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 liberty, and i really think that the framers would be horrified by that shift because everything they have dedicated themselves to was creating this orbital balance, and we have lost it." close quote. that makes the hair stand on the back of my neck. this goes to the core of our government. are we a legal system or not? and if we start eroding these classical principles of law, duty and responsibility, appropriate balance between the three branches of government, we have done something that's important, and professor turley said we are undermining the orbital balance. indeed, he say

turley. he's had a chance to reflect upon the earlier statement of the situation that we are in, and where this goes. we need to look into the future and ask unanimous consent for the additional minute to ask each of the witnesses to tell us what does america look like in the next 25 years if we have executive upon executive builds upon this continual stretching or disregard of the constitutional restraint and a disrespect for article i? start with mr. turley and speeding you may answer the question as quickly as you can. >> i really have great trepidation of where we're heading because we are creating a new system here, something that is not designed. we have this rising fourth branch and a system that is tripartite. this center of gravity is shifting and that makes it unstable. and within that system you have the rise of the presidency. there could be no greater danger for individual liberty. and i really think that the framers would be horrified by that shift because everything they dedica

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

we will turn first to professor turley. >> thank you. it is a great honor to be invited to speak with you today. you have to forgive my voice. i'm getting over a cold. i hope to make it through this without having a coughing fit. this is obviously a difficult area of 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 us who happen to agree with the president's policies, which i do. i voted for him previously. however, it is often more important how you do something than what you do. the reason this is such an important thing is that the bedrock of our constitution remains the separation of powers. it is often misunderstood as some type of conflict between branches. it is really a protection of liberty. it allows for issues that divide us to be cycled through a system in which factional interest can be transformed. even though all bridges are equal, the congress is the thumping heart of that system. it is where issues are tran

turley said. would you all agree, without further adjudicating, that when andy jackson heard from the u.s. supreme court that had no right to move native americans out of their homes to oklahoma, and he then did it anyway saying essentially to the supreme court, you have no army, therefore, i'm doing it, that he was outside his constitutional authority? you at all agree to that? let the record show i had all -- all shaking his. when richard nixon tried to withhold his tapes which were essentially evidence of his complicity in the watergate and the cover-up, and the court ordered the states even after he fired a number of people excellent, you would all agree that the courts action was appropriate, that there was a crime, it went to the white house and ultimate led to richard nixon resigned. you would all agree it was appropriate, i assume, for the court to intervene in this constitutional dilemma of a president who didn't want to turn over evidence related to describe. would you all agree? i would

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

turley. >> bless you! >> i was concerned about the imperial presidency and concerned about having a republican and republicans in congress who are not willing to be a check and a balance on a republican resident. like -- president. i cannot remember which one of you said this, you said that you liked the fact that obama was going to be a check on what previous presidents have done. i'm disappointed that we are at this hearing and i'm surprised that my friends do not think that this is an important hearing. tched and wh ined. they do not have a concern about what the president did with his authority. >> i believe that this administration is facing a critical crossroads. what this body cannot become it is a debating society. they issue rules and laws that are either complied with or not complied with by the president. i think that is where we are. mr. lazarus says that the president can ignore an express statement of policy grounds. if you look at the individual mandate, the policy is that a great number of

professor turley at the hearing said this -- quote -- "i believe the president has exceeded his brief. the president is required to

as professor turley said, this was a big deal. congress rejects a law and then the president directs his officers to execute a law that was never passed. in fact, rejected. the president told an audience in november of this year that he did not have the power to halt deportations stating -- quote -- "if in fact i could solve these problems without passing this through congress, i would do so. we're a nation of laws. the easy way out is to try and yell and pretend i can do something by violating our laws." he said that but he's doing just the opposite. his statement is accurate. every member of congress should be alarmed by this. i asked my democratic friends who have been awfully quiet on this issue what would you do if a president refused to enforce welfare laws or minimum wage laws or fair housing laws. what would you do if a president circumvented congress to implement a policy you disagreed with? and congress had explicitly rejected. would your reaction be the same silence that we're seeing today? once the rule of law begins t

