Category: Politics

Constitutional Law, Politics, Supreme Court

Parental Rights and Abortion

Published 12/5/2005

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, a case concerning the right of parents to be notified on abortions given to minor children. The case is seen as a bellwether on the court’s shifting majority on abortion as well as the future of parental notice and consent laws in 43 states.
Cases like Ayotte are produced by a collision of two powerful interests: The right of parents to participate in major medical and moral decisions affecting their minor children vs. the right of children to have abortions. Continue reading “Parental Rights and Abortion” →

Congress, Constitutional Law, Justice, Politics, Supreme Court

Bush and Domestic Spying: A Threat to Our Principles

Published 12/21/2005

This week, President Bush is struggling to deal with rising accusations that he committed federal crimes in ordering the eavesdropping on hundreds, if not thousands, of people without court orders. It is a scandal that raises troubling questions not just for the presidency but also for the president.

In some ways, it was inevitable that we would find ourselves at this historic confrontation. Bush has long viewed the law as some malleable means to achieve particular ends, rather than the ends itself. In this sense, there is an eerie similarity between the views of Bush and two of his predecessors: Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Continue reading “Bush and Domestic Spying: A Threat to Our Principles” →

Congress, Constitutional Law, Politics, Supreme Court

Troubling Times for a Troubling Nominee: Samuel Alito

Published 1/9/06

Despite my agreement with Alito on many issues, I believe that he would be a dangerous addition to the court in already dangerous times for our constitutional system. Alito’s cases reveal an almost reflexive vote in favor of government, a preference based not on some overriding principle but an overriding party.

In my years as an academic and a litigator, I have rarely seen the equal of Alito’s bias in favor of the government. To put it bluntly, when it comes to reviewing government abuse, Samuel Alito is an empty robe. Continue reading “Troubling Times for a Troubling Nominee: Samuel Alito” →

Congress, Constitutional Law, Politics

How to End the Gay Marriage Debate: Civil Unions and You

Published 4/2/2006

With mid-term elections approaching, politicians are once again returning to one of their favorite themes: protecting the sanctity of marriage. When same-sex marriage is raised, citizens quickly forget about rampant corruption in Congress, towering budget deficits, or even the Iraq war. Not surprisingly, therefore, a constitutional amendment has been cited as a legislative priority by both President Bush and Republican leadership. The message is clear: What politics and religion have joined, let no one pull apart.
The fact is that the same-sex marriage fight is one that advocates on both sides would hate to end. Money is pouring in, membership rolls are expanding, and advocates have an issue that borders on obsession for many Americans. Continue reading “How to End the Gay Marriage Debate: Civil Unions and You” →

Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Media, Politics

Down to the Fourth Estate: The Failure of the American System to Protect Liberty

Published 5/16/2006

This month, Congress is faced with a most inconvenient crime. With the recent disclosure of a massive secret database program run by the National Security Agency involving tens of millions of innocent Americans, members are confronted with a second intelligence operation that not only lacks congressional authorization but also appears patently unlawful. In December, the public learned that the NSA was engaging in warrantless domestic surveillance of overseas communications — an operation many experts believe is a clear federal crime ordered by the president more than 30 times.
What is most striking about these programs is that they were revealed not by members of Congress but by members of the Fourth Estate: Journalists who confronted Congress with evidence of potentially illegal conduct by this president that was known to various congressional leaders.

In response, President Bush has demanded to know who will rid him of these meddlesome whistle-blowers, and various devout members have rushed forth with cudgels and codes in hand.

Now, it appears Congress is finally acting — not to end alleged criminal acts by the administration, mind you, but to stop the public from learning about such alleged crimes in the future. Members are seeking to give the president the authority to continue to engage in warrantless domestic surveillance as they call for whistle-blowers to be routed out. They also want new penalties to deter both reporters and their sources. Continue reading “Down to the Fourth Estate: The Failure of the American System to Protect Liberty” →

Constitutional Law, Justice, Politics

The Insanity Defense and the Future of Faith-Based Killings

Published 5/29/2006

In the National Gallery of Art in Washington hangs a cherished Rembrandt titled Abraham’s Sacrifice.
It is an etching of Abraham about to slay his son, Isaac, upon the orders of God, to show his faith. The scene from Genesis 22:1-12 is repeated in stained glass windows, paintings and other displays worldwide. It is also a scene being repeated in real life by demented individuals who believe that they have been given divine instructions to slay their loved ones.

