DOCSLIB.ORG

Entire Issue (PDF)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 114 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 162 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 2016 No. 6 House of Representatives The House met at noon and was branded yarns for customers at every mass energy. It also produces more fuel called to order by the Speaker pro tem- level of the supply chain. than any other biofuel source. pore (Mr. SMITH of Nebraska). Unifi employs about 950 people in Repreve Renewables has had signifi- cant commercial success with Thrivez, f North Carolina’s Fifth District at its Repreve Recycling Center in its poultry bedding brand. Thrivez DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO Yadkinville. The company is currently regrows annually without replanting, TEMPORE constructing an 85,000-square-foot ex- reducing soil erosion, improving water The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- pansion that will more than double the quality, and minimizing water, herbi- fore the House the following commu- size of the facility. cide, and fertilizer needs. nication from the Speaker: Repreve is polyester yarn made from Unifi has been profitable for 5 con- chips that come mainly from recycled secutive years, and Repreve has ex- WASHINGTON, DC, panded from two main apparel cus- January 11, 2016. plastic bottles and industrial fiber tomers in 2007 to 32 in 2015. I commend I hereby appoint the Honorable ADRIAN waste. These environmentally friendly SMITH to act as Speaker pro tempore on this yarns have been used in products for Unifi for achieving economic success day. customers that include Ford, The through sustainability. PAUL D. RYAN, North Face, Nike, Haggar, Quiksilver, f Speaker of the House of Representatives. Volcom, and Patagonia. For example, a MALHEUR WILDLIFE REFUGE f classic fit casual dress pant by Haggar The SPEAKER pro tempore. The features seven recycled bottles. Seat MORNING-HOUR DEBATE Chair recognizes the gentleman from covers in a Ford F–150 truck contain 16 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- Oregon (Mr. BLUMENAUER) for 5 min- recycled bottles. utes. ant to the order of the House of Janu- Unifi is currently converting about 42 ary 5, 2016, the Chair will now recog- Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, million pounds of recycled products a today is the ninth day of armed occu- nize Members from lists submitted by year into chips at its Yadkinville facil- the majority and minority leaders for pation of the Malheur National Wild- ity. That includes 31 million pounds of life Refuge in Oregon—lawless, reckless morning-hour debate. post-consumer plastic bottles and 11 behavior. As the Audubon Society The Chair will alternate recognition million pounds of post-industrial fiber points out: putting one of America’s between the parties, with each party and fabric waste. Once the expansion is most important wildlife refuges at risk limited to 1 hour and each Member complete, it will recycle 72 million and threatening Federal employees. other than the majority and minority pounds annually. David Jenkins, president of Conserv- leaders and the minority whip limited At current production levels, the atives for Responsible Stewardship, to 5 minutes, but in no event shall de- Yadkinville center accounts annually points out they are trampling on the bate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. for the conversion of 900 million recy- rights of every American, they are the f cled plastic bottles and saves the opposite of conservatives, and they will equivalent of 16 million gallons of gas- RECOGNIZING UNIFI MANUFAC- continue to bully, threaten, and test oline that would be required to make the limits of civil society until they TURING, INCORPORATED FOR ITS new polyester and nylon. COMMITMENT TO RECYCLING are stopped. Jenkins urged the Obama Last spring, Unifi also opened a 1- administration to follow Teddy Roo- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The megawatt solar farm onsite in sevelt’s advice that the law must be en- Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Yadkinville. The solar farm is pro- forced with resolute firmness. North Carolina (Ms. FOXX) for 5 min- jected to provide about 10 percent of I fully understand policy differences, utes. the energy needed to run the recycling that compromises must be made and Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise center. that there will be mistakes. I have to commend Unifi Manufacturing, In- Additionally, Unifi is expanding the worked with my Republican colleague corporated for its commitment to recy- Repreve brand through its 60 percent GREG WALDEN, whose neighboring dis- cling. interest in Repreve Renewables, a bio- trict goes all the way to the Idaho bor- Headquartered in Greensboro, Unifi mass feedstock company that focuses der, as we struggled to make broad is a leading producer and processor of on the direct sales of Freedom Giant Federal policy work better for every- multifilament polyester and nylon tex- Miscanthus to farmers. Some analysts one as we spent several years devel- tured yarns. They provide innovative, believe this type of grass is extremely oping a vision for Mount Hood that in- global textile solutions and unique efficient in converting sunlight to bio- cluded protections for wilderness and b This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., b 1407 is 2:07 p.m. Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. H225 . VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:49 Jan 12, 2016 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A11JA7.000 H11JAPT1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HOUSE H226 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 11, 2016 practices for infrastructure and man- RECESS on September 11, 1943, 28-year-old agement. It is an ongoing effort. But The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- Sandy Thompson left her teaching job with 323 million Americans, diverse ant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Chair and volunteered for the Women landscapes, and philosophies that are declares the House in recess until 2 Airforce Service Pilots, better known buried, there are going to be struggles p.m. today. as the WASP. As a pilot, she towed tar- and differences that continue. Accordingly (at 12 o’clock and 9 min- gets for live antiaircraft practice, The answer is to keep working to utes p.m.), the House stood in recess. helped deliver planes to overseas bases, and tested new aircraft. find common ground, like we did with f our staff and families on a 3-day hike Of the 1,000 women who were WASPs, around that magnificent mountain. b 1400 38 were killed during their missions. Sixteen of these unsung heroes still For that moment, Mount Hood wasn’t AFTER RECESS the dividing line between our districts; live in Texas, and these pilots are part it was a point around which we could The recess having expired, the House of the Greatest Generation. come together to agree and work to was called to order by the Speaker pro WASPs were considered civilians make things better. It brought us to- tempore (Mr. DENHAM) at 2 p.m. until 1977. Then Congress granted them gether. That is exactly what needs to f veteran status. In 2002, the WASPs happen now. were allowed to be cremated and have PRAYER their ashes placed in Arlington Na- There are tremendous challenges in The Chaplain, the Reverend Patrick tional Cemetery, but now bureaucrats our State of Oregon. We have a wildlife have decided that these veterans are refuge in the Klamath Basin with a his- J. Conroy, offered the following prayer: Merciful God, we give You thanks for not worthy of having a proper military toric opportunity to remove unneces- burial and have revoked burial rights sary dams that even the private owner giving us another day. Bless this place, this Chamber of the in Arlington. The reason they say is a doesn’t feel it could maintain, to help lack of space. This is disgraceful. A restore damage to salmon runs, to be House of Representatives. In the opening weeks of this new ses- lack of space is a sorry excuse to dis- able to deal with a parched wildlife honor these veterans. basin in the middle of a desert. sion, surround us with Your spirit. En- compass with Your power all the walls Mr. Speaker, the government owns 23 The Federal Government has prom- and the dome of this building, truly a percent of the land mass in the United ised far more in that basin to the symbol to the world of unalienable States. Find space to permanently stakeholders than it can deliver. There rights and the freedom of people. honor these female veterans. is a huge responsibility for all of us in May Your divine blessing shield and And that is just the way it is. the Federal Government to help un- protect this place from all attack, de- wind this unsustainable situation. struction, storm, sickness, and all that f Native Americans, particularly in might bring evil to Your people or the Northwest, despite solemn treaty shake the soul of this Nation. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST rights promised to them by the Federal Guide and protect the Members of HELP CORRECT MANMADE DIS- Government and ratified by Congress, this assembly and all servants in gov- ASTER IN FLINT, MICHIGAN have long been abused and ignored. ernment, including all who work in (Mr. KILDEE asked and was given They deserve to be taken seriously and this place. May the comings and goings permission to address the House for 1 their rights respected. of Your people be under the seal of minute.) There are opportunities, like dam re- Your loving care, and may all that is Mr.
Recommended publications
  • Trump V. Mazars USA, LLP, --- F.3D ---, 2019 WL 5991603 (D.C

