sectors in health at all levels. be willing and as ifed to be as engaged our lives depended on it. they do. i would simply restate the need resiliency, the need for collaboration, the need for need forn, the engagement. it will ultimately determine not we are a successful as i know we can be in this transformational moment. henry ford once said coming beginning. the staying together is progress. together, that is success. show we can work together as a country, facing this and prove to future generations that we were up to newtask of building a transformational health care

marketplace for all. thank you very much. [applause] >> we have microphones if you want to raise your hands. we will bring a microphone to you. >> thanks for your remarks. said that the ultimate objective on a bipartisan basis performance high quality marketplace. word, do you that think that where we are headed is a marketplace where health plans, an exchange a largerat includes

share of the population so that the risk pool is larger, the morecan be spread and there is more to giveion among plans us more incentive for quality and cost control. if that is true, noting that the act only takes us so far in that direction, the next step? >> that is a great question. could you hear the question in the back? good. ok. time, in the interest of i haven't collaborated on my i --all field metaphor but this gives me an opportunity to talk about it. what the affordable care act us to be on the football field for the first way at a meaningful about the 30 yard line. i think we have got 70 yards to go to reach our goal. categories that i

glided over to quickly. we have a lot of work to do. we aren't anywhere near the access -- we may or may not be near the cost- haveinment aspirations we permanently. this is go$íto take a lot more work. it is going to take even more legislation. we don't have the capacity aca to get to the the goal line in and of itself. what we have done is put the framework in place, creating a us -- a newl allow paradigm that will allow us to make new improvements. i can take my fumble metaphor to this football field metaphor because there have been a lot of fumbles. i hope we can show the resiliency to keep going, to get field, closer to that goal line. i am confident we will. it will take everything i said as tests of leadership to make that happen.

>> thank you. thank you very much for your wonderful talk and all that you have done in this area. i would like to ask a question described.you reforms to me that the -- one of the reasons we have thewrong incentives around top of the pyramid is because that is where profits are. the private sector invests huge money there. are there additional policy changes that are needed that are not currently in aca that could that incentive structure? and get the private sector group create a wellness industry? >> i appreciate the question a great deal. the answer is, we have put in of new policy components that will begin to to cover the entire pyramid.

i don't think we will ever find a time when the american health sector diminishes in terms of importance, its reliance on technology. we are technologically driven in this country. that is a great asset in many respects that it is a liability as well. have an asset in that we allowed the most technological casesto be used in some that have really made a difference. some people confuse our technology with our system, our marketplace. they say, we have the best in the world but we don't have the best sector in the world. if you look at any performance criteria, i think we have the best technology in the world. a lot of people around the world want to access that technology. come to the united states to be able to do that. does and what i think a growing consensus even

in the private sector outside law acknowledges is that if make areally going to difference in the new health paradigm, we have got to come to pyramid andf the recognize that is where the efficiencies are. putting greater emphasis on illness atd less on the top of the pyramid not only produces better results, but costs less money. it isn't that it has to be or.er our goal is to cover the entire pyramid. putting the balance where it really needs to be with a far greater emphasis and reliance on care thanthe pyramid we ever had in history. that butbegins to do it is going to take a lot of additional effort. the eerie medical school is here before aboutalking the emphasis on internal and the need for more primary care.

i was just delighted to hear they are one of the top schools in the country now in offering good primary care and internal medicine opportunities. i believe it is coming. it is a crass expression, but i think it is true, you have to follow the money. moneyve to follow the with regard to reimbursement, with regard to educational opportunities and where the is for assistance for students, follow the money all the way through the process. i also think scope of practice is very critical. find that her balance with the way care is provided today. let's give nurses more authority than they have today. better ina lot designating proper roles as we look at good prevention and wellness as well. >> hi, senator. i am with the national academy

for state health policy. one of the areas you mentioned was the role of states. you couldering if talk a little bit about some of the long-term consequences for experiences you will be having from state to state. new thinking a state like york where they have done their own marketplace and they are expanding medicaid, consumers there are having a much experience than maybe mississippi. >> i always thought that having state exchanges is really a good thing. and we the state models are already seeing in states kentucky, ania and washington,ates, connecticut, obviously -- they have done extremely well and their performance ought to be studied as tod what it is they are doing that

other states failed to do so far. the second model is the hybrid model where you have got partial federal involvement and partial state involvement. i think there is a lot to be said for that model as well. maybe the federal government is in a better position to do somethings that the states can't do. especially in rural states like mine in particular, we may not have an adequate risk pool in small states to be able to actuarial challenges facing goingbe forward. it could be that that hybrid is the perfect solution for things like that. then, you have the federal exchange. those who believe we ought to try to nationalize our health more will seeen whether we can make it work. the early running would argue that states do a better job than the federal government at exchange, but it is early. it is too early to make any determination in that regard. i also think the states, right

