DOCSLIB.ORG

Enforcing the President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws Hearing Committee on the Judiciary House of Repre

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Enforcing the President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws Hearing Committee on the Judiciary House of Repre ENFORCING THE PRESIDENT’S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAWS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 26, 2014 Serial No. 113–63 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 86–841 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia LAMAR SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama STEVE COHEN, Tennessee DARRELL E. ISSA, California HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico TRENT FRANKS, Arizona JUDY CHU, California LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas TED DEUTCH, Florida JIM JORDAN, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania SUZAN DelBENE, Washington TREY GOWDY, South Carolina JOE GARCIA, Florida RAU´ L LABRADOR, Idaho HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina DOUG COLLINS, Georgia RON DeSANTIS, Florida JASON T. SMITH, Missouri [Vacant] SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel (II) C O N T E N T S FEBRUARY 26, 2014 Page OPENING STATEMENTS The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 1 The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 3 WITNESSES The Honorable Jim Gerlach, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 7 Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9 The Honorable H. Tom Rice, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 13 Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 15 The Honorable Diane Black, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 18 Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20 The Honorable Ron DeSantis, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 24 Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 26 Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, George Wash- ington University Law School Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 30 Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 32 Christopher H. Schroeder, Charles S. Murphy Professor of Law and Professor of Public Policy Studies, and Co-Director of the Program in Public Law, Duke University Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 47 Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 49 Elizabeth Price Foley, Professor of Law, Florida International University, College of Law Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 61 Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 63 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 5 Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 99 Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Con- gress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judici- ary ......................................................................................................................... 104 (III) IV Page Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 118 Material submitted by the Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 125 APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 150 ENFORCING THE PRESIDENT’S CONSTITU- TIONAL DUTY TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAWS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2014 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Coble, Smith of Texas, Chabot, Bachus, Issa, Forbes, King, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Marino, Gowdy, Labrador, Farenthold, Holding, Collins, DeSantis, Smith of Missouri, Conyers, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Gutierrez, Gar- cia, and Cicilline. Staff present: (Majority) Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & Gen- eral Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief Coun- sel; Allison Halataei, Majority Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Zachary Somers, Counsel; Kelsey Deterding, Clerk; (Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director & Chief Counsel; Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian; and James Park, Counsel. Mr. GOODLATTE. Good morning. [Disturbance in the hearing room.] Mr. GOODLATTE. Presently we do not have order in the hearing room. Members of the audience must behave in an orderly fashion or else they will be removed from the hearing room. Rule 11 of the House Rules provides that the Chairman of the Committee may punish breaches in order and decorum by censure and exclusion from the hearing. The Capitol police will remove the disruptive members of the audience immediately. The Capitol police will re- move the members who are causing a disturbance. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, can I urge—thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman. Could I say to our friends here that an unruly pres- ence in the hearing room does not aid your cause in any way, my friends. I want to share that. Mr. GOODLATTE. We welcome everyone remaining in this morn- ing’s hearing on enforcing the President’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. And I will shortly begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement, but I do want to remind the other members of the audience that you are welcome to attend this hear- ing, but you must behave in an orderly fashion, or else we will (1) 2 have to remove you from the hearing room as well. And we thank you for your cooperation in that regard. I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. Since tak- ing office, President Obama has increasingly pushed the bound- aries on executive power beyond their constitutional limits. He has repeatedly declared that rather than faithfully executing the laws passed by the legislative branch, he will refuse to take no for an- swer, and that where Congress will not act, I will. These have not been empty proclamations. From Obamacare, to welfare and education reform, to our Nation’s drug enforcement and immigration laws, President Obama has been picking and choosing which laws to enforce. But the Constitution does not con- fer upon the President the executive authority to disregard the sep- aration of powers and write or rewrite acts of Congress. It is a bed- rock principle of constitutional law that the President must faith- fully execute the laws. The President has no authority to bypass Congress and unilaterally waive, suspend, or amend the laws based on his policy preferences. President Obama’s actions have pushed executive power beyond all limits and created what has been char- acterized as an uber-presidency. The