professor turley, thanks. host: if you want to give your thoughts on this decision, here are the numbers. 202-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3880 for democrats. independents.or you can tweet us or e-mail your thoughts, journal@c-span.org. this is james from austin, texas. caller: good morning. i wanted to reply to john turley's comments. host: why do you bring up the question? caller: i think it is important to know. these are federal judges. if they presume it is constitutional in the first place, how could they have required this type of opinion? why would they form this type of opening to begin with? texas.ames from austin, republicans.for 202-585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3882 for independents. times" editorial host: janice from north carolina, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. judgeoncerned that this has made a decision based on his personal opinions. if we are going to have that senator having a hearing to destroy the president like he does on everything else. dakota.nk, north call

jonathon turley the historian recently said this president is behaving worse than other presidents. yes george w bush did a lot of signing statements, but president obama dark dark. >> worse in what way? >> enacting this pile of rules and rgulations. >> we went through the list before. go ahead, sabrina. >> one of the real problems is that you don't have any means for debate when you have an executive order. especially on the issue of climate change for instance. if there is actual legislation there is conversation for the american people to take part in. with the executive order the president is setting up a task force made up of almost entirely democrats and where the american people don't even know it is happening and they can't even voice their opinion. the transparency issue has gone out the window. >> i know a lot of people in the op session, a lot of the republicans say look, just sit back. he is a wounded president. high -- he is not going to get a lot done. the fact that there is this specific plan of moving this toward a progressive agenda ahead without congress, doesn't t

we want to bring in two people to talk about this, george washington law professor jonathan turley and jim acosta at the white house. jim, i want to start off with you. you've got them talking about the economy, the problems that they're having with obama care w -- website. does it strike you as ironic you are people who collect information, they use it, they all sell it for profit, haven't always been good at protecting their privacy, now complaining about the government spying. tell us what this meeting is really about. >> well, you know, i think what you're seeing this morning here at the white house, suzanne, is these tech executives are reflecting a lot of the feelings that americans are having right now and reflecting the feelings of the federal judge who issued the scathing ruling about the phone records being collected over at the national security agency. these executives, these companies wrote a letter to the president last week complaining about some of this saying the balance of security has solicited too far to the state and this undermines people's freedoms and there has

. >> let's talk about this and other big legal stories of 2013 with jonathan turley, a legal scholar and law professor with the george washington university. he joins me now live from chicago. professor, want to read part of the opinion by judge leon. i have significant doubt about the efficacy of the metadata program. how much impact do you see this having and do you see nsa practices eventually being ruled unconstitutional? do you think this will eventually reach the supreme court? >> the judge's opinion is going to be appealed to the d.c. circuit and there, it will face judges that have been very supportive of the government and there are certainly many on the supreme court that have been supportive of the government and the national security arguments that it normally makes. but this is a conservative judge and by the way, i think many constitutional scholars, including myself, agree with him, particularly when he says that the framers of the constitution would be aghast at the very notion of the government collecting all of this metadata so that they can, you know, look at it if

we'll see the next step, professor turley who is pushing this. it will be to recognize these plural marriages. if it's all about love, you can't deny three or four or five people. this is a big immigration issue, too. when people are knocking on the door to come into the country, we're going to see women become a real target in this country. and, again, you want to talk about a war on women, this is it. ? so let's remove the cult aspect from this a minute. and let's remove, obviously pedophiles. let's just talk about adults for a second. coty and his wives have 14 children. they're featured on the show sister wives. they issued a statement saying many people do not believe in plural families. but many will come to respect our choices. why shouldn't they be entitled to that? >> i know holly good has done their part, just as they've done with same-sex marriage by putting sister wives out there, big love, but they haven't put out there the warren jeffs, they haven't told lori's story, what she has seen in the polygamist movement. and i would say wha

