Looking Forward to the Fall Election
Yesterday the attention of the Judiciary Committee was turned to an issue of paramount importance in the waning days of the 110th Congress--ensuring the fairness of this fall's elections. The Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties held a hearing on "Lessons Learned from the 2004 Election," which included testimony from former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell and former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Hans von Spakovsky. Much to my disappointment, however, the Department of Justice did not send a representative to testify at today's hearing. This was despite the assurances the Attorney General gave at his appearance before the Committee this Wednesday that making sure the November 4 elections run smoothly is one of his top priorities. The Department's engagement and cooperation is crucial--- so that we are not only learning the lessons of voter disenfranchisement from past elections, but applying them to the preparations for 2008. For more on today's hearing, Bradblog.com has this story.
We in the Judiciary Committee are not the only ones focusing on voting rights this week, however. The New York Times also ran this editorial about the need for reforms and new regulations regarding ballot design. The editorial responds to a report released by the Brennan Center on ballot design throughout the country, which claims that "eight years after the 2000 election, and billions of dollars spent on new voting technology, the problems caused by poor ballot design have not been fully and effectively addressed on a national level. Year in and year out, we see the same mistakes in ballot design, with the same results: tens, and sometimes hundreds, of thousands of voters disenfranchised by confusing ballot design and instructions, sometimes raising serious questions about whether the intended choice of the voters was certi?ed as the winner." You can find the full report here.
- JC's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
Live blogging hearing right now
The hearing, Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations can be watched at the House Judiciary Committee Schedule page.
CSPAN is covering it also.
For some background and information on the hearing, afterdowningstreet has been doing an excellent job with updates and actions. Here's David Swanson's latest update:
"UPDATE 20: Here's the official witness list:
House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations
Who: Panel One
The Honorable Dennis Kucinich, Representative from Ohio
The Honorable Maurice Hinchey, Representative from New York
The Honorable Walter Jones, Representative from North Carolina
The Honorable Brad Miller, Representative from North Carolina
Panel Two
The Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, Former Representative from New York
The Honorable Bob Barr, Former Representative from Georgia, 2008 Libertarian Nominee for President
The Honorable Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson, Founder and President, High Roads for Human Rights
Stephen Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law
Bruce Fein, Associate Deputy Attorney General, 1981-82, Chairman, American Freedom Agenda
Vincent Bugliosi, Author and former Los Angeles County Prosecutor
Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
Elliott Adams, President of the Board, Veterans for Peace
Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
Where:
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
When:
10:00 a.m., Friday, July 25, 2008"
That's 10:00 a.m. eastern time.
Here we go, I hope my links work....
Conyers just made his opening statement
Lamar Smith said a bunch of nonesense - how dare he make assumptions for everyone else in Congress and for citizens?
Wexler is up now...supporting impeachment, yes!
"Impeachment Lite"
that's what Lungren called this hearing
Chairman Conyers
I meant no disrespect to you and your topic here by focusing on a hearing today other than the one you discussed.
I did watch the hearing yesterday, Lessons Learned from the 2004 Election, as well. It's a very important topic worthy of discussion, and I appreciate the attention that you're giving to elections and election fraud. Unfortunately, there seems to be no immediate solution that can be implemented before November, other than encouraging states to have election officials who are not party-affiliated. Right now, we have so many districts with machines that can't be trusted, officials who can't be trusted, and courts that can't be trusted - all making the integrity of elections very unstable.
We do, however, have some immediate options available that may restore the rule of law before the next election, which is why I was so interested in live-blogging today's hearing.
Again, thank you for both hearings, and for all of your hard work.
Repost from back page of thread.
C-Span full video of the hearing... Flash Video.
Constitutional Limits of Executive Power
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=280000-1
Re: Chairman Conyers
Feline,
I do not at all consider it disrespectful that you are discussing
Friday's hearing under the post about Thursday's hearing on voting
rights. I appreciate the discussion and looking forward to reading it.
Your friend,
John Conyers
Thank you!
I appreciate your feedback, and I look forward to your future posts, and future hearings.
(This is a repost, sorry if it doubles, I can't seem to find the other one...)
Your friend,
Feline
Smith on Partisanship...
PARTISAN
–noun
1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
2. Military. a member of a party of light or irregular troops engaged in harassing an enemy, esp. a member of a guerrilla band engaged in fighting or sabotage against an occupying army.
–adjective
3. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of partisans; partial to a specific party, person, etc.: partisan politics.
4. of, pertaining to, or carried on by military partisans or guerrillas.
Got a dictionary?
exactly
that's why congressional ratings are low? oh, my...
Mr King knows not what Libby
Mr King knows not what Libby did...
Mr King reveals some startling facts that seemingly contradict known evidence but has not brought any physical documentation... it's on it's way.
Mr. King doesn't know
that this isn't an impeachment hearing, either. Mr. King doesn't seem to know a lot of things!
