tv Book Discussion on Lawless CSPAN February 20, 2016 6:30pm-8:01pm EST
>> good afternoon. i am the director of the cato center for constitutional studies and your host for today's forum marking the publication of a new book by professor david bernstein, lawless: the obama administration's unprecedented assault on the constitution and rule of law. this book and forum could not be more timely. just yesterday we witnessed the president telling the nation that he was directing officials in his administration to expand the regulation of the second amendment rights in several ways including by expanding the definition of what it means to be in the business of selling firearms.
the repeated usurpations from a long list of domestic and foreign policy disasters, but they have also served to direct our attention to the constitution. the separation of powers will be our focus today as we canvas the many constitutional assaults of the past seven years. professor bernstein will speak for about 30 minutes and then we will here opposing commentaries the
book and opened upopen it up to folks for questions. i will introduce each of our speakers before he speaks. a professor at george mason university school of law in arlington, virginia where he has been teaching since 1995. he has written over 60 frequently cited scholarly articles, book chapters and studies,studies, the author of rehabilitating lochner defending individual rights against progressive reform, all of you especially those of you who still are of the persuasions that lochner was wrongly decided. he is also the author of you can't say that. the author of only one place of her dress african-american labor and the court reconstruction to the new deal which the duke university press published,
the co-author of the new expert evidence which is a case law and also of phantom risk. he is a graduate of yeah law school are you a senior editor of the year livejournal. >> thank you. thanks also to india, still in the hospital. major points to come here today. >> hopefully it won't be too much output. sooutput. so i am going to start with
the constitution and the rule of law itself. the corruption of watergate hank in the 60s and issues to bring more power back. these reforms unfortunately been largely ineffective. nevertheless until recently in most cases to try to obey law but at least try to attend. this administration has been aggressive about exiting presidential power, doing so and lawless ways and an unusually wide range of areas most unprecedented
thing. the obama administration is accomplished the present and his advisers we don't surreptitiously go around congress obama the constitution's separation constitution separation of powers and the laws are on the statute books. as a promoting proper way not simply as a matter of last resort in an emergency but as a matter of principle. his supporters claim the fact that the republicans in congress are less to refuse to cooperate somehow gives
the president extra powers congress is a bunch of jerks , the president gets more power. i look several times. i'm not going to summarize the whole. the abusive exercise. going to war in libya in violation of the presence on promise he was elected. even more egregiously in violation of the war powers act. appointing czars the high-level government positions to evade constitutionally mandated confirmation hearings and also congressional oversight , modifying, delaying and ignoring
various provisions of the law engaging in constitutionally protected speech, issuing draconian regulations for sexual assault on campus not through formal regulation not subject to any legal review. ignoring hundred years of advice and arguing that the dc delegate be granted voting rights in congress. and then also rewriting the bankruptcy laws to favor unsecured creditors notably the auto workers union over the secure creditors. imposing common core standards and much more, something of a laundry list.
let me just talk about three of them in more detail. i just mentioned it. but it is important because it is so telling about the obama administration's attitude. grant voting rights, the constitution however limits voting rights in congress to representatives of the several states. dc is especially designated district, not adistrict, not a state. that's what the constitution and law says. so attorneys in obama's office ofobama's office of legal counsel told, look, you can't support this law. hundred years of office legal precedent. administrations all agree.
i should.out two things about the office of legal counsel. they arecounsel. they are mostly -- there are some civil servants. so part of the executive branch and mostly the pres.'s own political appointees. that means they bend over backwards to try to find legal authority for whatever the president wants to do. the 2nd key point about one of the very few checks on presidential authority. the llc tells me i can't do something, they are trying to find a way to let me do want to do and i should not do it. but instead of deferring atty. general eric holder went to the office of the solicitor general and asked them to review the issue.