bayh, you talked about something during this hearing, which is why the regulatory branchs and jonathan turley, said it's also like the rise of the fourth branch that the founders never intended but the federal agency have so much power to carry out in tandem with the executive branch things that the president would like to get done and there's no check on them. >> shannon, that's exactly right. any president that is going to use that regulatory power to the maximum extent they can otherwise their election has not meant anything. so let's take the dodd/frank bill, regulating the financial services or, as jon mentioned, obama care. those laws were probably 10% prescripted by congress, you will do this and you won't do that and that, by definition, is congress handing over the regulatory authorities, vast maneuver and we're seeing it used very aggressively right now. >> that's how we compromise. we can't resolve the issue between us so we leave it to the regulatory agencies. >> and kick it down the can? >> sure. sometimes it goes to court and the courts end up making the rule. but that's a diffe

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

jonathan turley with george washington university law says the president has repeatedly crossed constitutional lines. he made recess appointments when the senate is not recess. that is not legal. he declared changes to the law, delays to the law. the law doesn't allow him to do that. in cases he's chosen not to enforce laws like immigration law. is that, is he right? is this a president crossing the constitutional line. >> has a duty to execute the law. in instances with the affordable care act. removal of the cap on out of pocket expenditures he has changed law and doesn't have authority to do. that the president said he can't wait on congress. under our system of government he has to. he has been inconsistent with article two. >> mr. attorney general, thank you for updating us appreciate it. >> thank you. >> when we come back, incredible choices for tonight's video of the day. your choice, your selection is next as we continue tonight on "hannity". we are gao celebrate the union of tim and laura. it's amazing how appreciative people are when you tell them they could save a lot of money on th

jonathan turley, a supporter of the president and his policies calls the trend troubling. >> the problem with what the president is doing is he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system, he's becoming the very danger the constitution was designed to avoid, that is the concentration of power in any single branch. >> reporter: other constitutional experts argue that president obama is carrying out his constitutional duties to take care that the laws be faithfully executed by revising obama care in ways that will make it viable. >> i have to say that hyperventilating about how extraordinary and unprecedented and unconstitutional these delays are is just -- is just that, it's hyperventilation and contrary to obvious historical fact. >> reporter: house republicans say talk of impeachment is futile giving a democratically controlled senate but say they'll keep fighting. >> he doesn't have a debate in the oval office about what he wants to do, he does what he wants to do. then you no longer have representative democracy, so that's what's at stake here. >> reporter: gop members h

frankly jonathon turley who is no republican i might add and if you watch he is no republican and he agrees with us it has reached an unprecedented level and we have to do something about it. >> congressman we will keep an eye on this resolution. thank you. >> yes, ma'am. have a good sunday. >> you too. more news after this break. sleep train's interest-free for 3 event is ending soon! get 3 years interest-free financing on beautyrest black, stearns & foster, serta icomfort, even tempur-pedic. plus, get free delivery, free set-up, and free removal of your old mattress, and sleep train's 100-day low price guarantee. but hurry, sleep train's interest-free for 3 event is ending soon! superior service, best selection, lowest price, guaranteed! ♪ sleep train ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪ actor peter o'toole who rose to fame in the epic film "lawrence of uh rebbe yaw" -- arabia" has died. now a look at the actor's life and career. >> he was born on august 2nd, 1932 in ireland. the son of a book maker he spent his childhood years in the united kingdom and brought up as a r

after all, jonathon turley, he is a supporter of obamacare but he's concerned about the way the president is exercising his authority. martha: how many democrats do you think you would have on board? >> at this point in time not many if any. but hearings like this help to bring the question to bear. it's about the poirt of the congress, the elected representatives of the people to write the laws of the land as the constitution intended. that process is not a pretty one or easy one. there are hard fought debates and lots of negotiations. butted the fact of the matter that's how our system is designed. if the president can by pass that and write it himself. he doesn't have a debate in the oval office about what he wants to do. he does what he wants to do and then you no longer have representative democracy. martha: you raise some important points and their testimony yesterday was stunning in its scope. thank you very much for being here. bill: we are asking on twitter today that same question about constitutional bounds @marthamaccallum or bill hemmer. president obama says obamacare is work