now, are doing such exciting things with regard to pilots and studies that are underway across the board. patron reform, delivery reform, paradigms, you have a tests new organizational that are being examined, studied . i think we will learn a lot from that as well. then, i haven't mentioned medicaid. you have already got, what is it, 26 states that have signed far for the medicaid expansion. i think ultimately all 50 states it because this is something that from an economic as well as a health point of just too good to ignore. tremendousng to see innovation, a lot of innovation some realent, spectacular examples of health leadership. we will glean a lot of information that i think will be applicable as we look to the

future of health nationally. >> thank you very much. >> think you all very much. >> the care beneficiaries have until december 7 to change their health plans during the annual enrollment period. a house subcommittee on health will look at the affect the health care law is having on the medicare advantage program. live coverage begins tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. later, a house panel on veterans disability assistance will hear testimony about traumatic brain injuries, posttraumatic stress disorder and sexual assault claims. utterance affairs apartment officials will testify. that starts at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> several constitutional criticized some of the executive actions taken by president obama, citing the changesth care law and to immigration rules. that hearing is next on c-span.

then, house members pay tribute to the victims of the metro- that killedaccident four people in new york, sunday. that is followed by the u.s. capitol christmas tree lighting. >> from age eight, betty ford knew that she wanted to do something. she put on skits and plays and led to bennington, vermont at the schoolied of dance. these were some of her notecards. spiral notebooks where she kept notes. this is her organizer during this period. her toried this with , back to grand rapids, often new york where she studied workedrtha graham and for a modeling agency, and then back to grand rapids again. in it, you find a whole host of

things that you would find in organizer.any brochures on dance costumes, one sketches of a costume for a dance routine and that she on.ed to put madeography notes that she for different dance routines. there is a whole wealth of here that talks about her love for dance and how it,ly she was involved in especially in her early years. >> what our program on first ford at our website, c-span.org. span.t saturday on c- mondayies continues live as the look at first lady roselyn carter. next, the house judiciary committee examines president obama's use of executive powers. a panel of legal scholars testified about the white house decision to delay the employer lawate in the health care and about the enforcement of

immigration rules. this hearing is over three hours. >> the judiciary committee will come to order. the chair is authorized to declare recess of the committee at any time. the chair welcomes the members of the audience who are here, member who disrupts this meeting will be removed. 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 provides the chairman of to punish by censure and exclusion from this hearing. if there are members here who wish to remain, they should sit or leave theely room immediately or they will be escorted from the room.

today's hearing is about the president's role in our constitutional system. our system of government is a tripartite one with each branch functionstain defined delegated to it by the constitution. the president is charged with executing the law. the congress with writing the -- judiciaryish with interpreting them. the obama administration has ignored the carefully balanced separation of powers and unilaterally granted itself the extraconstitutional authority to amend laws and suspend enforcement. this raw assertion of authority those well beyond the executive presidentted to the and specifically violates the constitution's command that the care thatis to take

the laws be faithfully executed. encroachment's into congress's sphere of power is not a transgression that should be taken lightly. as english historian edward gibbon's famously observed the romanthe follow empire, the principles of a free constitution are irrevocably lost when legislative power is dominated by executive. although the president's actions may not yet amount to the taking theowers over legislative power, they are certainly undermining the rule is at the center of our constitutional design. ,rom obamacare to immigration the current administration is picking and choosing which laws to enforce. conferstitution does not on the president the executive authority to disregard the powersion of unilaterally waiting, suspending or revising the laws. it is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the president must faithfully execute acts of congress.

the president cannot refuse to enforce a law simply because he disliked it. presidents have from time to time a blog claims of executive power. authority have traditionally been limited to the area in which presidential strongest -- their foreign affairs. the obama administration has assertive in the realm of the next six policy -- domestic policy. regulatory actions that bush executive power beyond all limits. obama is the first president since richard nixon to ignore and enacted law simply because he disagrees with it. in place of the checks and balances established by the constitution, president obama that "i refuse to take no for an answer." "where congress won't act, i will."