    Trump V. Mazars USA, LLP, --- F.3D ---, 2019 WL 5991603 (D.C

    No. In the Supreme Court of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP; THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC.; TRUMP ORGANIZATION LLC; THE TRUMP CORPORATION; DJT HOLDINGS LLC; THE DONALD J. TRUMP REVOCABLE TRUST; AND TRUMP OLD POST OFFICE LLC, Applicants, v. MAZARS USA, LLP; COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents. On Application for Stay EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF MANDATE PENDING THE FILING AND DISPOSITION OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Jay Alan Sekulow William S. Consovoy Stuart J. Roth Counsel of Record Jordan Sekulow Jordan M. Call CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC AND ADVOCACY GROUP, P.C. 1600 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 700 1701 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22209 Washington, DC 20006 (703) 243-9423 (202) 546-8890 [email protected] [email protected] Patrick Strawbridge Stefan C. Passantino CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP Ten Post Office Square 1000 Maine Ave. SW, Ste. 400 8th Floor South PMB #706 Washington, D.C. 20024 Boston, MA 02109 (202) 747-9582 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Applicants PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS The parties to the proceeding below are as follows: Applicants are Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America; Trump Organization, Inc.; Trump Organization; LLC, Trump Corporation; DJT Holdings, LLC; Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust; and Trump Old Post Office LLC. They were the plaintiffs in the district court and appellants in the court of appeals. Respondents are Mazars USA, LLP and Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S.
  • Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: a Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, but a Step Toward Tax Integrity Gordon T

    Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: a Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, but a Step Toward Tax Integrity Gordon T

    Hastings Law Journal Volume 49 | Issue 1 Article 1 1-1997 Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: A Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, But a Step Toward Tax Integrity Gordon T. Butler Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gordon T. Butler, Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: A Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, But a Step Toward Tax Integrity, 49 Hastings L.J. 1 (1997). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol49/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: A Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, But a Step Toward Tax Integrity by GORDON T. BUTLER* Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................... 2 I. The Problem of the Deficit and the Budget Process ............... 4 II. The Line Item Veto ...................................................... 21 A. 1995 Congressional Proposals ................................. 21 (1) House Bill 2 and "Enhanced Rescission" ................ 22 (2) Senate Bill 4 and "Separate Enrollment". ............... 24 B. The Line Item Veto of 1996 ...................................... 26 (1) The Act ....................................................... 26 (2) Constitutionality of the Line Item Veto .................. 31 (a) Separate Enrollment Form ............................... 41 (b) Enhanced Rescission Form ............................ 43 (3) Comparison with State Item Veto Authority ............... 52 (4) Critique of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 ............. 56 m. Are "Tax Expenditures" Expenditures? .........
  • Confronting Confinement: a Report of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons

    Confronting Confinement: a Report of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons

    Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 22 Access to Justice: The Social Responsibility of Lawyers | Prison Reform: Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons January 2006 Confronting Confinement: A Report of The Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons John J. Gibbons Gibbons P.C. Nicholas deBelleville Katzenbach United States Attorney General Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons Recommended Citation John J. Gibbons and Nicholas deBelleville Katzenbach, Confronting Confinement: A Report of The Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons, 22 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 385 (2006), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol22/iss1/25 This Prison Reform - Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Confronting Confinement† A Report of The Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons John J. Gibbons Nicholas de B. Katzenbach Commission Co-Chairs June 2006 Copyright © 2006, Vera Institute of Justice. The Commission’s report was supported in part by grants from the Charles River Fund, Ford Foundation, Fund for New Jersey, JEHT Foundation, Open Society Institute, Overbrook Foundation, and the Robert W. Wilson Charitable Trust. † This Article is a reprint of the Commission’s report; there are no changes to the text of the report, although photographs have been omitted and some formatting changes made.
  • Legislative Department

    Legislative Department

    ARTICLE I LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT CONTENTS Page Section 1. Legislative Powers ................................................................................................... 63 Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances ............................................................. 63 The Theory Elaborated and Implemented ................................................................ 63 Judicial Enforcement .................................................................................................. 65 Bicameralism ...................................................................................................................... 70 Enumerated, Implied, Resulting, and Inherent Powers .................................................. 71 Delegation of Legislative Power ........................................................................................ 73 Origin of the Doctrine of Nondelegability ................................................................. 73 Delegation Which Is Permissible ............................................................................... 75 Filling Up the Details .......................................................................................... 76 Contingent Legislation ........................................................................................ 76 The Effective Demise of the Nondelegation Doctrine ............................................... 78 The Regulatory State ........................................................................................... 78
  • Seila Law LLC V. CFPB

    Seila Law LLC V. CFPB

    No. 19-7 In the Supreme Court of the United States SEILA LAW LLC, PETITIONER v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record MARY MCLEOD JOSEPH H. HUNT General Counsel Assistant Attorney General JOHN R. COLEMAN MARK B. STERN Deputy General Counsel DANIEL AGUILAR Attorneys STEVEN Y. BRESSLER Assistant General Counsel Department of Justice Consumer Financial Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Protection Bureau [email protected] Washington, DC 20552 (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 12 U.S.C. 5491(c)(3) violates the separation of powers by prohibiting the President from removing the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bu- reau except for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfea- sance in office.” (I) ADDITIONAL RELATED PROCEEDINGS United States District Court (C.D. Cal.): Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Seila Law, LLC, No. 17-cv-1081 (Aug. 25, 2017) United States Court of Appeals (9th Cir.): Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Seila Law LLC, No. 17-56324 (May 6, 2019) (II) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below .............................................................................. 1 Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 1 Statement ...................................................................................... 1 Discussion .....................................................................................
  • Constitutional Law a Context and Practice Casebook