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From the American Dream to … Bailout America: How the Government
    From the American dream to … bailout America: How the government loosened credit standards and led to the mortgage meltdown Compiled by Edward Pinto, American Enterprise Institute In the early 1990s, Fannie Mae‘s CEO Jim Johnson developed a plan to protect Fannie‘s lucrative charter privileges bestowed by Congress. Ply Congress with copious amounts of affordable housing and Fannie‘s privileges would be secure. It required ―transforming the housing finance system‖ by drastically loosening of loan underwriting standards. Fannie garnered support from community advocacy groups like ACORN and members of Congress. In 1995 President Clinton formalized Fannie‘s plan into the National Homeownership Strategy. President Clinton stated it ―will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent.‖ From 1992 onward, ―skin in the game‖ was progressively eliminated from housing finance. And it worked – Fannie‘s supporters in and outside Congress successfully protected Fannie‘s (and Freddie‘s) charter privileges against all comers – until the American Dream became Bailout America. TIMELINE Credit loosening Warning 1991 HUD Commission complains ―Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac‘s underwriting standards are oriented towards ‗plain vanilla‘ mortgage‖ [Read More] 1991 Lenders will respond to the most conservative standards unless [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] are aggressive and convincing in their efforts to expand historically narrow underwriting [Read More] 1992 Countrywide and Fannie Mae join forces to originate ―flexibly underwritten loans‖ [Read More] 1992 Congress passes
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on Murder, Misdemeanors, and Madison Jonathan Turley
    Hofstra Law Review Volume 28 | Issue 2 Article 6 1999 Reflections on Murder, Misdemeanors, and Madison Jonathan Turley Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Turley, Jonathan (1999) "Reflections on Murder, Misdemeanors, and Madison," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 28: Iss. 2, Article 6. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol28/iss2/6 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Turley: Reflections on Murder, Misdemeanors, and Madison REFLECTIONS ON MURDER, MISDEMEANORS, AND MADISON Jonathan Turley* I. INTRODUCTION Few crimes seem to concentrate the mind more than simple mur- der. Certainly, murder was on the minds of many of the academics testi- fying in the Clinton impeachment hearing While this offense was never seriously alleged during the scandal, it was very much a concern for academics advocating the "executive function theory. 2 Under this theory, a President could only be impeached for acts related to his of- fice, as opposed to purely personal acts.' Since the impeachment of President Clinton raised matters arguably related to his personal mis- conduct, various academics insisted that the allegations fell outside of * J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University of Law School. 1. See Background and History of Impeachment: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitutionof the House Comm.
    [Show full text]
  • Will the Real Lawmakers Please Stand Up: Congressional Standing in Instances of Presidential Nonenforcement
    PICKETT (DO NOT DELETE) 2/17/2016 12:23 PM Copyright 2016 by Bethany R. Pickett Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 110, No. 2 Notes and Comments WILL THE REAL LAWMAKERS PLEASE STAND UP: CONGRESSIONAL STANDING IN INSTANCES OF PRESIDENTIAL NONENFORCEMENT Bethany R. Pickett ABSTRACT—The Take Care Clause obligates the President to enforce the law. Yet increasingly, presidents use nonenforcement to unilaterally waive legislative provisions to serve their executive policy goals. In doing so, the President’s inaction takes the practical form of a congressional repeal—a task that is solely reserved for Congress under the Constitution. Presidential nonenforcement therefore usurps Congress’s unique responsibility in setting the national policy agenda. This Note addresses whether Congress has standing to sue in instances of presidential nonenforcement to realign and reaffirm Congress’s unique legislative role. In answering this question, this Note examines legislative standing precedent and argues that the Supreme Court’s reasoning supports a finding of congressional institutional standing. This Note further contends that it is normatively preferable for the judiciary to police the boundaries of each branch of government in instances of executive nonenforcement and apply the Constitution’s mandate that the President take care that the laws be faithfully executed. This maintains separation of powers and prevents one branch from unconstitutionally aggregating the power of another. AUTHOR—J.D. Candidate, Northwestern University School of Law, 2016; B.A., magna cum laude, The King’s College, 2012. Thank you to everyone on the Northwestern University Law Review who provided substantial feedback and improved this Note immeasurably. I am also overwhelmingly grateful to my family who has encouraged me in everything, and has been patient with me despite my work over countless holidays.