Mr. King knows he's a Republican & he's got to defend bush
...no matter what laws he's broken, especially since it doesn't involve "sex"--which apparently, at least for Republicans, is the only grounds for impeachment. Sadly the Republican idiots don't even comprehend that their unwillingness to set the precedent of allowing Bush & Co to ignore subpoenas, start illegal wars, misuse government Departments and employees, persecute political enemies, ets--they are giving the green light for a Democratic President Obama to do the same or worse. Idiots, they are babbling, lying, CYA idiots.
King enters the CIA
King enters the CIA debriefing Memo on Joe Wilson and Yellow Cake uranium. And goes on to remind us of the KNOWN quantity that was recently removed from Iraq... Was this the suspected uranium... or the KNOWN quantities secured by the UN prior to the invasion? Tell the truth!
He cites Obama's and Hillary Clinton's past supporting statements of invasion as evidence.
Mr Lungren complains about
Mr Lungren complains about how America has changed and chides the hearings as a "show trial". Does the Representative from Ca. see accountability as a "show event"?
Cites English Common Law re. IMPEACHMENT ... blowing the job.
Could someone inform the Congressman that violating the Republic's sovereignty and the People's Rights, along with deception into a murderous war based on unintelligent information... is more than a disagreement with the Executive.
The Repubs on the Committee
are attempting to discredit this hearing before it's even started
Mr. Pence "BELIEVES"
He "believes" in bush!! Wow, stop the presses--another hypocritical, Constitution shredding enabling republican "believes" in Bush.
The Republicans are whining, denying, and continuing to abdicate their power to the Executive. Well, I hope that President Obama will take their "gift" of unlimited Executive power and run with it.
Impeachment, according to Republicans is VERY SERIOUS
and apparently should be reserved only for matters involving the sex lives of Presidents.
Hi, unspun, glad you're here
yes, the Repubs don't think the Committee should take the constitutional violations of this administration seriously, apparently - is sexual misconduct anywhere in the Constitution? oh, that's right, only things that aren't in the Constitution are taken seriously by the Repubs in this Congress...
Hey feline, good to see you too
Isn't it sort of "Alice in Wonderlandish" that the Republicans are complaining about a hearing on the limits of Exective power as being "inappropriate" or whatever they are whining about. Yet they never Impeached Nixon over his "high crimes and misdemeanors", just convinced him to step down before being impeached. Then they used the "Very Serious" step of Impeachment of Democrat Clinton over sexual misconduct with a consenting adult.
Now they are sitting in those chairs in the Committee today and saying that starting an illegal war based on lies; politicizing the Justice department so they could send their political enemies to jail; manipulating 2 elections; authorizing and implementing torture; refusing to appear in front of Congress in response to lawfully executed subpoenas; and violations of the Fourth, First and Eighth Amendments are not Serious enough to warrant actual Impeachment hearings? They must not be allowed to get away with this hypocrisy any longer. I hope the Chairman holds their feet to the fire on this cognitive dissonance on their part and the fact that obviously they are putting politics before their oversight responsibilities and before the Constitution.
Mr Pence cites Article II
Mr Pence cites Article II Sec. 4 but fails to read paragraph 3
He cites that "policy" disagreements are not grounds for impeachment.
Is it a policy disagreement to engage and approve of TORTURE...
Or a VIOLATION of Geneva Conventions and Human Rights Treaties; Legally binding LAW!
Republican Playbook Rules & Gameplan:
"The best defense is a good offense." And they are very, very good at being offensive. Also, they are consummate professionals at ignoring and "spinning" the truth with their constant lies, omissions, and distortions.
It is my hope that the Democrats will not get distracted and "defensive" in the face of the Republicans' SOP of going on the offense. The Democratic members must not be distracted. They don't need to defend their Defending the Constitution.
Mr. Chairman: Why do you not ask your Republican colleagues what exactly would they have Congress do when members of the Executive unlawfully refuse to appear before Congress when subpoenaed. Hold their feet to the fire on this.
Ask them what they would have done, had President Clinton refused to appear before the Congress to testify at his Impeachment Hearings. Ask them what recourse the Legislative Branch has when the Executive fails to respond to the lawfully executed oversight duties of the Congress.
Your Republican colleagues are counting on their previous experience of Democrats going on the Defense when the Republicans get offensive--so they won't be put on the spot regarding Congress's Co-equal status with the Executive. Don't let them squirm out of responding in detail to that issue.
They are playing games, and the time for games is over.
Mr. Franks chides the
Mr. Franks chides the Democratic Lead House Committee as coddling terrorists.
I suppose he's not being partisan.
He quotes OBL and cites the Iranian nuclear threat.
Why didn't he cite Israel's possession and Pakistan's possession of said weapons and the threat they pose?
thanks, Max
I had missed the name of that member.
I wonder how many times the Repubs are going to mention spooky 911/terrorists fears - I guess the Constitution is suspended when things get "scary".
Major Distraction: Conyers should tell the Republicans
...to stick to the subject of the hearings and not go off on tangents, and that they will be reminded to return to the topic being discussed when they attempt to wander into distraction territory.