throughout the obama presidency, we have seen a pattern. president obama circumvents congress when he does not get his way. while congress is currently debating how to reform our immigration laws, the president effectively and acted himself byct ordering immigration officials to stop enforcing immigration laws against certain unlawful immigrants. get hiscouldn't preferred change to the no child left behind education law, he testing accountability provisions. when he objected to the work waiversent, he granted that are specifically forbidden by the statutory text. instead of working with congress to amend federal drug policy, he has instructed prosecutors to stop enforcing certain drug laws in states and mandatory minimum sentences for certain offenses. has withoutt statutory authorization waived

amended several major provisions of his health care law. these unlawful modifications to include delaying for one year obamacare's employer mandate. instructing states that they are free to ignore the law's clear regarding which existing health care plans may be grandfathered. rule thatng an irs ofows for the distribution billions of dollars in subsidies that congress never ups -- authorized. rather than embrace these legislative fixes, the president 's response has been to threaten veto the house-passed measures. the president's far-reaching claims of executive power if unchecked will vest the president with broad domestic --icy authority that is because diffusion does not grant him. in the president's political party have been silent

in the face of this dangerous expansion of executive power. what would they say if the president effectively repealed laws areonmental refusing to sue polluters or the labor laws by refusing to find violators. what if a president wanted tax cuts that congress would not enact? president george w. bush proposed a reduction in the capital gains rate. have instructed the irs not to tax capital gains at a great greater than 10%? the point is not what you think of president obama's policy decisions. the point is, the president may consistent with the command that he faithfully execute the waiveunilaterally amend, or suspend the law. must resist the delivery pattern of circumventing the legislative branch in favor of administrative decision-making. we cannot allow the separation

of powers enshrined in our abandoned into be favor of an undue concentration of power in the executive branch. warned, theison accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and hands mayin the same justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. i introduced mr. conyers for his opening statement. >> top of the morning to my colleagues. the president's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the would be an important issue worthy of hearing by this was anye if there evidence that the president has failed to fulfill his duty. thattunately, it appears

some here view policy disagreements as constitutional crises and proof of possible wrongdoing. the fact is that disagreements allegations that this has not been carried out the way congress has intended should not raise constitutional concerns. if some of my friends want to disagree with the administration , it is their right. but we should keep some here and consider the following issues.

allowing flexibility is neither unusual nor a constitutional violation. is rather the reality of -- administering sometimes complex programs. this has been especially true in the case of health care legislation. act is notble care the first time implementation of gone accordingot to schedule. bush for george w. example failed to meet some of deadlines in medicare part d. even though it was legislation he strongly supported. interestingally that some members who strenuously opposed the act and whoare worked diligently to obstruct implementation now complain

that the president is unconstitutionally impeding the of his signature legislative accomplishment. how interesting. taking steps to deal with the realities of implementation of a complex program hardly to taketes a failure care that the laws are faithfully executed. -- part and parcel of doing just that. administrations in the past have obstructed the implementation of opposed but no one is seriously contending that obama opposes the affordable care act, obamacare. or that his administration's constitute intentional obstruction of the law. beenin the past there have

legitimate concerns about delays in the law's implementation, turned to the administrative procedure act. act allows the courts to determine whether a delay is unreasonable and order appropriate relief. alleged that such action is necessary here. critics of president obama and his signature allege aon but noutional crisis court has ever found delay in implementation of a complex law violation of the clause. colleagues seem to think that the exercise of discretion, the power of the executive, is a constitutional violation. defercision to deportation of individuals who

were brought to the united children, who haven't committed felonies or misdemeanors and do not pose a threat to public safety, so- dreamers, is a classic exercise of such discretion. the administration cannot legalize these individuals' status without a basis in law, but the administration's decision to defer action against individuals is neither unusual nor unconstitutional. court hase consistently held that the discretion is a function of the president's under the take care clause. example, in heckler versus cheney, the court held that an instituteefusal to for seedings -- proceedings

characteristics of a prosecutor in the executive branch. that decision has long been regarded as the special province of the executive branch in as much as it is the executive who charged by the constitution laws be care that faithfully executed." finally, i hope we can distinguish between failing to laws and following the explicit dictates of the law. some here contend that the decision not to defend the defense of marriage act violated the take care clause. in fact, the president made a subsequently vindicated by the united states supreme that the act was unconstitutional.

pending, hese was continued to comply with the law. decision not to defend the law was not novel. indeed, congress itself recognized this possibility. congress understood that sometimes the administration's duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed might include recognizing that a particular statute is unconstitutional. the constitution is as we are article 6 of the constitution, the supreme law of the land. presidents are required to follow it. past administrations have discretion not that they have deemed unconstitutional. example, the acting

solicitor general at the time, roberts, now the chief justice of the united states, refused to defend a law that he unconstitutional in the 1990 case of metzer broadcasting versus the fcc. chief justice roberts argued providing for minority preferences in broadcasting was unconstitutional. despite supreme court resident cedent, he argued that strict scrutiny applied. legal counsel appeared to defend prevailed. , there were reasonable arguments that chief justice roberts could have made in