i enjoyed working with turley rangle -- charlie wrangel. he is a war hero. he and i disagree on just about everything. i know he got in trouble i am not speaking about that. he is a good guy and i enjoyed working with them. we could find common ground. even though we came from different districts and perspectives, he was someone i could talk to. that is what is missing right now. there is an inability or an unwillingness to sit down at the table -- let me end with this. i loved the last budget agreement it was decided 45 minutes after the pizza arrived. they rolled in the pizza and everyone came out and had an agreement. we should have more pizza. maybe beer, wine. if they broke bread together and had a chance to have a glass of beer together. that sounds silly and is kind of a stupid remark. people are probably saying it is. get to know these people, they are not evil. they care about america. if they found that out, there is a good chance they could find common ground easier and more often. host: charlie rangel just announced he is running for a 23rd term.

. >> jonathan turley is a law professor and more importantly the attorney for kody brown and his four wives. thank you for joining us this morning. >> good morning. chris. >> let's deal with the law first. then we'll get to the practice. this ruling unpack it for us. it kind of skirts around the bigamy aspect and goes to the living aspect. tell us about it. >> it makes a lifestyle of polygamists legal in the sense that it is no longer a crime. so lurl families can go out into public and be what they are and represent themselves for what they believe their faith demands. they will not be subject to prosecution. they will not be subject to threats that their children will be taken away from them t. court did what we suggested. the judge said that the only way you could be prosecuted in utah is if you have more than one marriage license. that's the conventional bigamy statute. most pole gammists do not have more than one. most have a single marriage license with the state and the rest of their marriages are called spiritual marriages. these are agreements between pthey want to have a ple

i enjoyed working with turley wrangel. charlie .e is a war hero he and i disagree on just about everything. i know he got in trouble, i am not speaking about that. he is a good guy and i enjoyed working with them. we could find common ground. even though we came from different districts and perspectives, he was someone i could talk to. that is what is missing right now. there is an inability or an unwillingness to sit down at the table -- let me end with this. i loved the last budget agreement, it was decided 45 minutes after the pizza arrived. they rolled in the pizza and everyone came out and had an agreement. we should have more pizza. maybe beer, wine. if they broke bread together and had a chance to have a glass of beer together. that sounds silly and is kind of a stupid remark. people are probably saying it is. get to know these people, they are not evil. they care about america. if they found that out, there is a good chance they could find common ground easier and more often. just charlie rangel announced he is run

listening to the legal experts from georgetown, george washington university, whether it was professor turley, rosen krantz, lazaras, it's difficult to find standing on the issues. your thoughts? >> there are a couple of ways the congress can remedy this, and that's go to court and sue. and members of the supreme court said congress doesn't have standing. the ultimate remedy is impeachment, which some of the witnesses brought up. but the really important remedy is elections. and if your viewers think that the balance is tilted more toward the executive branch and away from the legislative, they need to correct that come next november. >> well listen, thank you for taking the time, and there's never enough time. i think in the end, to be fair, as well, a lot of these infractions have happened under the current administration, but the executive branch getting stronger has been an ongoing phenomenon for quite a while. thank you for taking the time today. >> you bet. >> carl, back to you. >> thanks a lot, rick. >>> yahoo! mail is a disaster, but the company's response is even worse. so says cara

the first witness is jonathan turley of public interest law at george washington university law school. professor turley is a legal scholars who's written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory and portable. he's published over 3,000 academic articles into 750 articles in newspapers including "new york times," usa today and at "the wall street journal." he's been recognized as the second most cited professor in the country. the second witness is nicolas rosenkranz a professor of law at georgetown university law center. professor rosenkranz served and advised the federal government in a variety of capacities including as a clerk to supreme court justice anthony kennedy and as an attorney advisor to the department of legal counsel. he has published numerous articles including the subjects of the constitution which is the single most downloaded article up at the constitutional interpretation of the history of the social sciences research network. the third witness is simon lazarus senior counsel with the accountability center. he's a member of the administrat