCheck. Many people object to the program as yielding privacy under coercion from TSA: share personal data or face hours of waiting as punishment. TSA admits that it assumed more passengers would yield to the pressure. They did not. It also admits to failing to properly staff security in a ten percent cut of screeners — a colossal blunder of under-estimating travel numbers. Yet, again, no one appears to be accountable for this massive failure that has left thousands stranded and airlines struggling to reschedule flights, including a separate TSA failure that resulted in the loss of thousands of bags.
Category: Congress
We previously discussed how the government has kept 28 pages classified in the 9-11 Report to protect Saudi Arabia from a public backlash of its alleged involvement (or at least the involvement of Saudi officials) in the attacks. Now, a report on the treatment of U.S. sailors by Iran in seizure of Navy boats earlier this year will reportedly remain classified for some time. That is rather curious since Iran already knows how it treated the sailors. Again, there is a suspicion that the Administration simply does not want the public to know the full details of the mistreatment, which Rep. Randy Forbes (R., Va.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says are far worse than has been made public. Recently, the Navy fired the commander in the incident.
Continue reading “Why Is The Iran Report On The Treatment Of U.S. Sailor’s Still Classified?”
This afternoon, Judge Rosemary Collyer issued a final ruling in United States House of Representatives v. Burwell, the challenge to unilateral actions taken by the Administration under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Judge Collyer ruled in favor of the House of Representatives and found that the Administration violated the Constitution in committing billions of dollars from the United States Treasury without the approval of Congress. The historic ruling reaffirms the foundational “power of the purse” that was given to the legislative branch by the Framers.
Continue reading “HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WINS HISTORIC RULING IN CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE UNDER THE ACA”
For civil libertarians, the administration of President Barack Obama fallen well short of the great expectations from his first election. Indeed, despite his high polling numbers with liberals, President Obama has left one of the worst records of modern presidents in areas like privacy, press freedom, transparency, and unilateral executive action. The antagonistic position of the Obama Administration with the media was evident in this year’s ranking by Reporters Without Borders. The U.S. is ranked 41 out of 180 countries in term of the “level of freedom of information in 180 countries.”
Continue reading “The United States Ranked 41st Among Nations In Press Freedom”
I am not sure how my testimony went over with the Senators, but I am claiming the support of one familiar face. I found George waiting for me outside of the Dirksen Senate Office Building after the hearing. As a GW professor, this can only be viewed as a good omen. He no doubt wanted to remind the Congress that GW (as opposed to that other local institution) is the only school that was founded on a charter paid for by our first president. George made no comment on the Administrative State but his appearance (in my view) spoke volumes. Sure, Bernie Sanders has that bird that landed on the podium, but I had the ultimate Founding Father appear after testifying on the need to remain faithful to their original constitutional design.
Continue reading “George Washington Appears After Turley Testimony”
I will be testifying this morning at 10 am before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building . The hearing, entitled “The Administrative State: An Examination of Federal Rulemaking” will look at the role of agencies in rulemaking in the federal system.
Continue reading “Turley to Testify On The “Administrative State” In Senate Hearing”
While the level of protection afforded Saudi Arabia in Washington is hardly a secret, the level of that support was on display this month when officials pushed the Obama Administration to release long-withheld pages from the 9-11 report, as we previously discussed. Those pages reportedly implicate Saudi Arabia in the 9-11 attacks. Saudi Arabia response with an express threat to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars of assets if Congress were to pass a bill allowing the Kingdom to be held liable for the attacks. One would think that the response would be outrage at the threat. After all, the bill would only allow citizens to sue and a bipartisan group of Senators have joined to support the 9-11 families. Saudi Arabia could still defend itself (and according to its government, vindicate itself) in a court of law. Of course, the United States has a real court system as opposed to the government controlled, Sharia “courts” used in the Kingdom to mete out medieval justice.
We have been discussing the rising outcry about passengers at the continually shrinking legroom and comfort on airplanes, including storing passengers in what was previously luggage space. Those complaints led to a federal amendment seeking to establish minimum standards for passenger comfort. The airline lobby put on a full-court press to stop the measure and it failed 42-54. Notably, no one actually spoke against the proposal before it was voted down.
President Barack Obama today surprised many by nominating the moderate Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Merrick Garland. Garland is unlikely to thrill liberals. He is fairly conservative on criminal cases and tends to favor government interests. Conservatives are not going to like his vote to move to reconsider the case that became the historic Heller decision that recognized the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. However, Garland moves virtually everything off the table for the Republicans. While a moderate, he is as far right as a Democratic president could go.