defense of the law, yet no one suggested that he violated the constitution by arguing for the court to strike that law down. his view was not vindicated in , but may ultimately have resulted in a shift of the law which makes it additionally clear that the administration's ma wason not to defend do neither unprecedented nor inappropriate. join with all of the committee witnesses, look forward to their testimony, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. conyers. other members' opening statements will be made a part of the record. we welcome our panel of witnesses today. would all please rise, we will begin by swearing you in. and each of you swear that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth the

whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? allthe record reflect that of the witnesses responded in the affirmative. thank you. i will now begin by introducing our witnesses. our first witness is jonathan turley, a professor of public interest law at george washington university law school. professor turley is a nationally who hased legal scholar written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory. he has published over three dozen academic articles in over articles and newspapers. professor turley has been recognized as the second most cited law professor in the country. witness is nicholas rosenkranz, a professor of law at georgetown. professor rosenkranz has served and advise to the federal government in a variety of including as a law

justice a supreme court and as an attorney advisor to the justice department office of legal counsel. he has published numerous scholarly articles including the constitution,e which is the single most downloaded article about interpretation in the history of the social science research network. our third witness is simon lazarus, a senior counsel with the constitutional accountability center. he is a member of the administrative conference of its eight. he has served as the public counsel for the national senior citizens law center. mr. lazarus has written articles appeared in law journals as well as publications such as "the atlantic," "the washington post," and "the new republic." our final institute -- witness

has been recognized as an influential expert on the affordable care act. cannon has appeared on abc, cbs, cnn and fox news and has that have beens featured in numerous newspapers 6 c1 journal, usa today and the los angeles times. he is the coeditor of a book on replacing the affordable care act and the co-author of a book on health care reform. i would like to thank all of the witnesses for their appearance today. each of your written statements entered into the record in its entirety. i ask that each witness summarize his or her testimony in five minutes or less. there is a timing light on your table. when the light switches from you will havew, one minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red, it that the witness's five minutes have expired. we will turn first to professor turley. >> thank you.

honor to bet invited to speak with you today. you have to forgive my voice. i'm getting over a cold. i hope to make it through this without having a coughing fit. this is obviously a difficult area of constitutional interpretation. as the ranking member pointed out, this is not the first time that we have dealt with this question. it is also difficult for some of us who happen to agree with the president's policies, which i do. i voted for him previously. however, it is often more important how you do something than what you do. the reason this is such an important thing is that the bedrock of our constitution remains the separation of powers. it is often misunderstood as some type of conflict between branches. it is really a protection of liberty.

it allows for issues that divide be siphoned through a system in which factional interest can be transformed. even though all bridges are congress is the thumping heart of that system. issues are transformed. it is the very reason that our system has survived so well. it brings stability to the system. benjamin franklin used to say that god helps those who help themselves. system, the constitution helps those branches that help themselves. it is designed to give each branch the ability of self dealction and a great rides on the use of that power. some of the questions we are going to talk about today are closed questions. gambling,e internet drug enforcement, i think you

on have credible arguments the administration's side. some of them, i believe are not close questions. i believe the president has exceeded his brief. required tot is faithfully execute the laws. he is not required to enforce all laws equally or commit the same resources to them, but i the president has crossed the constitutional line. what i want to start is to emphasize that this is not a turf fight between politicians. rather, this goes to the very heart of what is the madisonian system. if a president can unilaterally innge the meaning of laws substantial ways or refuse to linerce them, it takes off- that very thing that stabilizes our system. i believe that members will loathe the day that they allow that to happen.

this will not be our last president. there will be more presidents who will claim the same authority. when i teach constitutional law, i often ask my students what is the limiting principle of your argument? when the question is presented to this white house, it is ,nswered in the first person the president is the limiting principle. we can't rely on that type of assurance in our system. the greatest danger of nonenforcement orders is not what introduces, but what it away. for it does, it allows these issues that divide us to be resolved unilaterally. we don't have a dialogue anymore. someone can step in and make the legislative process simply an option. it is here in congress that factional interests coalesce and convert. this is the transformative branch. that is what makes this so

dangerous. what madison and is -- did is created an orbit of branches. there is a belief that these are three branches that exist in orbit. they are held together by their gravitational pull. it is a delicate balance but it protects individual liberty. federalist 51 is one of the most cited sources for medicine's views. n's.adison this congress has allowed its core authority to drain away. i have written about the rise of what is called the fourth branch , this expanding number of agencies that are acting evenasingly independently, defining their own jurisdiction.