    Constitutional Law a Context and Practice Casebook

    00a schwartz ringhand final 8/1/13 10:03 AM Page iii Constitutional Law A Context and Practice Casebook Revised Printing David S. Schwartz University of Wisconsin Law School Lori A. Ringhand University of Georgia School of Law Carolina Academic Press Durham, North Carolina 00a schwartz ringhand final 8/1/13 10:03 AM Page iv Copyright © 2013 David S. Schwartz, Lori A. Ringhand All Rights Reserved Revised Printing ISBN 978-1-61163-527-0 LCCN 2013946821 Carolina Academic Press 700 Kent Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Telephone (919) 489-7486 Fax (919) 493-5668 www.cap-press.com Printed in the United States of America 00a schwartz ringhand final 8/1/13 10:03 AM Page v We dedicate this book to John Kidwell. John was our teacher, mentor, colleague and friend. He inspired us in so many ways, and was taken from us much too soon. 00a schwartz ringhand final 8/1/13 10:03 AM Page vi 00a schwartz ringhand final 8/1/13 10:03 AM Page vii Summary of Contents Introduction: Constitutional Litigation and Analysis 3 Part One: Legislative Power and Federalism 47 Chapter 1 • Legislative Power 51 Chapter 2 • Limitations on State Powers 263 Part Two: Separation of Powers 317 Chapter 3 • Executive Power 319 Chapter 4 • Other Separation-of-Powers Issues 509 Part Three: Judicial Power 559 Chapter 5 • Judicial Review 561 Chapter 6 • Justiciability 613 Part Four: Due Process, Fundamental Rights, and Equal Protection 657 Chapter 7 • Substantive Due Process 661 Chapter 8 • Equal Protection 769 Part Five: The First Amendment 935 Chapter 9 • Freedom of Speech 937 Chapter 10 • Religious Freedom 1073 Appendix • The Constitution of the United States of America 1127 Index 1143 vii 00a schwartz ringhand final 8/1/13 10:03 AM Page viii 00a schwartz ringhand final 8/1/13 10:03 AM Page ix Contents List of Diagrams and Figures xix Table of Cases xxi Series Editor’s Preface xxxi Acknowledgments xxxiii Introduction: Constitutional Litigation and Analysis 3 A.
  • Berkeley Technology Law Journal

    Berkeley Technology Law Journal

    BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 25 NUMBER 3 SYMPOSIUM 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS SYMPOSIUM: COPYRIGHT @ 300 KEYNOTE ADDRESS: HAPPY BIRTHDAY STATUTE OF ANNE: THE DANCE BETWEEN THE COURTS AND CONGRESS.. .............................. 1145 Hon. M. MargaretMcKeown THE COPYRIGHT PRINCIPLES PROJECT: DIRECTIONS FOR REFORM................... 1175 Pamela Samuelson and Members of The CPP THE UNTOLD STORY OF THE FIRST COPYRIGHT SUIT UNDER THE STATUTE OF ANNE IN 1710 ........................................... 1247 H. Tomds Gdme-Arostegui ALL CHANGE FOR THE DIGITAL ECONOMY: COPYRIGHT AND BUSINESS MODELS IN THE EARLY EIGHTEENTH CENTURY....................... 1351 IsabellaAlexander THE INVENTION OF COMMON LAW PLAY RIGHT.......... ............... 1381 Jessica Litman THE ADVENTURES OF THE STATUTE OF ANNE IN THE LAND OF UNLIMITED POSSIBILITIES: THE LIFE OF A LEGAL TRANSPLANT ............ 1427 Oren Bracha "THE SOLE RIGHT... SHALL RETURN TO THE AUTHORS": ANGLO- AMERICAN AUTHORS' REVERSION RIGHTS FROM THE STATUTE OF ANNE TO CONTEMPORARY U.S. COPYRIGHT ....................... ........... 1475 Lionel Bently & Jane C Ginsburg SUBSCRIBER INFORMATION The Berkeley Technolog Law Journal (ISSN1086-3818), a continuation of the High Technolog Law journal effective Volume 11, is edited by the students of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), and published four times each year (May, August, November, February) by the Regents of the University of California, Berkeley. Journal Publications, School of Law. Periodicals Postage Rate Paid at Berkeley, CA 94704-9998, and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Journal Publications, 2850 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 561 #7220, Berkeley, CA 94705-7220. Correspondence. Address all correspondence regarding subscriptions, address changes, claims for non-receipt, single copies, advertising, and permission to reprint to Journal Publications, 2850 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 561 #7220 Berkeley, CA 94705-7220; (510) 643-6600; JournalPublications@ law.berkeley.edu.
  • The Constitution in the Supreme Court: 1921-1930