    [Show full text]
  • Interrogation's Law
    THEYAEAW JOUNA WILLIAM RANNEY LEVI Interrogation's Law ABSTRACT. Conventional wisdom states that recent U.S. authorization of coercive interrogation techniques, and the legal decisions that sanctioned them, constitute a dramatic break with the past. This is false. U.S. interrogation policy well prior to 9/11 has allowed a great deal more flexibility than the high-minded legal prohibitions of coercive tactics would suggest: all interrogation methods allegedly authorized since 9/11, with the possible exception of waterboarding, have been authorized before. The conventional wisdom thus elides an intrinsic characteristic of all former and current laws on interrogation: they are vague and contestable, and thus, when context so demands, manipulable. A U TH O R. Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2oo; Stanford University, B.A. 2006. Three individuals were central to the development of this project. Jack L. Goldsmith offered invaluable guidance from the beginning; I could not ask for a better mentor. Owen M. Fiss graciously supported this project, providing thoughtful comments and helpful criticism. Harold H. Koh consulted and advised throughout; I am immensely grateful for his encouragement. I am thankful to Mariano-Florentino Cullar, Jeremy M. Licht, Martin S. Lederman, David F. Levi, and Benjamin Wittes. This Note was completed before the Justice Department released four additional memoranda on April 16, 2009. 1434 NOTE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1436 1. THE LAW'S LATITUDE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 TO THE PRESENT 1442 A. Law and Interrogation: The Central Intelligence Agency 1443 1. The Torture Statute 1444 2. The Fifth Amendment 1448 3. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and the Military Commissions Act 1452 B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Government Affordable Housing Policy in Creating the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 STAFF REPORT U.S
    U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Darrell Issa (CA-49), Ranking Member The Role of Government Affordable Housing Policy in Creating the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 STAFF REPORT U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 111TH CONGRESS COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM ORIGINALLY RELEASED JULY 1, 2009 * UPDATED MAY 12, 2010 INTRODUCTION The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses. Government intervention also created “affordable” but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests – politicians, lenders and lobbyists – who profited from the “affordable” housing market and acted to kill reforms. In the short run, this government intervention was successful in its stated goal – raising the national homeownership rate. However, the ultimate effect was to create a mortgage tsunami that wrought devastation on the American people and economy. While government intervention was not the sole cause of the financial crisis, its role was significant and has received too little attention. In recent months it has been impossible to watch a television news program without seeing a Member of Congress or an Administration official put forward a new recovery proposal or engage in the public flogging of a financial company official whose poor decisions, and perhaps greed, resulted in huge losses and great suffering.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Emergencies Act of 1976 Hearing Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives
    THE NATIONAL EMERGENCIES ACT OF 1976 HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION FEBRUARY 28, 2019 Serial No. 116–5 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( Available http://judiciary.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 37–840 WASHINGTON : 2019 VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:06 Oct 12, 2019 Jkt 037840 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HR\OC\B840.XXX B840 dlhill on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with HEARING COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman ZOE LOFGREN, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas Ranking Member STEVE COHEN, Tennessee F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia Wisconsin THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida STEVE CHABOT, Ohio KAREN BASS, California LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana JIM JORDAN, Ohio HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York KEN BUCK, Colorado DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California MARTHA ROBY, Alabama TED LIEU, California MATT GAETZ, Florida JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington ANDY BIGGS, Arizona VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida TOM MCCLINTOCK, California J. LUIS CORREA, California DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania Vice-Chair BEN CLINE, Virginia SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota JOE NEGUSE, Colorado W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida LUCY MCBATH, Georgia GREG STANTON, Arizona MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel BRENDAN BELAIR, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chair JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana, ERIC SWALWELL, California Ranking Member MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania JIM JORDAN, Ohio SYLVIA R.