andhat trend is to continue the president power is continue expand, congress will be an imaginary line on the constitutional landscape. a sad relic of what was once a tripartite system of equal branches. bitterre times of intractable divisions, but the members of this body are tied by covenant of faith. article one, all shall beve powers vested in the congress of the united states. covenant that we shouldn't divide by parties and we should stand firmly for the separation of powers. >> mr. rosenkranz, welcome. >> thank you members of the committee. i thank you for the opportunity to express my views about the

dutydent's constitutional to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. agree -- >> check your microphone and public closer to you. >> can you hear me now? all right. to speak about the take care clause, i want to associate myself with professor turley's opening statements. i agree with all of his remarks. i would like to draw the committee's attention to the text of the clause. it is best to begin by parsing the actual words. clause is not a grant of power, but the imposition of a duty. the president shall take care. this is not optional. it is mandatory. .ote that the duty is personal the execution of the laws may be officers, butther the duty to take care that the

executed,ithfully that is personal. third, notice that the president is not required to take care that the laws be completely executed. that would be impossible given finite resources. the president does have power to choices,rcement however, he must make them faithfully. remember thatt to historical context of the clause -- english kings had claimed the power to suspend the laws unilaterally. the framers expressly rejected that practice. here, the executive would be obliged to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. possible to view some recent controversies through precise proper constitutional lens. i am going to focus on three examples.

the president's unilateral decision to suspend certain provisions of the affordable care act, the president's unilateral abridgment of the immigration and nationality act, targeting ofs's the president's the lyrical adversaries. first, the obamacare suspension. on july 2, 2013, just for the weekend, the obama thatistration announced the president would unilaterally suspend the employer mandate of notwithstanding the unambiguous command of the law. the statute is perfectly clear. it provides that the provisions on january 1,ve 20 14. blog post makes no mention of the statutory deadline. this raises the question of what it means to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

the scope of that discretion can be the subject of legitimate debate. this is not a mere calibration of executive resources. this is wholesale suspension of law. whatever it may mean to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, it simply cannot mean law atng to execute a all. the president's remarks on this issue were quite striking. he said he would actually prefer call up the speaker of the house to request a change in law that would have achieved the desired delay, but is, he wouldn't have needed to pick up the phone. passed thead already authority for mandate delay act.

president actually threatened to veto it. this seems almost like a willful of the take care clause. a second example, the immigration and nationality act suspension which the chairman mentioned. --ill just mention briefly what a striking about this is the president's decision to enforce the immigration laws as though the dream act had been and acted when in fact, it has not. in this case, it is almost a mirror of the other case. than declining to comply, the president is complying billulously but with a that never became a law. congress has repeatedly considered a statute called the dream act. the president favors this act. congress repeatedly declined to pass it. the president has announced that

he would enforce the act as been enacted. to takeident's duty is care that the laws be faithfully executed. not those bills which fail to act.e law, like the dream finally, i will mention the irs targeting. "faithfully" means anything, i would say that it means non-discriminatorily. president cannot enforce the laws in a discriminatory manner. the story of the irs -- the application of the tax laws to the enemies in political a discriminatory way -- this is mostps the single troubling type of enforcement discrimination. way, perhaps the most

troubling violation of the publication to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. thank you. >> thank you, mr. lazarus, welcome. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you all members of the committee who are here. i have to disagree with my on the panel who have spoken so far. brandishing the take care clause become a favored talking of an arrayponents of obama administration policies and actions. efforts, or at least the ones with which i am reality -- alln these efforts to import the constitution into what are in reality political and policy attacks, are really rhetorical. they mocked the text and

original meaning of the take care clause. flout supreme court president and they contradict the existing practice of all presidencies, republican implementat to regulatory programs. critics fault the obama things,ration for many but essentially, two kinds of things. one, making necessary adjustments in timing of laws,entation of particularly the affordable care act. second, in matching immigration and enforcement priorities with resources and practical humanitarian and other exigencies. exercising presidential judgment for such reasons is precisely constitution requires. is precisely what the framers established athey

separate executive branch under the direction of a nationally elected president and charged him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. look at onea quick of the targets of these charges. that is the phasing in of the aca employer mandate which has called a blatant illegality and many other things. it is a routine temporary course correction. what did the administration do? announced a decision to postpone for one year the january 1 come in 2014 come date for the aca requirement that large employers provide their workers with insurance or pay a tax. this and other subsequently announced the lays do not constitute refusal to enforce the aca. on the contrary, they are merely adjustment designed to ensure effective implementation in accord with bus -- congress's purposes.