legislation that will defend any law that can make an argument in favor of its legality. and they said no. and then they went ahead and did it. what was at stake? nothing.nothing. how often does the house of representatives? never. if there ever was an occasion it would almost certainly have been immediately challenged in court and all certainly any judge who would see the case with throw it out because the dc delegate cast the
deciding vote. so this is a purely political symbolic new way to satisfy. purely symbolic. nevertheless, atty. gen. holder was going to undermine one of the very few checks internally on presidential authority for basically no reason. and this reflected the attitude that was forthcoming later. at a time when the democrats controlled the house and senate by large majorities. another example is war powers in libya. specifically the war powers act. meant to rein in executive authority after next and bombed cambodia secretly without congressional
authorization killing a few hundred thousand people. and the law says that when hostilities are involved with the pres. has to inform congress and as 90 days to withdraw soldiers if congress does not given explicit approval. some people think the war powers act is entirely unconstitutional,unconstitut ional command there is an argument to be made for that. they accepted that the war powers act is legally valid. instead president obama's claims that bombing libya for months at a time killing lots of people was not actually hostility. therefore the act was
negotiated. this is ridiculous. i am a law professor. here is one of here is one or have to say this is a ridiculous argument. obama's own lawyers say you can't do this. you have to go to congress. these are folks who are representing defense interests. youyou can do this. president obama went trolling around looking for somewhere with authority to say you can do this. he found former dean of yale law school. now, he was known in the academic world for arguing that the president cannot act unilaterally. even better he argued that when president reagan bombed libya that that implicated the war powers act. somehow he came to the conclusion that bombing libya for months at a time 15 years later not
constitute hostilities within the meaning of the act and therefore the president can go ahead and do it. >> wasn't more hostilities the military action. >> the argument, american forces are not actually at risk unless they get hit by a stray aircraft. one problem largely meant to prevent cambodia from happening again. so just looking at the history is not make any sense. finally as far as the examples, this to your colleague letter to rewrite their guidelines for them just -- investigating sexual assault.
this was accomplished by a dear colleague letter department of education's office of civil rights. there is no statutory language. they just announced it. here are the rules we want you to follow. even worse the rules themselves stripped students accused of sexual assault of anything resembling due process protections. the standard of proof had to be now to ponder and so the evidence rather than clear and convincing.convincing. that is the least of the troubles. much more important the guidance that was given
severely discourages any cross examination of the complainant which is stripping away people's right to defend themselves if there is a he said she said situation. more important the rules say you are not allowed to ask the complaining individual about his or her past sexual history regardless of how relevant it might be. with say a video circulates of a man and woman engaging and degrading sexual act and the woman gets embarrassed and humiliated and says it was not voluntary,voluntary, it was sexual consult. she tells the university investigators that it was absurd to think this was voluntary. the defendant that the person complained about found five other men on campus prohibit the evidence
from being admitted. that is the only way the person can defend themselves and is persuasive. again, not through any formal rulemaking process. the ocr for four years proclaimed this was the standard and two different senators ask where are you getting the legal authority? there is no notice, there is nothing. and they knowledge there is no legal authority. this is just general guidance. this didn't actually make any new law.
so still trying to enforce it. whether we like his policies were like most people i cato severely dislike to mccain from the tradition of legal liberalism, separation of powers. i spent a lot of time thinking about this. and researching it in the big part of the problem is that obama and many of his top lawyers come from an intellectual tradition that is unlikely -- legal liberalism of the past very skeptical. considering the liberals and progressives are taken to arguing that the
constitution has no objective meaning from a series, series of interpretations focusing on the original objectives are nonsense and that the constitution is a living document the must evolve with the times. there is a long stand on the use of law is maintained by following the law in ways that promote consistency and stability.stability. everyone knows in advance with the lawful be. ensuring equal treatment of the parties. the rule was maintained by
respecting the separation of powers and by the idea that the pres. must faithfully execute the law whether he agrees with them or not. the rule of law, key elements that no more. consider the mission statement comeau liberal counterparts of the conservative federal society. our mission of the totality of the constitution and the fundamental values. so the rule of law is giving no more weight than abstract unattainable goals like genuine equality.
the coherence of the concept came under a series of attacks in the legal academy in the mid- 1970s. first in the critical legal studies movement which is a descendent of the legal realist movement they could come into play ideology among liberals and the 40s and40s and 50s. it seemed like the kind of thing for nazis and communists. there is no rule of law.