Continue reading “PRESIDENT OBAMA NOMINATES MERRICK GARLAND”
I will be testifying Tuesday afternoon before the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law of the Committee on the Judiciary
in the United States House of Representatives. The hearing is entitled “The Chevron Doctrine: Constitutional and Statutory Questions in Judicial Deference to Agencies”. The hearing will be held in Room 2141 (Rayburn House Office Building) and begin at 1:30 PM. My written testimony is below
Continue reading “TURLEY TESTIFIES ON THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE IN HOUSE HEARING”
Below is my Sunday column yesterday in the Washington Post on reforming our political system. We are certainly, as the Chinese curse says, “living in interesting times.” We seem to be in the midst of an American revolution where citizens have arisen in collective disgust of the establishment and the status quo. For years, citizens have objected to a political system that is dysfunctional and detached. The two parties have largely ignored these objections and many have objected to this “doupoly” on power. For many, answer of the two parties to the American people seems to be the same as Henry Ford to customers of the Model T Ford: “you can have any color so long as it is black.” In the United States, you can have any party so long as it is red or blue; Republican or Democrat. Yet, in 2016, the public has responded with a deafening rejection of the establishment. The most obvious is Donald Trump who is the perfect personification of an angry electorate. On the democratic side, a 74-year-old Democratic Socialist has rocked the Democratic party, which overtly rigged a primary system to guarantee the selection of the ultimate establishment figure: Hillary Clinton. However, we seem to go this cathartic exercise every four years rather than seek some changes to break down the insularity of government. There is another way. Instead of just choosing some personality that matches our angry politics, we can really change the system . . . for the better. The Framers gave the public the power to solve our own problems, including the ability to circumvent Congress with a constitutional convention. We have the anger. The question is whether we have the answer.
Below is the column. There are a host of other changes that can be made to improve the system, including many that can be down without a constitutional amendment. However, there is a value in focusing on a few basics that could have a transformative effect on the respective branches of government.
Continue reading “Voters Want A Revolution. Here’s What It Would Take.”
Below is my column in USA Today on some of the possible nominees to fill the vacancy left with the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. There is a long list of potential nominees and only some are discussed in this column. One of the more interesting prospects is Jane Kelly from the Eighth Circuit who would bring badly needed trial experience to the Court and particularly a rare criminal defense background. As a threshold matter, it is worth noting that the current chaos that we are witnessing over Scalia’s replacement is the result of a long-standing flaw on the Court. As I have argued for many years, our Supreme Court is demonstrably too small and should be expanded by Congress to 19 members – roughly the size of other large nations – to avoid so much power being concentrated in so few hands. If the Court was larger, there would likely be no question that President Obama could get a nominee confirmed because there would be greater turnover on the Court and less at stake with each justice. However, as it stands, even a moderate nominee would move the center of gravity of the Court significantly to the left and would likely produce a host of sweeping changes on gun rights, abortion, affirmative action, and other areas. That is something that the Republicans have pledged to bar, at least until we know who the next president will be.
So our dysfunctionally small Court has left us in another dysfunctional standoff. However, we have some added issues due to the timing of this vacancy as discussed in the column below.
Apple has decided to fight an unprecedented and highly controversial order by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym that the company has to assist the government in breaking into one of its encrypted phones. Apple says that it does not have the technology and does not want to be part of such an effort to create a privacy stripping tool for the FBI. Pym seems to believe that she can order companies to become unwilling participants in surveillance research and development. I fail to see her legal basis for such an extraordinary order against a private company.
Below is my column today in USA Today on the prospect of a recess appointment fight in the filling of the vacancy left on the Court by the passing of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. The White House could well use any refusal to consider a nominee as a license to use a recess appointment while the Senate could move to stay in session to preempt such a recess appointment. In my view, the Senate should consider any nominee submitted by the President and, for his part, the President should forego any recess appointment if the nomination is not successful. Here is the opinion:
The Washington Post posted my column on Sunday discussing the passing of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, a towering figure on the United States Supreme Court and an icon for conservative jurists. It is regrettable that people today often demonize those with whom they disagree. Scalia was personally a warm and engaging person. Indeed, liberal justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan appeared quite close to Scalia as not just a colleague but a friend. I expect that Scalia has left a lasting legacy that will withstand the test of time, as I discuss below. He was a man of principle. One could certainly disagree with those principles, as I sometimes did. However, he left 30 years of opinions that challenged and often changed doctrines in a wide array of areas. These opinions show a depth and scope that sets them apart in the annals of the Court. Liberals and conservatives alike should be able to recognize the impactful and brilliant life of Nino Scalia. Here is the column: Continue reading “SCALIA AND HIS LEGACY”