Breaking: House Judiciary Committee Obama Regime “Abuse of Power” Meeting Began at 10:00 a.m.

“DANGERS OF EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT POWER”

by Sharon Rondeau

(Sep. 12, 2012) — At 10:00 a.m. EDT, the House Judiciary Committee began to hear testimony on allegations of abuse of power on the part of the Obama regime.

At 10:30 a.m., Senator Lee cited constitutional violations.  At 10:34, he stated that Obama had “refused” to recognize constitutional procedures by invoking executive privilege in the Fast & Furious investigation.  He quoted a U.S. District Court of Appeals upholding the release of information if wrongdoing is suspected. He cited Obama’s executive order allowing young illegals to remain in the country under certain conditions and “work in violation of our laws.”

Lee said that Obama implemented his policy and “usurped” the role of the legislative branch.  He “has repeatedly continued to “go it alone,” Senator Lee said.

Ms. Windham from a religious organization began testifying at approximately 10:37 a.m., citing the Justice Department’s views that it could “redefine the limits of religious liberty.”  “The ability for millions of Americans to practice religious freedom is at risk,” she said.  She then cited the health care bill, objecting to the mandate that religious organizations are forced to provide contraception against their beliefs.  She said that 22 more organizations have filed suit against the mandates, some of which have refused to comply with it.

She said that “the  administration has restricted religious freedom” and “issued the mandate without issuing a proposed regulation or accepting public comment.”  She said that the “Safe Harbor Guidelines” introduced by the regime have”changed” them.  She cited the First Amendment violations.  “Every American should be concerned regardless of their religious or political beliefs,” she said.

A constitutional law professor, Gerhardt (sp?) spoke next who said he had already submitted a written statement.  “I take great heart in our system of checks an balances.  I have for man years believed in checks and balances,” he said.  He said that the committee should “push the president” to follow the system of checks and balances and that Obama himself should scrutinize his own actions.  He said that “The president stands politically accountable” in the November election.

The professor said that the question of whether or not a president has abused power is very serious and should not involve “agreement or disagreement” with what the president has done.  “You must ask a different question,” he said.  He suggested that people should ask if the question would be asked if the president were a member of the opposite political party.  He called upon people to ask various questions “in determining whether or not there’s been any kind of abuse of power.”  The professor said he believes that Obama has been “transparent” and can answer “yes.”

The next speaker said he was testifying on his own behalf.  He said that the Constitution requires a strong executive but has behaved unconstitionally in “limiting enforcement for the immigration laws for certain classes of individuals.”  He said that Obama “had no right” to practice “prosecutorial discretion.” “The president must enforce the law as passed by Congress…”  he said.  He cited “recess appointments” which Obama had made while the Senate was still in session and that nominations made by Bush were questioned in 2007.

“The Senate’s reliance on pro forma sessions may be frustrating to the president,” he said, but Obama must adhere to the law.  He said that the Obama administration had ignored “lawful limits” on presidential power in order to “achieve its policy goals” or “avoid congressional scrutiny.”  He concluded with

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith asked Senator Lee back to the witness table and asked Lee what was “wrong: with the president determining when the Senate is in recess.  Lee said that “in many, many circumstances” the president could circumvent the Senate.  Referring to our nation’s government as a “democracy,” Smith asked Lee what the impact of the executive deciding for himself when the Senate is not in session.

Smith asked Ms. Windham what impact the contraception mandate was having on religious organizations.  Ms. Windham cited $500,000 in fines annually “if they choose to have policies that follow their faith” in regard to an organization in Colorado.

Rep. Conyers asked Prof. Gerhardt if the health care mandate, specifically providing contraceptives, interferes with freedom of speech, and Gerhardt said he did not believe it did.  He said that “the president” is not “unsupported” in taking the positions he has.  He said that “a lot of what’s going on here is institutions having taken federal money,” which “comes with conditions attached.”

Conyers then asked Gerhardt to address the statements made by his “fellow witnesses” and said he could be “very helpful to all of us in that regard.”  Gerhardt said that “this is largely enough if we have confidence in the process.”  He said that he feels that there is no “abuse of power” in the Obama administration.

