mr. turley, mr. cannon, i think both of you, coming from different political points of view have some of the same concerns that i had about the prior administration, about the bush administration. in fact i read some of your writings, mr. turley, before i was a member about congress. >> bless you. >> and i was very concerned about the imperial presidency. i was very concerned about having a republican with republicans in congress who were not willing to be a check and a balance on a republican president. and in fact like mr. cannon stated in hits testimony, i think it was you, i can't remember which one of you it was, who stated that maybe the one thing that you liked about obama, you seem to agree with his policies, you seem to kind of like the fact that he was going to be a check on what previous presidents had done. so i'm actually really disappointed that we are here at this hearing today and i'm surprised at my friend on the other side don't think this is an important hearing because they seem t

mr. turley, let me ask you this. you had mentioned something among the lines, you were concerned that president obama is becoming the very dangerous that separation of powers was meant to prevent. and mr. lazarus mentioned earlier that there were -- i don't know who exactly he was referring to. some are hyper eventlating about this whole -- hyperventilating about this topic. >> it is not -- in my testimony, i -- the reason i think we have this disconnect in our view of this clause is that we obviously read the history differently. i view the constitutional convention as quite clear. the framers were -- james madison, 150 years before they took a pen and wrote out this clause. there was a fight with james 1 about what was called a royal prerogative. it is very similar to what president obama is claiming. the right of the contingency to essentially stand above the law. i'm not saying that president obama is a monarch. by that was the issue that gave the impetus to this clause in my view. it did not change very much. te

mr. turley? >> as we said before for years i've encouraged members to consider members standing the stand-alone issue to try to find a way to establish the constitutionally or through statute to allow the members of congress. >> about your start going to get that through any amount of time. >> i published along the line and i reached this which i also testified on. >> that was in the list of -- >> what is fascinating is that because congress has been stripped of more and more of its power, it has actually put more emphasis on appointment as a way of controlling -- >> have we been stripped of it or giving it up? >> as i said it before and i'm to see again it was slow and messy but at the end of the day the right answer for the committees to hold hearings like this to publicize what it takes to be the violation of the constitution and for that to become an election issue. >> we don't have the problem for the president of my constituents have, but if i had missed have d anything on the remedy agains

mr. turley goes on -- quote -- "the problem of what the president is doing is that he is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. he is becoming the very danger the constitution was designed to avoid. that is the consultation of power in any single branch. this newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one, but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration." close quote. wow. this is very strong. then when professor turley was asked whether the president had acted contrary to the constitution, professor turley answered in the affirmative. he said further -- quote -- "i really have great trepidation over where we are headed because we are creating a new system here, something that is not what was designed. we have this rising forth branch in a system that's triapartheid. the center of gravity is shifting, and that makes it unstable, and within that system you have the rise of an uber presence. there could be no greater danger with individual libe

mr. turley has suggested that this body is on the verge of a basis of the relevancy. leadership,he house we have passed no legislation for the president to implement. we have not passed immigration reform and we have not dealt with the mandatory minimums. we have not dealt with the budgetary process or sequester. if we could do our job, the relevance would exceed expectations. the event a few hours ago. we had dreamers. thear as i'm concerned, duty of the president is to be the ultimate giver of relief inside of the constitution and the necessary relief of the people who were begging relief. intellectually , take care that the laws are faithfully executed and commission the officers of the united states. i can be a believer. my faith says that the president is taking, within the context of loss, the ability to help the most more rubble. nerable. what we're doing here is a rhetorical wasteland. as a federal prosecutor, each day, prosecutors are making distinctive decisions about who to prosecute and how, within the context of the law. to answer the question for you, mr

mr. conyers for his opening statement. >> thank you. good morning -- top of the morning to the witnesses and to my colleagues on the house judiciary committee. the president's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws would be an important issue worthy of a hearing by this committee if there was any evidence that the president has indeed failed to fulfill his duty. but unfortunately, it appears that some here view policy disagreements as constitutional crises and proof of possible wrongdoing. the fact is that disagreements are even allegations that a program is not being carried out the way congress intended should not raise constitutional concerns. if some of my friends want to disagree with the administration, it is of course it's certainly their right. but we should keep some days here and consider the following issues. to begin with some of the administration's actions criticized by the majority are not really that much out of the ordinary. .. deadlines in medicare part d. ev

mr. turley? >> the issue does come closest for both president obama and president bush created the reason i do not think that it rises to that level is because iof the court's decisions they have made this feel like such of a mass. first of all, by the judicial and then not reviewing it it's very hard to maintain the offense when you have that degree of ambiguity. i do not belief that ambiguity is in the constitution. i believe the president obama violated the constitution of libya, for example. but because of that history and precedent they can claim that they were acting in a reasonable interpretation of the law. >> i congratulate you and i yield back the balance to. >> i have to be careful how i respond to that. i will now recognize another gentleman from texas. >> thank you chairman. i disagree with you on that republicans are only concerned about executive abuses when democrats were in control three i personally don't like any executive abuses that are who the president is. and i think that

. >> mr. rosenkranz, welcome. >> thank you members of the committee. i thank you for the opportunity to express my views about the president's constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. i agree -- >> check your microphone and pull it closer to you. >> can you hear me now? all right. to speak about the take care clause, i want to associate myself with professor turley's opening statements. i agree with all of his remarks. i would like to draw the committee's attention to the text of the clause. it is best to begin by parsing the actual words. notice that this clause is not a grant of power, but the imposition of a duty. the president shall take care. this is not optional. it is mandatory. note that the duty is personal. the execution of the laws may be dedicated to other officers, but the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, that is personal. third, notice that the president is not required to take care that the laws be completely executed. that wo

. >> thank you mr. chairman, ranking member conyers and members of the committee. it's an honor to be invited to speak with you today. about the meaning of the clause. forgive my voice. i'm getting over a cold. but i hope to make it through this without having a coughing fit. this is obviously a difficult area of the constitutional interpretation as the ranking member pointed out. this is not the first time that we have dealt with this question. it is also difficult for some of those that have been to agree with the president's policies, which i do. in fact i voted for him previously. however, in the madisonian system, it is often more important how you do something than what you do. the reason this is such an important hearing is that the bedrock of the constitution remains the separation of powers and it is often misunderstood as some type of conflict between the branches. it is a protection of liberty and allows issues that divide us to be cycled through a system in which factual interest can be tran