the proposed regulations that it has followed through on on september 5 make that clear. as does the treasury's statement intends to continue fine-tuning those regulations and working with the people affected by them until they become effective. emphasize that just after the administration took this action, president george w. concurred secretary that the obama administration's decision to delay the employer mandate was wise. that was based on his experience in the medicare part d prescription drug benefit. hyperventilating about how extraordinary and unprecedented unconstitutional these delays are is just that,

hyperventilation and contrary to obvious historical fact. nor is the one-year delay of the employer mandate an affront to the constitution. the framers could have prescribed that the president why didthe laws, so they add fitfully and take care? i have to disagree with professor rosencrantz and turley about their explanation of the history and original meaning of the clause. they were taking pains to clarify that the president's laws into implement good faith. and to exercise reasonable care. the fact is that scholars on both left and right concurred that this broadly worded phrasing means that the president is to exercise judgment and to handle his enforcement duties with fidelity to all laws including the constitution. as a legal and practical matter, president's phasing in of

is welloyer mandate within his job description. the program that deferred action on child arrivals. congressman conyers explained why that is true. in my written statement, i do so also. i have to say one quick word that my goodknow friend and frequent debating partner michael cannon is going on.ocus theory -- he gets thatis theory affordable care act premium assistance tax credits and subsidies must be available to all -- his theory that they are only available to americans who states thatve in

have set up their own exchanges. i can't go into detail about unfortunately. her hats in the questioning i will be able to do that. his theory is that a few phrases in this enormous statute have to be construed in a way that would staff -- stiff millions of people who were the intended beneficiaries -- am i over? i am over. the fact is that that is not the correct construction of the act. >> thank you, mr. lazarus. mr. cannon, welcome. >> thank you, members of the committee. i want to start off by saying the concerns i am sharing with you today are not born of partisanship. i have worked for republicans. i am not a republican. i am acutely aware of the last

republican president's failure to execute the laws faithfully. in 2008, though i supported candidate,sidential i actually preferred barack obama to his opponent in part promised to curb such abuses by the executive. i praised him for doing more libertarians to celebrate the gains in equality and freedom our nation has for them income african- americans, gays and lesbians. article two section three of the constitution to which every president swears an oath presidenthat the shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. this duty is essential to our system of government and public order. public order requires governments to remain faithful to the law as much as it requires the citizenry to do so. if the actions of government officials leave citizens to notlude that those are

meaningfully bound by the law, then they will conclude that neither are they. he signed the patient protection and affordable care act into law, president obama has failed to execute that law faithfully. the president has unilaterally taken taxpayer dollars and diverted them from their purposes toward purposes for which no congress has ever appropriated funds. he has repeatedly rewritten the statute to dispense taxpayer dollars that no federal law authorizes him to spend. issuedunilaterally blanket waivers to requirements that he is not authorized to waive. he has declined to collect taxes that he is ordered to collect. he has rewritten the statute to impose billions of dollars in taxes.

he has unilaterally rewritten to allow health insurance products that the statute expressly forbids. he has encouraged consumers, insurers and state officials to law that he himself and acted. he has taken these steps for the purpose of stalling democratic action by the elected representatives in congress. obama's unfaithfulness is so wanton that it is no say thatcurate to statute is the law of the land. at least the law of the land is whenever -- one man says it is. what this one man says may flatly contradict federal and confer benefits on favored groups or tax disfavored groups without representation. it may undermine the careful and costly planning done by millions of individuals and businesses. it may change from day-to-day. this method of lawmaking has more in common with monarchy democracy or a constitutional republic.

failure to honor his constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully is not a partisan issue. it guarantees that presidents will replicatees and even surpass the abuses of paybackedecessors as for past injustices. freedom will suffer no matter who occupies the oval office. i thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. cannon. i will begin the questioning. , oftenor rosencrantz times the legislative process is about negotiation, about give -- how does the , suspendingamending and ignoring acts of congress affect the legislative process? >> that is a great question, mr. chairman. effect is anm

aggrandizement of the president. effect ism legislative gridlock. there is every reason to believe that congress will not be able compromises if they know that these compromises can rewritten in the white house. every reason to believe that congress will grind to a halt threat that president obama will rewrite its handiwork. >> would you argue that that is indeed happening right now? as you try to work out differences between various perspectives on a piece of legislation, those who may be asked to give something that they think the president agrees might say, why should i give on that? i can get that changed or done unilaterally by the executive branch. party that wants to achieve that says, why should i agree to it? >> you could imagine such a negotiation about the effective date of obamacare. after the statute is passed, president obama decides that the

effective date is regardless of what congress runs. >> mr. turley, the constitution's system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government usurping another. it is about protecting the americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. how does the president's unilateral modification of acts of congress affect both the power between the political branches and the liberty interest of the american people? the danger is quite severe. that he is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. he is becoming the danger that the constitution was designed to avoid. this newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one. it is designed to prevent this type of concentration. there are two trends going on