the mantra politics. and if that is what you think of the law is not terribly surprising. various groups of critical legal scholars whose influence peaked prior out late 1980s was barack obama, not coincidently. the '80s peak peak when he was there and was influenced by them. critical scholars were in the minority nevertheless influence has been broadly felt and therefore has been influential. so as it turns out the rule of law maintains a tenuous foothold as an important concept in the liberal legal academy that it means something different.
it is not objectivity can brutality, and so forth. the. the government wants to do something it has to come up with a non- ridiculous theory as to why it is legal. the law will only been so far without breaking. and in fact they have the feeling of the do so. so many legal controversies. when the bush administration pushed executive power to its limits there were quite a few lawyers that objected internally. the interesting things,
despite all these controversies surely there must be someone in the administration that really should be doing this. i have scoured for an example. so important ii'm going to resign. no one is done that. the 1st president to my knowledge to brag about going around congress. one was in 2013 after he won reelection to give the speech where he said i'm going to go around congress and do whatever i can and
not only of the democrats objecting in congress to this usurpation of power, all the democrats in the audience give them a standing ovation. counteract our but it turns out partisanship is more important than preserving the prerogatives of each branch. meanwhile, the problem, there are all these problems. why don't people just sue? and the problem is there is a doctrine called standing, you have to have legal standing to sue and in most end in most cases when the executive behaves and lawless ways there is no one to sue. you can see the president for bombing libya. when of the great ironies is this issue finally starting the attraction asked about
>> the damage undermines the president in favor of protecting the current political agenda however worthy the agenda seems to be at the time. the idea of we had no choice but to cease power is what is used by every dictator in the world to justify tyranny. everyone has their agenda. this is a great thing to do but we have to look at the long term and how this undermines things. and discussing before we came out here how many people think it is great that the president
obama should be able to stretch the law think it would be fine and dandy for trump to do the same thing. we want president trump to be signing executive orders on immigration if you think obama should be because he is doing a humanitarian gesture. one thing about the united states is the supreme court has said in many context how do we know the scope of power. we look at how congress has been able to stop them. everything president does is not going to be this is what president obama and do you want president rubio, trump, cruz, at some point someone like them will be president and you want don't them to have to powers and is it worth whatever obama suis
achieving now to risk that in the future? this can only be justified if you think law has no independent value. get what you have now and don't worry about it. if that is what obama and appointees really believe maybe the scholars have won after all. thank you very much. >> thank you, david. at least -- if president trump does it one thing we know it will be tremendous. all right. we are going to hear from shapiro and you are going -- i asked because as of late friday
night is a first -- late monday night is a first-time father. let's -- [applause] >> you get an applause. okay. we will hear from the senior fellow in constitutional studies at cato and the editor and chief of the cato supreme court review. before joining cato he was a special assistant advisor to the multi national force in iraq and on rule of law issues and practiced at paton bogs and clearly godly. he is the co-author of religious liberties for corporations? hobby lobby, the affordable care act and the constitution which came out just in 2014.
he has contributed to a variety of poplar academic publications including the la times, usa today, weekly standard and so forth. he regularly provides commentary on the major media from cbs to colbert, npr and so forth. he has testified often before congress and state legislatures and as coordinator of cato's amicus brief's program we has filled review for the court including one for writing collection. he lectures on behalf of the federalist society. is a member of the legal study institute board for visitors at the fund for american studies. was an inaugural study at the national review fellow and a
lincoln fellow at the clermont and has been an adjunct profe professor at the george washington law school. before entering private practice he clerked for judge jolly of the u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit. his ba is from prince n -- princeton and his masters from the england school. >> the reason i am going second is not because i need to get out of here but i figured i would like him rely to both of us and david can continue the conversation other than me rebuting because this is about
david's project. as we enter this final year of the barack obama's presidency there is not much the president can do to change people's opinion of him for better orworse. his legacy, borrowing some extraordinary occurrence, including an extra terestial is based in history. one of president obama's chief accomplishments has been to return the constitution to a central place in our public discourse. unfortunately, the president talked about the upswing in civil interest not by talking federalism or separation of powers but by violating the document. with the pen and harking to the view and i am not surprised by