In the past few months, the nation has found itself again in the middle of one of the law’s greatest quagmires: how to define insanity, and when it should be a defense. Continue reading “The Insanity Defense and the Future of Faith-Based Killings” →

Congress, Politics

The Page Scandal and a Congress That Simply Can’t Resist

Pubished 10/18/2006
In its waning months, the 109th Congress has finally achieved a status in politics that the 1919 Black Sox achieved in sports: It is a symbol of utter corruption. Over the past two years, the congressional scandals have traversed the universe from the gross to the grandiose to the grotesque: visits from call girls, gifts of Rolls Royces and fancy commodes, sweetheart deals for contractors, high-paying lobbyist jobs for underachieving children, free vacations for members and their families.
Yet, if the young boy saying “say it ain’t so, Joe” to Shoeless Joe Jackson perfectly summed up the betrayal of the 1919 World Series, the young male pages pursued by former GOP congressman Mark Foley of Florida perfectly summed up the betrayal of the 109th Congress. The public clearly suspects that, in dealing with Foley, House leaders were more concerned with protecting a House seat than a House page. In a CNN poll, 75% of Americans say the Republicans failed to act responsibly, and 52% believe a coverup was attempted.

If the page scandal captures the raw depravity that is the 109th Congress, the proposed solution captures its raw audacity. Faced with the abuse of children, some lawmakers have called for the removal of the children. First voiced by Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., some members have indicated that they would terminate the page service after almost 200 years of tradition. As LaHood explained, “We should not subject young men and women to this kind of activity, this kind of vulnerability.” When asked whether he was suggesting that his colleagues cannot be trusted with children, he responded, “Well, that’s pretty obvious.” Continue reading “The Page Scandal and a Congress That Simply Can’t Resist” →

Congress, Constitutional Law, Politics, Supreme Court

Afffirmative Action and the Use of Race in Government Regulations

Published 12/5/2006

On Monday, the Supreme Court once again ventured into the quagmire of affirmative action. In two cases, the court will decide whether it is permissible to use race as a criteria in the selection of students on the elementary or high school levels — three years after the court barely sustained the use of such policies on the university level.
Even after many decades, affirmative action remains one of the most contentious issues in our society. Yet, like abortion, there appears to be less, not more, true dialogue. Many people who are uncomfortable with these programs remain silent in fear that their concerns will be misconstrued or mischaracterized. Continue reading “Afffirmative Action and the Use of Race in Government Regulations” →

Congress, Politics

Oaths and the Quran

Published 1/3/07
A HISTORY

The historical and legal basis for oaths is often misunderstood. As with many of our legal traditions, the role of the legislative oath was inherited from England, where its original purpose was anything but inspiring. In the 16th century, the crown used legislative oaths to disqualify any member who did not recognize the king as both the spiritual and temporal sovereign – an effective ban on any faithful Catholic serving in Parliament. Continue reading “Oaths and the Quran” →

Congress, Constitutional Law, Politics

The Truth About The Oath — Keith Ellison and the Quran

Published 1/3/2007

By Jonathan Turley
The newest member of the Minnesota delegation, Keith Ellison, would appear to be the very model of a god-fearing congressman whom conservatives have longed for. Yet Ellison has been denounced as a constitutional blasphemer after discussing his upcoming oath of office. The problem was not with Ellison’s oath, but with his god — Ellison is Muslim (our nation’s first in Congress) and intends to use the Quran today to pledge to serve faithfully before Allah.
Judging from the outcry, one would think that Ellison wanted to use the January edition of Penthouse. America’s permanently angry class of religious zealots has organized protests. Some have called for a law requiring that all members use the Bible — regardless of whether they believe a single word in it. They do not expect Ellison’s conversion, they just want him (and presumably the two new Buddhist members) to pay tribute to their faith system. Continue reading “The Truth About The Oath — Keith Ellison and the Quran” →

Congress, Constitutional Law, Military, Politics

War and Presidents: Military History Magazine Cover Story July 2007

PRESIDENTS AT WAR

The President sat in the Oval Office and staring intently at his Secretary of State. It would fall to him to either order the United States to war or to consult with Congress. He had already stated his intention to fight the enemy anywhere in the world to protect the nation at home. It was time to make good on his promise: “We’ve got to stop the sons of bitches, no matter what, and that’s all there is to it.”