    [Show full text]
  • National Security and Statutory Interpretation
    SMU Law Review Volume 53 Issue 1 Article 9 2000 Through a Looking Glass Darkly: National Security and Statutory Interpretation Jonathan Turley Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Jonathan Turley, Through a Looking Glass Darkly: National Security and Statutory Interpretation, 53 SMU L. REV. 205 (2000) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol53/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THROUGH A LOOKING GLASS DARKLY: NATIONAL SECURITY AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Jonathan Turley* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 206 II. AREA 51: A CASE STUDY OF THE GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT OF THE COMMON LAW ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY AREA ......................... 210 A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................. 210 B. RELEVANT LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND JUDICIAL R ULINGS .............................................. 214 C. THE GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT OF THE COMMON LAW PRIVILEGE ON THE ANALYSIS IN KASZA AND FRosT ................................................. 219 III. THE INTERPLAY OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND THE COMMON LAW IN THE AREA 51 LITIGATION ............................ 221 A. THEORIES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN THE COMPANY OF THE COMMON LAW ..................... 222 B. PREEMPTION AND JUDICIAL CHOICE: THE USE OF COMMON LAW AS AN OUTCOME-DETERMINATIVE ELEMENT IN THE FROST CASE ........................ 228 C. THE ADOPTION OF AN ABSOLUTE STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE IN THE AREA 51 LITIGATION .............. 231 IV. THE LEGISPRUDENCE OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE COMMON LAW ............................. 237 A. THE DIALOGIC EFFECT OF THE COMMON LAW IN THE AREA OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ..............
    [Show full text]
  • Contractor Reports: Executive Summaries and Bibliographies
    65 APPENDIX E: CONTRACTOR REPORTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES AND BIBLIOGRAPHIES RAND SETTING PRIORITIES AND COORDINATING FEDERAL R&D ACROSS FIELDS OF SCIENCE: A LITERATURE REVIEW SRI INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON INTERNATIONAL MODELS OF BUDGET COORDINATION AND PRIORITY SETTING FOR S&T These reports were prepared as background for the study undertaken for the National Science Board by the NSB Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic Science and Engineering Policy Issues. The contents of these reports are the responsibility of the respective contractors and do not neces- sarily reflect the views of the Committee or the National Science Board. FEDERAL RESEARCH RESOURCES: 66 A PROCESS FOR SETTING PRIORITIES RAND SETTING PRIORITIES AND COORDINATING FEDERAL R&D ACROSS FIELDS OF SCIENCE: A LITERATURE REVIEW Steven W. Popper, Caroline S. Wagner, Donna L. Fossum, William S. Stiles DRU-2286-NSF April 2000 Prepared for the National Science Board Science and Technology Policy Institute The RAND unrestricted draft series is intended to transmit preliminary results of RAND research. Unrestricted drafts have not been formally reviewed or edited. The views and conclusions expressed are tentative. A draft should not be cited or quoted without permission of the author, unless the preface grants such permission. RAND IS A NONPROFIT INSTITUTION THAT HELPS IMPROVE PUBLIC POLICY THROUGH RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS. RAND’S PUBLICATIONS AND DRAFTS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OPINIONS OR POLICIES OF ITS RESEARCH SPONSORS. SETTING PRIORITIES AND COORDINATING FEDERAL R&D ACROSS FIELDS OF SCIENCE: A LITERATURE REVIEW 67 APPENDIXRAND E (CONTINUED) PREFACE The National Science Board is presently exploring how the U.S. federal government sets priorities in research and development and whether changes are needed in the decision-making process.
    [Show full text]
  • Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party Battle Over Energy Efficiency
    Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party Battle over Energy Efficiency Jeff Erickson, Navigant Consulting ABSTRACT Those involved in delivering or evaluating energy efficiency programs have had a reasonably comfortable relationship with environmental advocates over the years. In fact heightened environmental concerns helped spur the latest round of enthusiasm for energy efficiency among regulators and legislators. What about some of the other groups that are battling for the public’s attention lately – how might their efforts affect energy efficiency? If the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement grows how will it affect publicly-funded energy efficiency? Will utility-led energy efficiency programs be frowned upon by the OWS crowd? Will they want to see more states taking energy efficiency programs away from utilities and creating new institutions to run them (as, for example, is done in Wisconsin)? On the other side of the spectrum, will the Tea Party target energy efficiency regulations as evidence that the government has overstepped its constitutional purview? Will their push for deregulation lead to a pull back from regulations authorizing public-benefits charges to fund energy efficiency programs? This paper provides a framework for thinking about these questions and considering the potential ramifications if either of these movements grows in influence and targets energy efficiency. The paper will break the energy efficiency realm down into several parts representing key organizational or regulatory issues and consider the positions that the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street members either have already expressed or are likely to express based on their foundational principles. Introduction Some individuals, families, businesses, and public sector entities take actions on their own accord, with their own money, to improve their energy efficiency.