the rule of law violations and i recognized that the income obama's were much more about wilson and revolutionary than rather the '60s or the '80s. he has been taking out his frustrati frustrations with the checks and balances that inhibit his ability to transform the country. this hasn't stopped him. in his first term, the administration launch ad we cannot wait initiative with dan explaining when congress won't act this president will. when the president announced his second-term agenda he explained i will not allow gridlock or inaction or willful indifference get in the way. that sentiment flies in something that changed in the
last decade and that is lawmakers and citizens no longer consider whether a bill or policy proposal is a good idea but whether it is constitutional. where does the government or the president get the power to do that and a common rally cry on the occupy left and the tea party right. that is a healthy development. for too long, even in those rare moments when politicians were faced with constitutional concerns, they have had the attitude of nancy pelosi. you will ask when asked about the authority for obamacare individual mandates she said are you serious? the constitution is the font of all federal power so it is good it is being taken seriously. it is carefully crafted structural provision wes we lead about in grade school or yal did because i went to grade school
in canada. like most immigrants i do a job most americans don't and that is defending the constitution such as the separation of powers and checks and balances. as justice anthony kennedy wrote in the 2011 case of the united states versus bond federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary of different ins instituti institutions of government. bond was the run of the mill case of adultery, federalism and chemical weapons. this woman sprinkled garden variety chemical powder on her best friend's post-office box and front door and car handle when she discovered the best friend had been having an affair and was indeed pregnant by her husband. and rather than being charged for assault or attempted murder
by local officials the federal prosecutor went after her for violating the federal legislation for implementing chemical weapons. a bit overkill. this came up twice and once the government lost uunanimously an then once lost 8-1. the last term case was yates versus the united states where the fisher was catching underage grouper and was prosecuted and sentenced to a long time in jail for violating the anti-shredding law which was federal overreach and struck down by the supreme court. if the federal court works
outside of its enumerated powers it is no better than an armed law. david bernstein covers this story in a book everyone should read. he cannot hit everything, which is a sad statement about where we have, he does an excellent job of covering the water front of abuses from carol to justice department direction -- affordable care act -- to college speech codes, to the aca, patient protection and affordable care act, czars, and did where mention obamacare? part of the roeason you don't se a lot of interns mroet floating about is because of obamacare.
we like to pay our interns and because we pay our interns we cannot employ them for longer than three months at a certain number of hours a week without providing them full health care benefits. because we don't want to provide the full package or nothing we have to employ them for less time during the year hence no interns to help out here. david also has an interesting chapter on -- i am just talking about the consequences. why the rule of law is important. yeah, well, okay. that will be the next cato lawsuit once we finish the ones -- david has this interesting chapter on foreign poly he talks about which it is tricky because the scope over foreign affairs and less defined than foreign awares. it is obvious the president violated the war powers act i am
not convinced it is constitution itself. obama's actions in trying to comply with the war power act says a lot more. he unlike other presidents didn't say the war power act i am not complying with it because it is not constitutional. yet here too as i said he managed to violate clearly established law. if you want more examples read what are the three most successful successful op-eds of my career. we are talking hundreds of thousands of clicks for the daily caller, forbes and the national review. think about that a second. is it a problem it is not hard to come up with this list? for legal pundants it is like
shooting a gun while walking past a fish barrel getting lunch. each action would cause executive action. obama hasn't started prosecute thought crime but he is getting close with so-called climate change deniers. as far as the supreme court, that is my specialty. th this court stands out more than any other to me in modern history. where you look at the president being below 40% or unanimous cases with a record average of four losses per term.
it is not a pretty picture. the last three years, cato and our ambus brief is 15-3, 10-1 and 87-1. there are three reasons. overzelous prosecution, pushing theories, and regardless of the reasoning justice kennedy acts like a libertarian in close cases. the performance a few years back said quote when you have a crazy client who insist you make crazy ca claims you mean lose come cases. take it from gw law professor
jonathan turly who vote forked the president at least once on a talk about the president taking care the laws be carefully executed he said this: why i believe the white house has exceeded their brief this non infortment has arisen in history. the white house has suggested an array of arguments citing text, agency discretion and other rationals to mask what is in congress. it is relying on the expectation no one will be able to secure standing to challenge those standings in court. there is no rule saying the president can set things of imporptance.