    The Constitution in the Supreme Court: 1921-1930

    THE CONSTITUTION IN THE SUPREME COURT: 1921-1930 DAVID P. CURRIE* The selection of William Howard Taft to succeed Edward D. White as Chief Justice in 1921 was followed by three additional appointments in the next two years: George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, and Edward T. Sanford replaced William R. Day, Mahlon Pitney, and John H. Clarke. The upshot was something of a reign of terror for state and federal legislation.' White himself had been no great supporter of progressive legislation, and neither Day nor Pitney was in later terms a flaming liberal. The last two, however, had frequently voted with Holmes, Brandeis, and Clarke to sustain social legislation against due process attacks. Sutherland, But- ler, and Sanford, like Taft, tended to cast their lot with Van Devanter, McReynolds, and McKenna, who had been frequent dissenters in sub- stantive due process cases before 1921; thus a vocal minority became a solid majority within a two-year period. The replacement of McKenna by Harlan F. Stone in 1925 merely increased the number of regular dis- senters from two to three.2 * Harry N. Wyatt Professor of Law, University of Chicago. Thanks to Mary Beth Gose for managing the computer; to Nelson Lund, David Vandermeulen, Steve Rowland, and Richard Cray Donaldson for useful seminar papers; and to Albert Alschuler, Frank Easterbrook, Richard Helm- holz, Richard Posner, Carol Rose, Geoffrey Stone, Cass Sunstein, and William Van Alstyne for helpful criticism. 1. See Brown, Due Process of Law, Police Power, and the Supreme Court, 40 HARv. L. REV. 943, 944 (1927) ("[I]n the six years since 1920 the Supreme Court has declared social and economic legislation unconstitutional under the due process clauses of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment in more cases than in the entire fifty-two previous years ...
  • The Dynamic Incorporation of Foreign Law and the Constitutional Regulation of Federal Lawmaking

    The Dynamic Incorporation of Foreign Law and the Constitutional Regulation of Federal Lawmaking

    THE DYNAMIC INCORPORATION OF FOREIGN LAW AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL REGULATION OF FEDERAL LAWMAKING PAUL J. LARKIN, JR.* INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 338 I. THE LACEY ACT AND THE INCORPORATION OF FOREIGN LAW .................................................. 347 II. THE FEDERAL LAWMAKING PROCESS .................. 354 A. The Vesting of Legislative Authority in Congress: The Article I Bicameralism and Presentment Clauses ............................. 354 B. The Delegation of Legislative Authority to the Executive Branch: The Article II Appointments Clause ................................... 358 1. “Static” vs. “Dynamic” Delegation ...... 359 2. Delegating Federal Lawmaking Authority to Federal Agencies .............. 361 a. The Conventional Theory ............... 361 b. Two Unconventional Theories ....... 366 c. The Common Denominator ............ 369 3. Delegating Federal Lawmaking Authority to State Officers ..................... 372 III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE LACEY ACT’S DELEGATION OF FEDERAL LAWMAKING AUTHORITY .................... 377 A. Article I Problems With the Lacey Act ....... 379 * Senior Legal Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation; M.P.P., George Wash- ington University, 2010; J.D., Stanford Law School, 1980; B.A., Washington & Lee University, 1977. This article is an expanded version of the author’s 2013 testimo- ny before Congress. See infra note 28. The views expressed in this Article are the author’s own and should not be construed as representing any official
  • '3 /9 Po Ck Et Veto Bil L