It is a scene that could have been taken easily from the first term of President George W. Bush and his commencement of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, it was not Islamic terrorists but communists that was the scourge in June 1950 and the president was Harry S. Truman. He was committed to the Truman Doctrine to oppose communist expansion around the world and 135,000 communists were on the march across the 38th parallel. It was a decision that would unleash the Korean War. Within days of Truman’s statement, the Army 4th Infantry Division would engage the North Koreans at Osan, suffering heavy losses – all without congressional notice, let alone authorization. Continue reading “War and Presidents: Military History Magazine Cover Story July 2007” →

Congress, Constitutional Law, Politics, Testimony

Clinton Impeachment Testimony: House Judiciary Committee

Testimony of Jonathan Turley
Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, George Washington University Law School

House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution
Hearing on the Background and History of Impeachment
November 9, 1998

INTRODUCTION

Summary: My name is Jonathan Turley. I am a professor at George Washington University Law School where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law. Although I have taught constitutional criminal procedure and lectured on the Madisonian Democracy for years, my views have been most influenced by my litigation in past cases dealing with the separation of powers doctrine, executive privilege, and Article II authority. While the current debate over the impeachment standard can appear arcane and theoretical, these standards have concrete expression in cases involving the lives of average citizens and the conduct of Executive Branch officials. When Congress decides that certain criminal conduct does not rise to the level of impeachable offenses, it is defining a permissible parameter for future presidential conduct. Executive power will fill the space created by any decision of this body………………………………………Page 6

METHODOLOGY

Summary: While I greatly respect the academics on the other side of this debate, I do not believe that there is a basis to exclude the alleged criminal conduct from potential articles of impeachment on any definitional, historical or policy basis. The literature in this area is rich with different theories of constitutional interpretation. There is a danger when these theories are super-imposed on a sparse historical record to advance a claim of clear original intent or restrictive hidden meaning. As will be shown, the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is inextricably linked to the structural function of the House. Impeachment was created as a process by which the public could address serious questions of legitimacy in the Chief Executive and other officers. It was a process by which illegitimacy could be remedied by removal and legitimacy could be redeemed by acquittal. This is why criminal acts committed in office, regardless of their motivation or subject matter, should ordinarily be submitted to the Senate……………Page 9 Continue reading “Clinton Impeachment Testimony: House Judiciary Committee” →

Congress, Constitutional Law, Media, Politics, Testimony

Press Freedom and the War on Terrorism: Testimony in the House Intelligence Committee

Statement for the Record
Jonathan Turley
J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School

May 26, 2006

Before the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
United States House of Representatives