the president is not required to enforce all laws equally or did kate the same resources to federal program. even with the ample allowance i believe barack obama has crossed the constitutional line between definance of federal law. congress is amending federal law. there is more than a turf fight between politicians. government power designed to protect liberty by the abuse of c con pp krsh concentration. we should be concerned about a president who can unilaterally suspend laws because of a president license. from the clean air act to obamacare to the immigration expansion program which i support generally as a matter of policy but have been filing and
will continue to file briefs on behalf of people that support comprehensive immigration law saying you need a law. to net true -- net neutrality and regulating the internet. this is the rule of law and i believe has done lasting damage to the country. i have some question for david when i hope you will respond to in the context of rebutting response. it title of your book is "lawless." does that mean constitutional or statutory violations or does it make a difference? second, do you really think that former constitutional law professor barack obama theory of
power is he can do whatever we wants unless congress is deadlocked and it is hard to get someone to stand a challenge. third, some say all presidents do this. perhaps there is a ranking up of ever administration but otherwise nothing to see her. what is your response to that? fourth, what should we do? impeachment is a political remedy and given the polarized nation of our party it will never happen. it is not a feasible solution unless the ratings drops below 20% for approval. is there anything else we can do? and finally, we have seen an increase in state lawsuits and is that the new normal? the breakdown is causing other branches to challenge the president in court? in terms of criticism the only
criticism i have is i should have been the one to write it. but getting a blurb on the back here will have to do. we don't endorse candidates here at cato. we are a 501-c3 and try to follow the law. but i do endorse this book. buy it, read it, and tell people you did so because of my blurb. in some, as the nation limps through obama's lame duck year americans have much to ponder regarding what this president has set for his successor and what power that successor will use. hillary clinton take executive action on gun control even more than the president did this week which i don't want much time talking about it. charlie cook from the national
review had a good hot cake. campaign finance. immigration because apparently president obama is too timid here. and trigger warning here. imagine what donald trump would do? so happy new year and enjoy the presidential election. [applause] >> thank you. now we are going to hear from the different perspective. from simon who is a senior counsel at the constitutional accountability center. before joining the center he was a public policy counsel to the national senior citizen law center. he was associate director of president jimmy carter's white house domestic policy staff. and as partner in pal goldstrong frazier and murphy from
1981-2002. senior counsel to austin from 2002-2006 and a trustee of the center for law and social policy and a member of the administrative conference of the united states. his articles have appeared in the atlantic, "washington post," role call, slate, the hill, daily beast, the new republic, huffington pos huffington post. he has published many briefs including mandatory health care; is it constitutional? and unraveling a century of constitutional law and the fabric of modern government published in february, 2011. his atlantic article the most
dangerous branch has been republished in the best political writing and principles and practice of american politics comptempory readings published in 2003. he had a graduate of the yale law school. please welcome our guest. [applause] >> thanks very much, roger. it is always a privilege to appear here at cato which i have done on many occasions. the constitution accountability center where i serve as the senior counsel works constantly with cato frequently as an
advia advisary and an ally. it is in that spirit that i offer what are going to be substantially critical remarks about the work that has been presented. i have to say i think there is a schizophrenia about this book and about the approach to the issue of executive power. on the one hand there is the prophecy side and it is acknowledged the expansion of executive power is a very long-standing structural development and it has been
exe exemplified by presidents of both political parties. he acknowledges that. then we have the propaganda side of the book which is the dominant side and appears most dominantly in the title. the fact this expansion is a structural and long-standing and bipartisan phenomena would seem to undermine the notion that such expansion as there may have been under president obama is unprecedented. i cannot deal with every single example that professor bernstein wants to march marshall when trying to make the case the obama administration is unprecedented and in violation of the president's constitutional duty to take care the laws be faithfully executed.
i cannot take on every one of these examples. let's focus on the big ones and the ones professor bernstein highlight in the introduction. first of all, we have the old saw of the affordable care act. now, he repeats, i guess the endlessly repeated notion that delays in the effective days of various aspect of the affordable care act somehow constitute unlawful actions and illustrati illustrations of a fill arfailu on the president to faithfully execute the law. first of all unprecedented? president bush's secretary of hhs called the delay of the most important mandate wise.