Mr. Franks cites past
Mr. Franks cites past Democratic Party Members' statements that were based on the dis/misinformation revealed by the Administration as being credible... Does Franks think that the Administration's dis/misinformation campaign was credible?
He cites OBL's statement AFTER our invasion of Iraq.
And proceeds to remind us:
THEY(sic) HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS...
And that this hearing skirts the real priority...
Mr. Schwarz attempts to butt in...
Kucinich up now!
entering (use of force?) resolutions into the record from 2002 - in order to establish that the reasons for invading Iraq were false
Kucinich asks: What
Kucinich asks:
What responsibility does the Executive Branch have in re. the invasion of a Sovereign Nation that never posed a threat to the USA?
Witnesses making opening statements now
Hinchey up first - says Congress should explore why 911 wasn't prevented when the administration had prior intelligence.
Mr Hinchey states that
Mr Hinchey states that Congress should be searching for answers to 9/11 and the dropped information by the CURRENT Administration and the Torra-Borra "escape" of OBL by the CURRENT Administration.
He rebuffs the partisan claims that there were WMD's and yellow cake uranium in Iraq.
He claims this president IS THE MOST IMPEACHABLE... E V E R!
Exactly right
It's so sad that the Republicans actually continue to risk their lives, those of their families, and everyone else in this country because they apparently think it's more important to cover bush's posterior than to find out why, and how bush & co. flubbed up & allowed the attack of 9/11--so that their mistakes won't be repeated in the future.
They are being criminally negligent by continuing to put the good of the Republican Party above their duty to their country, it's citizens and it's Constitution.
Yes, he's right!
Brad Miller's opening statement on restoring balance of powers - quotes Madison - discusses excessive powers of Office of Legal Council and DoJ.
Mr. Jones addresses Hr
Mr. Jones addresses Hr 5993
Pushes for the restoration of Public Trust and discusses Signing Statements.
Second panel up now
this could get very interesting now (hopefully!)
Elizabeth Holtzman
from panel 2 -
Summary - framers put power of impeachment in the hands of Congress to protect Democracy - can't be shrugged aside - protecting Democracy against administrations and officials who run amock - "prima facia" case of impeachment -
- systematic refusal to obey the law
sites examples - FISA, torture (no statute of limitations when death occurs), war crimes - laws have been systematically ignored
abuse of executive privilege - improper use was basis for impeachment of Nixon - when used to shield activities of executive branch - Cheney's interview - deceptions re Iraq - subverts Constitution - Congress plays essential role, rampant deception by administration
What is to be done? very late in the session of Congress, options limited
most appropriate is impeachment inquiry - send message to administration, educate public, gives members of administration an appropriate way to respond
Ms. Holtsman said: Open
Ms. Holtsman said: Open Impeachment Investigations!
The Admin will not prosecute
The Admin will not prosecute itself
A "truth commission" will be stonewalled
Mr. Barr questions the 2001
Mr. Barr questions the 2001 Memo that addresses the use of Domestic Military Spying... !
Constitutional clock is
Constitutional clock is ticking.
The disappearing Bill of Rights...
Introduces the Fourth Amendment into evidence...
Rocky Anderson
supports impeachment, new legislation, and appointment of select committee (like Church Committee)
Rocky calls out Members on
Rocky calls out Members on the Committee for poor scholarship.
He reminds us of the History of Impeachment.
He cites fraud by... the "High Ranking Member(s)" of the Administration and the NIE.
Mr Presser states the
Mr Presser states the Executive is allowed to fire at will and for partisan reasons...
That the president IS a unitary in and of itself and does not subvert the Republic...
That detentions were done "in good faith" and Congress and Courts have supported detentions...
That National Defense and ISRAEL required an attack on Iraq, even if the evidence was incorrect...
Oversight by Congress of the Unitary is unwarranted...
... NO CRIMES COMMITTED!
I don't know what version of reality
he's living, but it ain't constitutional!
That the Administration has
Mr Presser asserts that the Administration has acted "in good faith" and therefore is not guilty.
Bruce Fein was great!
excellent opening statement
Vincent Bugliosi got round of applause
wants members of administration arrested for murder
Lamar Smith asked Conyers to clear the room, Conyers said no he's not
Fein points out that Bush
Fein points out that Bush has asserted far greater powers than King George did during the birth of our Nation.
Bugliosi asks Conyers to
Bugliosi asks Conyers to open investigations!
Bugliosi goes to intent...
Bugliosi goes to intent... NATO planes and provocation...
Rabkin assets that in
Rabkin assets that in perpetual wartime, the inquiry into individual usurpation and violations are irrelevant...
That America hasn't been attacked since 9/11... GOT ANTHRAX?
The Country is partisanly divided and the mood of the Committee is "demented" and that the majority of the Nation doen't live in a "bubble"
Rabkin reminds us that we
Rabkin reminds us that we are "conspiracy theorists" that are "bitter".
Remember the Maine...
Presidents make mistakes that get people killed and we should just get used to it.