which should be of equal concern. is we have had the radical expansion of presidential power under both president bush and president obama. we have what many was called an imperial president model. with that trend, we also have the continued rise of the fourth branch. we have agencies that are now large that issue -- the supreme court said that agencies could define their own jurisdiction. >> i have a couple more questions to ask. cannon, you have argued that the president is going to spend billions of dollars congress did , provide premium assistance, tax credits and subsidies on federally run health care exchanges. can you walk me through why the president's plan to provide assistance is indeed illegal? call those tax credits because that is what the statute

calls them. they are government subsidies. the statute is clear. consistent. those premium assistance tax credits would be available only to people who that is not just one mention of that phrase. the statute is very tightly worded. it makes clear that those tax credits are available only if a state establishes an exchange itself under section 1311, if the government establishes a fall back exchange, those credits are not available as the obama administration has acknowledged in regulation. >> thank you. i agree. professor rosenkranz. some defenders of the president's actions asserted that his actions were merely sten exercise of

prosecuteorial discretion. >> there are many cases that are -- cases i agree with professor turley but some of these cases are not close. wholesale suspension of law is something else. that is what has happened under obamacare. case by case prosecuteorial discretion is another thing. a blanket policy will not apply to 1.8 million people is quite something different. this is a scale of decision aking that is not in prosecuteorial discretion. >> the president has take it a step further and given legal documents to people in that circumstance dieding to leave them there and not prosecute them and actually enable their violation of law giving them

documents to help them evade the problems from living in a country they are not lawfully present.

[inaudible] >> differences with the witness to his left and i would like to ask if he could pick up that line of discussion. we're pleased that you're here because there has been so much rhetoric or excited about where the president and his administration are going, ve never heard this level of hypothesizing as to where this

is all going to take us. i think it is considerably over the top. i'm so glad you're here today and i would ask you to respond, please. >> thank you very much mr. conyers. the theory of -- that the affordable care act actually intended to cut off the very benefit nass the law was passed to create to the very core constituency of needy people that was a target of the law, that my friend mr. can non came up with, is something that no one on either side of the aisle had any idea about when the law was passed. he and some other clever colleagues came up with this theory at least nine months i think after the law was passed. they have is, and

gloated that their theory as adopted by the courts would drive a stake through the heart of obamacare. that is their words. it would sink the a.c.a. and threaten its survival. the fact, however, the text does not sabotage the universally acknowledged purpose of ensugar access to all americans who can not now afford it. to make their case to the took a fewr. can non words out of context and ignored this statute. if you look at the statute, you quickly have to conclude that the whole text, not just phrases, mean harmonize, the purpose of the statute with its text mean that, all americans

who are eligible for the benefits to enable them to afford insurance will be able to have them whether or not they reside in federal exchange states. so mr. cannon and his friends soon realized that their reading of the text didn't make sense and they came up with an even more head-scratching claim. that is that the sponsors intentionally and purposely cannon just lanned refered to that argument. what this means is it means that the a.c.a. sponsors actually intended not only to stiff the very people that they wanted to benefit. it actually means that they intentionally handed over to mr.

cannon's allies in state capitals, the stake that he talks about and invite them, if they chose to do so, to drivet through the heart of the a.c.a. you have to imagine, in order for your theory to make sense, balk s to imagine senator us, senator murray, senator reid, senator schumer getting together in a room off the senate floor and saying i know what we're going to do. we're going to enable all the republican governors and state legislatures to decide the a.c.a. won't work in their states. there is not a single piece of evidence to support this notion. and what is really going on, i'm afraid, is that having lost politically, having lost in the upreme court, the a.c.a. opponents who are clinging to this theory are hoping that the

court also bail them out once again. that is an awful big political lift. i don't think that the courts are going to do that. >> thank you so much. mr. chairman, i would ask unanimous consent to put in the record this report by the new republic of november of this year entitled obamacare's single most relentless antagonist, who is our distinguished witness here today. >> reserving -- could i just ask one quick question? is the new republic doing report or articles? >> reports or articles? i can't tell you. you mean on the one that i'm introducing? >> yes, mr. ranking member. i only ask, i'm fine to have newspapers and oheds put on the ecord.

