The “Lady Professor” said it even STRONGER that Congress better take it’s power back.
He doesn't see the fundamental corruption visited by the 17th Amendment to the exquisite design of our Framers.
<>Some pull quotes from his prepared statement:<>
The very fact that we are having this hearing captures how far we have drifted from our original constitutional origins.
I believe considerable blame rests not with the “political branches” but with the Judicial Branch.
The removal of the federal courts from the equation in these conflicts has placed even greater stress on the system of checks and balances. However, the measures available to Congress are no substitute for judicial review, particularly given the changes in our federal system.
Today, the vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations. Recently, this Supreme Court added to this insulation and authority with a ruling that agencies can determine their own jurisdictions—a power that was previously believed to rest with Congress.
The Executive Branch routinely moves billions of dollars around in discretionary or undesignated funding. Cutting off the funding of a given part of the government does not have immediate impacts and may in fact not prevent funding as intended.
The other oft-cited power checking the Executive Branch is direct legislative action and oversight authority. Once again, however, recent years have shown how presidents can insulate themselves from legislative inquiry into questions of misconduct or misappropriation.
I previously testified that I believe that President Obama clearly violated the Constitution in his recess appointment of Richard Cordray to serve as the first Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three individuals to the National Labor Relations Board.
The solution to this crisis will not be found in the impeachment clause.
I have repeatedly testified before Congress on the single most valuable change that would counter the usurpation of legislative authority: legislative or member standing.
Any change in the Article III limitations would have to come from that same Court. The only alternative would be a constitutional amendment. The situation is, in my view, so serious that I believe we may have to consider such a move, even though I have long opposed constitutional amendments as a general principle. I have been reluctant to suggest such a resolution because I believe the Court is dead wrong on standing and that this is a barrier created by the courts rather than the Constitution.
And Congress is thinking about law suits vice impeachment because they don’t “think” Americans are up to it and the Senate wouldn’t vote on it. Impeachment should be initiated and passed in the House. That would send a signal at a minimum but what’s really needed is a massive protest in DC to back it up and not a one day weekend protest....
Bump
Turley's way of saying it's time for 'impeachment!'
Strikes me as humorous that what I saw in Obammy 6 years ago, the elite, highly educated libs are just now noticing. They are soo much smarter than us little people.
Yes, but he doesn’t regret his vote and would likely support him in a future election, if one were constitutionally possible.
Turley said this when Bush was President too, so we’ve passed a couple of tipping points. Pardon me if I don’t strike up a band over his testimony.
Bump
Liberal professor forgot to add
“And I’M LOVIN’ IT!!!