“To you knowledge, has any one determined as a matter of law that the Obama administration has acted unconstitutionally on any of the matters that we’ve discussed today…?” Conyers asked.  The law professor said the question is whether or not Obama is “operating outside the courts.”  “I don’t think there’s a finding of any legal violation.”

Rep. Gallegly then spoke and expressed concern for election integrity and voter identification.  He thanked Senator Lee and then said that Obama had “unilaterally” issued a “de facto amnesty,” asking how it impacted Americans currently out of work.  “It’s difficult to quantify…” Lee answered.  “The point is that these are legitimate policy concerns…but the Constitution…says that all legislative power shall be vested in the Congress…”  He compared Obama’s illegal immigration executive order to “legislation” and said that such a policy should be made by Congress.

Rep. Gallegly then asked Lee if the executive order encourages more illegals to enter the U.S., to which Mr. Casey answered, “Yes.”  Gallegly then asked Sen. Lee if other groups of illegals would be encouraged to do so, to which Lee responded that “this example” could be cited by a future president in attempting to change more policy.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler then asked Ms. Windham if she believed that no employer should have to cover contraception, she began to answer, but he demanded a “yes” or “no” answer.  His tone was clearly aggressive to her position.  When she began to answer a second question, “That’s not the question…” he said to her impatiently.

Nadler quoted from a statement made by Justice Scalia which had said that forcing institutions to go against their religious conscience and then said to Ms. Windham, “You seem to be arguing…”  “Any law that contradicts a sincere religious belief is a substantial burden?” Nadler asked.  He then said that the Supreme Court has rejected certain claims that registering “for the draft” and “paying taxes the Amish claim that paying Social Security taxes is unconstitutional.”  Nadler then asked for comment from Prof. Gerhardt to make the case that women’s health care costs are higher and therefore the state is justified in imposing a law to mandate its coverage.  “We are in a very difficult area of constitutional law,” Gerhardt said.  He paraphrased one of his former law professors who said that government should be “neutral” in its position.

Nadler then asked Gerhardt if “this mandate is not an unprecedented…”

Rep. Coble then asked Senator Lee if he had “any concerns” about “decisions” that Obama might have made as “commander-in-chief.”

Lee answered that he was concerned when the U.S. became involved in Libya.  “I will be the first to concede that there is some gray area,” Lee said.  He said that Congress has reread the War Powers Resolution and that he felt that Obama had not consulted with Congress before ordering military action in Libya.

Coble then asked Ms. Windham if the health care mandate was having a “chilling effect” on religious organizations trying to help the public.  Coble then announced that he had to return to another hearing.

Rep. Scott then asked Ms. Windham if President Lyndon B. Johnson’s executive order was a violation because it ordered that hospitals could not be segregated if they accepted Medicare.  “Did he exceed his powers?”  “I’m not familiar with his order,” Ms. Windham said twice.  Scott then turned to the constitutional law professor to answer his questions.  “What’s wrong with an exception for individual conscience?” Scott asked.  “This is a very tricky area,” Gerhardt said.  Scott asked if people have objections on religious grounds, “is it just too bad?”  The professor waffled a bit, then Scott asked him about recess appointments.  Gerhardt said that the “pro forma sessions in the Senate” were viewed by Obama as something which impeded “presidential authority.”  “I think the president has the authority to push back,” Gerhardt said.  The professor said that the matter could be “played out” in the courts or between Congress and the president.

Sen. Lee then spoke about religious institutions’ request to remain segregated, such as Bob Jones University, which he did not equate to a request by religious institutions to reject the contraception mandate.

Rep. Chabot said that he considered an abuse of power to be the Obama administration’s statement that a welfare waiver requirement could be waived.  He spoke of his experience in Ohio and said that the Obama administration is now “circumventing Congress’s power.”  He said that the GAO had determined that Obama had exceeded its authority in granting welfare waivers.”

Another late-comer representative claimed that presidents from both parties have historically abused power.  He mentioned “recess appointments” that presidents have “engaged in over time.”  He said that there has always been a question about the president’s authority, particularly to declare war without the approval of Congress and stated that the current discussion is “fairly standard.”  He said it is “incumbent upon all of us to apply the same standard to all presidents.”