    '3 /9 Po Ck Et Veto Bil L

    7 4 /£ £ £ > . J 8?// ’3 /9 P O C K E T V E T O B IL L GOVERNMENT / J! C M O oAN j 5 1974 T H ~ < t . U .x iV u H Sv I • _• H E A R IN G K A N S A S S I A BEFO RE T H E SUBCOMMITTEE ON MONOPOLIES AND COMMERCIAL LAW OF TH E COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINE TY -TH IRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 7386—Pocket Veto Bill SE PT EM BE R 12, 1973 Serial No. 19 P r in te d f o r th e u s e o f th e C o m m it te e o n th e J u d ic ia r y U.S. GO VE RN ME NT PR IN TI NG OFF IC E 22-1550 WA SH INGT ON : 197J COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY P E T E R W. RO DIN O, Jr., New Jersey, Ch air man H AROLD D. DO NO HUE , Massachusetts ED W AR D HUTCH IN SO N, Michigan JA CK B RO OK S, Texas R O B E R T M cC LORY, Illinois R O B E R T W. KASTEN M EIE R, Wisconsin H E N R Y P. SMITH III , New York DO N ED WAR DS , California CH A RLES W. SA NDM AN , Jr., N ew Jersey WILLIAM L. H UN O ATE, Missouri TOM RA IL SBA CK, Illinois JOHN CO N YERS, Jr., Michigan CH A RLES E.
  • Impeachment Inquiry: William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States Presentation on Behalf of the President

    Impeachment Inquiry: William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States Presentation on Behalf of the President

    IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY: WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES PRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PURSUANT TO H. RES. 581: PRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT DECEMBER 8 AND 9, 1998 Serial No. 68 ( Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 52±320 WASHINGTON : 1998 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 1 VerDate 21-DEC-98 10:55 Jan 12, 1999 Jkt 053320 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\RENEE\53320P2.000 53320p PsN: 53320p COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan Wisconsin BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts BILL McCOLLUM, Florida CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania HOWARD L. BERMAN, California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina RICK BOUCHER, Virginia LAMAR SMITH, Texas JERROLD NADLER, New York ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina BOB INGLIS, South Carolina ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California ED BRYANT, Tennessee MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts STEVE CHABOT, Ohio WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts BOB BARR, Georgia ROBERT WEXLER, Florida WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas THOMAS BARRETT, Wisconsin EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, Utah JAMES E. ROGAN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARY BONO, California (II) VerDate 21-DEC-98 10:55 Jan 12, 1999 Jkt 053320 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 E:\RENEE\53320P2.000 53320p PsN: 53320p MAJORITY STAFF THOMAS E.
  • In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

    In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

    USCA Case #20-5240 Document #1859195 Filed: 08/31/2020 Page 1 of 84 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED NO. 20-5240 In The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit -------------------------------- --------------------------------- HON. KEVIN OWEN MCCARTHY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HON. NANCY PELOSI, et al., Defendants-Appellees. -------------------------------- --------------------------------- OPENING BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS -------------------------------- --------------------------------- ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA No. 1:20-cv-01395-RC -------------------------------- --------------------------------- Charles J. Cooper Elliot S. Berke Michael W. Kirk BERKE FARAH LLP Harold S. Reeves 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, J. Joel Alicea N.W. Steven J. Lindsay Washington, DC 20036 COOPER & KIRK, PLLC (202) 517-0585 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. [email protected] Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 220-9600 Fax: (202) 220-9601 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants USCA Case #20-5240 Document #1859195 Filed: 08/31/2020 Page 2 of 84 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS UNDER REVIEW, AND RELATED CASES Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), the undersigned counsel certifies as follows: A. Parties Plaintiffs-Appellants are Hon. Kevin Owen McCarthy, Hon. Charles Eugene Roy, Hon. Stephen Joseph Scalise, Hon. Elizabeth Lynne Cheney, Hon. James Daniel Jordan, Hon. James Michael Johnson, Hon. Thomas Jeffrey Cole, Hon. Rodney Lee Davis, Hon. Andrew Steven Biggs, Hon. Russell Mark Fulcher, Hon. Warren Earl Davidson, Hon. Michael Jonathan Cloud, Hon. Mark Edward Green, Hon. Jody Brownlow Hice, Hon. Debra Kay Lesko, Hon. Andrew Peter Harris, Hon. Jeffrey Darren Duncan, Hon. Ronald Jack Wright, Hon. Scott Gordon Perry, Hon.