Happy New Year to everyone on the Turley blog. This has been an extraordinary first year of the blog which is approaching two million hits annually. The success of the blog is due largely to our regulars who continue to make this one of the smartest and most fun blogs on the web. Even with the invasion by trolls and a few uncivil moments, the blog has remained a special forum for intelligent, civil, and often witty discourse. Our impressive monthly growth (and the obvious irritation of trolls) is a testament to the fact that there remains many people who want to engage in such dialogue. 2008 was our first full year in operation and I am very grateful for the contributions of all of the regulars on this blog.
Category: Testimony
Given the Second Circuit’s overturning of the New York terrorism convictions, the testimony below before Congress may offer a broader understanding of the poor performance of the Bush Administration in this area.
Continue reading “The Body Count Culture: The Bush Administration’s Record on Prosecuting Terrorism Cases”
A Georgia military contractor, Pyrotechnic Specialties Inc. or PSI, is accused of a conspiracy to defraud the government and to sell defective stun (or “flashbang”) grenades to the military and both state and federal law enforcement officials. Not only were three FBI agents injured, but PSI is accused to luring federal officials with gifts at stripper joints and other perks. Officials are now facing charges of conspiracy, money laundering, mail fraud and defrauding the government. Continue reading “Criminal Charges in Defective Grenade Case”
Today, I testified in the House Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security), on the new proposed changes to the rules governing federal restitution. They are quite extreme. Continue reading “Testimony on New Federal Restitution Law”
President Bush waited until Saturday to veto the ban on waterboarding, hoping to diminish press and congressional attention. He had nothing to fear. Both democrats and republicans have already guaranteed that Bush will not be held accountable for the torture program. After effectively decriminalizing torture, the objections heard from Democrats should be met with a healthy degree of scorn. Continue reading “Bush Vetos Ban on Waterboarding — Democrats Feign Shock”
The current legislation to give the District of Columbia a vote in the House of Representatives has no shortage of passion behind it. Indeed, after testifying repeatedly that this legislation is unconstitutional, I have felt my share of that passion turned to anger. It has been an ironic position for me, because I strongly believe that District residents should be allowed to vote in Congress and I have many close friends on the other side of this debate. Indeed, I supported greater (and permanent) representation — as opposed to his partial representation plan. To that end, I have published a lengthy law review article below explaining why I believe that the law is flawed and why there are better option for the city. Continue reading “Too Clever By Half: The Constitutional Argument Against the Current Voting Bill for the District of Columbia”
With states and citizens objecting, the Congress and the Bush Administration have moved ahead to require a national identification card — abandoning decades of opposition to such a system on civil liberties grounds. I testified against this proposal when it was first made in the immediate aftermath of the 9-11 attacks. What is truly remarkable is that the REAL ID has become little more than an excuse to do something that the Bush Administration has been trying to do for years: create interlocking databases on citizens. Continue reading “Your Papers Please: The United States Adopts a National ID Card And Abandons Priniciples”
Given my testimony today in the House Judiciary Committee on prison reform and older prisoners, I thought this previous column may be of interest. Continue reading “Older Prisoners and Overcrowding”
What is most striking about the current disaster presented by the Jefferson ruling is that it was entirely unnecessary. For my prior testimony on the Jefferson raid, click below.
Reckless Justice – Turley Testimony
January 20, 2006
This is the opening statement from the hearing immediately after the disclosure of the NSA program. Continue reading “Prior Testimony on the NSA Program”
The testimony below concerns the new controversy of the status of tobacco as a product in the U.S. Continue reading “Testimony: Tobacco and Regulation by Litigation”
United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, “Ending Taxation Without Representation: The Constitutionality of S. 1257,” May 23, 2007. Continue reading “List of Prior Testimony”
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN TURLEY, PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC
INTEREST LAW, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
LAW SCHOOL
SEPTEMBER 7, 2005
House Agriculture Committee
Mr. TURLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to appear here before the members of this committee.
As we all know, there is a firestorm of controversy of the Su-
preme Court case, which I also believe was wrongly decided, even though I have argued in the past, in academic pieces, for the expansion of public use. In some context, I thought this decision was facially wrong, and I don’t see how the Court came to its conclusion, which required it to negate portions of the takings clause, to effectively make them nonexistent. The clause makes a reference to public use. We interpret constitutional amendments so that words
mean something. And in this case, the public use reference didn’t even amount to a speed bump for the Court on its way of effectively negating the protections of the clause. Continue reading “Testimony on Kelo and the Supreme Court’s Eminent Domain Ruling in Kelo”
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”
STATEMENT OF
PROFESSOR JONATHAN TURLEY
SHAPIRO PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
WASHINGTON, D.C.
BEFORE
THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY, AND HOMELAND
SECURITY
“A REVIEW OF THE TOOLS TO FIGHT TERRORISM ACT”
SEPTEMBER 13, 2004
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to appear before the Subcommittee
and to discuss the provisions of the Tools to Fight Terrorism Act of 2004. Continue reading “Senate Testimony: National Security and Civil Liberties”