and you can understand why he thought that was wise. in implementing president bush's initiative for medicare creating the prescription part they were obliged to delay a number of as pects that were mandated for reasons that were the same as those that compelled the temporary delays of president obama. sometimes you cannot get it all done. we should note it has been the law for, i guess, close to 65 or 70 years under the administrate procedure act that only unreason delays in implementing executive action such as regulations are
unlawful. and so certainly they are not unconstitutional. you loss those cases and i know you are upset, mr. bernstein, i think i would have been, too, but you did. and whether or not king justice roberts and justice kennedy and the progressive justice were wrong and one can make arguments and you did make arguments they were wrong the fact that the administration's actions that were being challenged were upheld certainly shows, i think, that these are not really good examples that would support the
contention that the obama administration is thumbing its nose at the constitution. they have to beat horses that were dead but never alive to begin with. one of those is an example professor bernstein highlighted in his own remarks and that is the notion this administration created all of these unconstitutional czars running the government. he has a chapter entitled more cz
czars than the romans. really? i have not heard about them for a while and i don't think they made a dent however they were hyped by the right or left. i will say, here is a concession, both the administration and its opponents have an incentive to exagerate the influence taken. the president needs to be seen as making a difference. and his opponents need to say that these actions that the president has taken are not only things we disagree with but are unlawful and evidence he is a serial violator of his constitutional duties:..duties..
constitutional interpretation is part of the document. and we conclude with very good reason that's so the constitution supports results. sometimes we disagree but as randy barnett has said in a very gracious way that for what that constitution and says. and what it actually intended. to make that more civilized. but the impact to stress
that has been quite significant. if you look at the opinions of the progress -- progressive justice on the supreme court particular the justice cater in and justice ginsberg in justice beyer perhaps maybe to a lesser extent, they're making arguments for those positions now so i think it is a little behind times. with all progressives without living constitutionalism. i think the part session of the professorial side of the
professor bernstein and his distinguished career that he has had, as an aside that his book knowledge don't agree with it certainly to take another look now and i space do so with that is an example with the scholarship on his part. in that discussion for example, of the of cr that he discussed of guidance on how to deal with allegations of sexual misconduct.
to not be all familiar with the policy but i did think that that discussion was still a serious car to be shared. but a lot of this book be in the title is more aligned up propaganda aside. an 2.0 one thing quickly, the area where the book plays fast and loose is to call attention i have no other word but a drive by smear of the administration and officeholder of through a couple years ago.
end was selected because that'll baba could be sure they would be a completed defender. but it is more so than the predecessor. item of food that was that because it was filibustered a and blocking her successor. in the is one of the top people distinguished of the team of litigators that if you don't know was one of the founders of the federalist society one of the most distinguished litigators in the country as if she. with no ideological background.
because of the unchallengeable qualities so unfortunately does not reflect the scholar the values that professor bernstein has shown in some of his other work. >> the first is not an academic press book i disagree if that was the fact no one has any factual errors that is a difference of opinion. but i wanted this book because if it should become such a public issue i wanted to be limited to really to
lawyers in washington d.c. and have the discussion of all the legal theories. but this was written for those readers interested in those issues with say tone to it and more understandable. there is nothing in this book is what is inaccurate and may not going as much detail for the academic press but that is the choice but with that regard to critical studies i am not
saying that all progress is our scholars but i say explicitly that it has but a significant influence just the way those organizations as the very few libertarians and there have been some influence of them. there are others that are not critical legal scholars but have advocated restrictions on hate speech and would not have a mainstream but is the position in building to the obama administration itself to before the supreme court
that they could choose their own clergy coming a lot of radical legal feminism that the church to file those discrimination laws. in that is somewhere am not saying all critical scholars but with regards to the affordable care act in the right team of book about the constitution of the obama administration without addressing the cases everybody knows about and i teach evidence also talking about how the obama administration with the supreme court to give that underlying background and i
never say in the book also was constitutional the way i interpret that. that i would say with those delayed modifications from obamacare to make that argument that space actually believes that. to support obamacare in against the challenges to say that policy at that pace of which they were supposed to go into effect to be afraid of the consequences that the regulations and should go into effect
because the democrats beg them to. until after the election it has nothing to do with what the bush administration did. talking about that academic commentary like professor zachary price it is said to the academic discussion but all academics are cited in. >> is an unprecedented after all these executive-branch is growing substantially over the decades. first of all, obama and made explicit promises when running for office. and law professor i know the constitution i must obey the constitution the biggest problem he had is more power
to the executive branch. but he now does the reverse in that is unprecedented. bragging about congress to undermine explicitly as the president did in the beginning of the administration. they were upset in and for good reason. increase of executive power from world war i and the depression and world war ii. to be pure politics instead of triangulating where it will go to do whatever they want. usually a president has pushed executive powers in one area with vietnam other examples the non broadly in
so many different areas. that is why the history of the executive power i thought that this was exaggerated with the propaganda i got upset about this to alert the public that obamacare is gone it is more important that i wrote this book to have president job or cruz or clinton think about the dangers and not go along with them. i am much more concerned about the future. [applause] >> i am concerned about obama because we have one
more year to go. please wait for the microphone and identify yourself in any affiliation. >> it is a historical question. you talk about the concept of the institutional loyalty and jumped by party loyalty that prevents congress from overriding and the veto to push back on some of this lawlessness. i wonder historically if it is more pronounced than it has been in the past?