    [Show full text]
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE October 28
    H9586 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Ð HOUSE October 28, 1997 Mr. Speaker, first, this is a very potential threat to philanthropic inter- The Depot Caucus believes this work straightforward rule, one hour of de- ests, it would be difficult for the Pre- should go to the depots, regardless of bate on the conference report. I have sidio Trust to meet its self-sufficiency cost and regardless of what the Defense no problem with the rule. Secondly, I requirements without a timely and Department needs. They are protecting would like to say to my distinguished thorough cleanup of the Presidio. Se- their home turf, and I respect that, but colleague, the gentleman from Ohio curing the leases necessary to generate it is also bad policy, and this is not [Mr. KASICH] that there is a different revenues is essential to the success of what we should be supporting. It puts perspective and point of view on the trust, and can only be accom- our troops at a disadvantage. Bosnia. This obviously is not the time plished if the cleanup is timely and The Secretary of Defense and his nor the place for us to engage in sub- thorough. military commanders need the flexibil- stantive debate on that matter. I would like to yield to the gen- ity on the current law to modernize. To With the balance of the time, Mr. tleman from Colorado for his final re- do so, they need to have the ability to Speaker, I would like to, for the pur- marks. take the best and most appropriate poses of colloquy, engage the distin- Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutional Implications of Human Cloning
    Florida International University College of Law eCollections Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2000 The Constitutional Implications of Human Cloning Elizabeth Price Foley Florida International University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Elizabeth Price Foley, The Constitutional Implications of Human Cloning , 42 Ariz. L. Rev. 647 (2000). Available at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications/413 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCollections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DATE DOWNLOADED: Mon Jul 13 16:11:09 2020 SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline Citations: Bluebook 20th ed. Elizabeth Price Foley, The Constitutional Implications of Human Cloning, 42 Ariz. L. Rev. 647 (2000). ALWD 6th ed. Elizabeth Price Foley, The Constitutional Implications of Human Cloning, 42 Ariz. L. Rev. 647 (2000). APA 7th ed. Foley, E. (2000). The constitutional implications of human cloning. Arizona Law Review, 42(3), 647-730. Chicago 7th ed. Elizabeth Price Foley, "The Constitutional Implications of Human Cloning," Arizona Law Review 42, no. 3 (2000): 647-730 McGill Guide 9th ed. Elizabeth Price Foley, "The Constitutional Implications of Human Cloning" (2000) 42:3 Ariz L Rev 647. MLA 8th ed. Foley, Elizabeth Price. "The Constitutional Implications of Human Cloning." Arizona Law Review, vol. 42, no. 3, 2000, p. 647-730. HeinOnline. OSCOLA 4th ed. Elizabeth Price Foley, 'The Constitutional Implications of Human Cloning' (2000) 42 Ariz L Rev 647 Provided by: FIU College of Law -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at https://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
    [Show full text]
  • Elizabeth Price Foley ______
    Elizabeth Price Foley ______________________________________________________________________________ Professional Experience: Of Counsel, BakerHostetler, LLP, Washington, D.C., June 2014 to present. Of Counsel to Appellate and Major Motions section of national law firm, with emphasis on constitutional litigation and complex procedural issues. Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law, Miami, Florida. Aug. 2002 to present. Tenured, founding faculty member of newly created public law school. Teach courses in constitutional law, health care law and civil procedure. Executive Director, Institute for Justice, Florida Chapter, Miami, Florida. March 2011 to Jan. 2013. Ran IJ’s newly created Florida chapter, including managing a six-figure budget, handling media and community outreach, and supervising two full-time staff attorneys, a paralegal, and several law-student interns. Also litigated constitutional claims in federal and state courts, focusing principally on areas such as economic liberty, the First Amendment, and property rights. The Institute for Justice is a non-profit, libertarian law firm based out of the Washington, D.C. area. Clinical Adjunct Professor, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, Florida. August 2010 to August 2014. Team-taught course on Health Policy and Law to medical students. Provide annual lectures to medical students on various health law- related topics (e.g., health care fraud and abuse; medical malpractice; health care policymaking). Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law, East Lansing, Michigan. June 2000 to July 2002. Tenured professor. Taught courses in civil procedure, health care law, law and medicine, food and drug law, and evidence. Untenured Associate Professor from 1996-2000. Adjunct Professor, College of Human Medicine, Center for Ethics & Humanities, Michigan State University, Sept.
    [Show full text]