I.
INTRODUCTION

Chairman Hoekstra, Representative Harman, members of the Select Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify on the role and responsibility of journalists in covering classified subjects.
The subject of today’s hearing carries particular significance for me as someone who regularly works in both the law and the media. On the legal side, I hold the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at George Washington University where I teach relevant subjects that range from constitutional law to defamation to criminal procedure. In addition to writing on national security subjects as an academic, I have served as counsel in a variety of national security and espionage cases, including as lead counsel in the current terrorism case United States v. Al-Timimi. My litigation background includes cases that have dealt with attorney and journalistic privileges as well as executive privilege and the military and state secrets privilege. Due to my work in cases handling classified material, I have held a clearance since the 1980s.
On the media side, I have worked as a legal commentator for roughly two decades. I am a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors and write regularly for various newspapers, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and other publications. I have also had four stints under contract with NBC and CBS news and continue to appear as a legal analyst regularly on various broadcast and cable programs.
Many lawyers and journalists have become increasingly alarmed by the erosion of protections for the media in this country. While we often refer to our country as the cradle of press freedom, it is not true that the United States currently represents the high water mark for journalistic rights and privileges. Despite our great tradition of a free press and our extensive media industry, other nations now extend greater protections to their reporters and recent coercive measures against reporters have made the United States an area of considerable concern for international organizations.
The recent controversy over press freedom comes at a time when we have never been more dependent on the Fourth Estate to challenge and check the government’s otherwise unbridled authority. In the last few years, we have faced one of the most serious constitutional crises in our history. President Bush has claimed the authority to violate or to circumvent federal law when he deems it to be in the nation’s interest. There continues to be a raging debate over the President’s authority to order warrantless domestic surveillance and other controversial (and potentially criminal) operations. These are controversies that the Administration obviously would have preferred to avoid. Much anger has been directed at the media and there have been calls for new penalties and prosecutions for reporters and their sources. Continue reading “Press Freedom and the War on Terrorism: Testimony in the House Intelligence Committee” →

Congress, Politics, Testimony

D.C. Vote in Congress: House Judiciary Committee

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
JONATHAN TURLEY
SHAPIRO PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 5388,
THE “DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAIR AND EQUAL HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2006”

SEPTEMBER 14, 2006

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

I.
INTRODUCTION

Chairman Chabot, Ranking Member Nadler, members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the important question of the representational status of the District of Columbia in Congress. I expect that everyone here today would agree that the current non-voting status of the District is fundamentally at odds with the principles and traditions of our constitutional system. As Justice Black stated in Wesberry v. Sanders: “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.” Continue reading “D.C. Vote in Congress: House Judiciary Committee” →

Congress, Constitutional Law, Politics, Testimony

Testimony: D.C. Vote in Congress (Senate Judiciary Committee)

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
JONATHAN TURLEY
SHAPIRO PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL

ENDING TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION:
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF S. 1257

MAY 23, 2007

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
THE UNITED STATES SENATE

I.
INTRODUCTION

Chairman Feingold, Senator Specter, members of the Committee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the important question of the representational status of the District of Columbia in Congress. At the outset, I believe that it is important for people of good faith to acknowledge that this is not a debate between people who want District residents to have the vote and those who do not. I expect that everyone here today would agree that the current non-voting status of the District is fundamentally at odds with the principles and traditions of our constitutional system. As Justice Black stated in Wesberry v. Sanders: “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.”

Today, we are all seeking a way to address the glaring denial of basic rights to the citizens of our Capitol City. Clearly, this is a matter that is heavily laden with passions from decades of disenfranchisement. However, there is a tendency to personalize the barriers to such representation and to ignore any countervailing evidence in the constitutional debates. In the last Senate hearing, my friend Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton told Senators that if they are going to vote against this bill, “do not to blame the Framers blame Jonathan Turley.” Del. Norton went further to argue that it was “slander” to claim that the Framers intended to leave District residents without their own representatives in Congress. In reality, I have long argued for full representation for the District and abhor the status of its residents. As for claims of slandering the Framers, truth remains an absolute defense to defamation and the record in this case could not be more clear as to the intentions of the Framers. While some may view it as obnoxious (and indeed some at the time held the same view), the Framers most certainly did understand the implications of creating a federal enclave represented by Congress as a whole.

Unlike many issues before Congress, there has always been a disagreement about the means rather than the ends of full representation for the District residents. Regrettably, I believe that S. 1257 is the wrong means. Despite the best of motivations, the bill is fundamentally flawed on a constitutional level and would only serve to needlessly delay true reform for District residents. Indeed, considerable expense would likely come from an inevitable and likely successful legal challenge — all for a bill that would ultimately achieve only partial representational status. The effort to fashion this as a civil rights measure ignores the fact that it confers only partial representation without any guarantee that it will continue in the future. It is the equivalent of allowing Rosa Parks to move halfway to the front of the bus in the name of progress. District residents deserve full representation and, while this bill would not offer such reform, there are alternatives, including a three-phased proposal that I have advocated in the past. Continue reading “Testimony: D.C. Vote in Congress (Senate Judiciary Committee)” →