cato institute was holding an event with that power surge in 16 years ago with the power reborn of foreign policy from the clinton years. and i am pretty sure that eight years from now looking at the next president's record? with that new constitutional and that is the case with those ideological explanations. the one of those reviewers
and then to criticize democrats i was of bit disappointed with the general objections of those republicans for executive power being a real issue and the way it was among the democrats. that just hasn't happened yet. i am hoping it will with public push back and maybe the supreme court will decide in their standards. to read balance those rules to get the act together to pass budgets and a coherent way. with a $3 trillion bill at the end of the session. to shut down the government.
but i am afraid i am on a long road to perdition. >> i am sure that the cater institute will have a panel like this because of abuses have happened i agree it is qualitatively different than his predecessors but the proceeding president bush most if not all of that constitutional criticism related to foreign policy or national security related aspect of domestic enforcement of the patriot act. and to the bailout to subvert capitalism to say
that hope with no less dark moment in that it's important in those foreign policy related powers are not as explicitly outlined a >> and don that general question that you raised of the apparent expansion of presidential authority is the subject doria serious discussion. you cannot have a serious discussion if all it involves is throwing darts at whichever is administration it is to be aggrandize his powers. you can have that discussion
if you don't also include the problem of congress advocating its responsibilities and the president bush or obama somebody has to be responsible to run handwork event defend itself. >> congress does not have a responsibility to pass laws. >> they should. [laughter] suggest to take that most serious example they have been debated with what that president was doing was inappropriate in unlawful. but when is the last time
congress declared war? they actually asked to pass national law with the american intervention of syria and iraq. because they don't want to be responsible this is from the bull's-eye'' of the ayatollah? or how the framers intended. so saying seemed to have improved this last year when congress tries to work in pass legislation but still
is basically saying no. they have refused to confirm the presidential nominees throughout the administration and to be seriously understaffed at senior levels for the government to function and. and a fake frankly as of partisan in part to view of the house republicans of the last congress to put them reform bill to a vote it would have passed. it is the abuse in there is
a significant problem. >> so that is just a big part of the equation. >> and then to respond to that question henry year the equal opportunity basher because with respect to the constitution is so far removed from what the constitution and is itself there is no chance a republican or democrat with the administration and will be living up to our conception of a limited constitutional and. that affords us an ample opportunity as far as the eye can see.
and we have time for just one more question. please wait for the microphone. >> diane from george mason university. and reagan violated the spirit of the lot. liddy be given to tell us about the first president to set in motion a trend on the constitution and though laws ? >> in that post war period it should be much earlier than that.
departure from limited government in day vetoed a bill in 188-7100 years after the constitution was written to provide the sum of $10,000 for the relief of texas farmers suffering from the drought in he said in his message he could find no authority for this expenditure under the constitution. that is a constitutional veto rarely do you find that kind of statement today because of course, it authorizes the congress to do anything that is not as pressing -- expressly prohibited which of course, stirs the constitution on its head. i will end don that point. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]