>> i've never been asked this question before. >> only because i'm often called the president's antagonist. i'm not sure that a report that left me out would be justified as factual. the new republic article entitled obamacare, the president's single most antagonist. the gentleman from california would both be proud to have the article in the record and therefore we will without objection make it a part of the record. >> i'm sorry to disappoint my friend whose name isn't even mentioned in this article. >> oversight. > thank you, plch. -- mr. chairman.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, in my judgment, the president has ignored laws, failed to enforce laws, undermined laws and changed laws, all contrary to the constitution. it seems to me that the president is trying to make laws by executive decree at news conferences. but in a 2012 inter, the president said that he could not -- interview, the president said laws e could not away the that the congress puts in place and the president sunt simply have the authority to ignore congress and say we are not going to enforce the laws that you passed. yet it seems to me that that is exactly what he has done. i would like to address my question to professor turley and prefer to rosenkranz. you to think the president has

acted in contrary to constitution? you mentioned you supported the president's policies and even voted for him yet you say he has crossed the constitutional line. the legislative process is not an option. what the president has done is dangerous. i assume your scenes yes. the president has acted contrary to the constitution. is that right? >> it is. 150 years before they drafted this provision, which didn't change much in the committee, that was a fight with james the 1st. the framers were very familiar with it. i think that is what gave life to this very clause. >> thank you. >> do you think the president has acted contrary to the constitution? >> i would say that some of these cases are closed cases but some are not. so the wholesale suspension of law, for example, is i would say e paradigm casor a take care

clause violation. >> cannon? >> yes. >> what can congress or the american people do about it? how can we restrain the president from acting in a way contrary to the constitution? and professor turley? >> that is i think the most difficult question that we face. i've had the honor of representing members of both parties of congress in going the courts are nd the quite hostile to a member in standing when they believe a violation to have constitution has occurred. if members could go to the courts and raise violations of the constitution, that would be -- it would make much of these difficulties go away. you'll note that the administration has made reference to the fact and i think they have some support for this. they doubt people would challenge many of these

something the framers would never have accepted. you can have violations of the constitution yet no one can raise the issue successfully with courts. >> professor rosenkranz? >> i'm not sure i agree with professor turley on the standing question. it is quite true that some of these violations may not be amenable to judicial re-review. ultimately, though, the check on this sort of constitutional violation is elections. so this is exactly the sort of hearing we ought to be having. the sort of hearing the electorate ought to be paying attention to for our next round of elections. >> i think there is little that congress can do if it is divide over the president's abuse of his authority. but fortunately, and as far as judicial recommendeds go, it is difficult to challenge when the president relaxes an obligation

on a certain party, it is much easier to find a plaintiff has standing to challenge an action than impose the new obligation that the legislature has never approved. that is what has happened in the case of the president issuing premium tax credits through federal exchanges because they will trigger taxes, tax penalties on employers and individuals in those 34 states that have refused to establish an exchange and a number of those employers and individuals, including two state attorneys general, 15 indiana school districts and a dozen more private employers and private citizens have filed suit. four different lawsuits. in fact one of them will have oral arguments this afternoon in washington, d.c. there is judicial remedy for some of these abuses. >> chair now recognizes the

gentleman from new york. mr. nadler. >> thank you, mr. chairman. professor rosenkranz has written in the "wall street journal" an oped piece abraham lincoln would not approve. that you comment on that, lincoln would disapprove? >> i read that article with some amusement, i have to say, professor rosenkranz. i think that president lincoln would chuckle at the notion that there is an equation between suspending the writ of habeyuss corps us with a temporary delay in the implementation of regulation that is part of a very complex new law, which is something that happens under all

administrations, it has to happen sometimes for practical reasons. why we are making a big fuss about this as a constitutional matter, is not beyond me. i understand why it is being done. if it sounds like politics, that is what it is. to make that kind of comparison doesn't do justice to your position in georgetown. >> thank you. i have too little time for too many questions. let me start by saying that i generally in many respects agree with professor turley about the growth of the imperial presidency over the last half century or more. i'm particularly concerned about the abuse of the war powers by many presidents, the use of state secrets doctrine to prevent enforcement of constitutional wrights, the surveillance that we have seen under bush or obama. surveillance of the bush

administration and things like that. i must say that everything we are talking about today is laughable in my opinion in the context of these problems. i'm particularly struck by the overwhelming hypocrisy of the claim that the president, in interpreting the law, in refusing to interpret the law in a way that would drive a stake through the law is not enforcing the law and demanding that he enforce the law on the dates in a way that the person making that demand would destroy the law is not taking care of the -- i would say it is the other way around. it is the duty of the president to interpret the law within the boundaries that he has in a way that makes practical implementations of the law. the fact that people want to sabotage the law and want it not to work and say hey, he is not obeying this particular sentence in order to make the law work,

talk about hypocrisy. >> let me ask a question. have you made my -- having made my statement. judge cavanagh, the second -- the district of columbia circuit, recently in a decision by judge cavanagh wrote the following. pardon powers illustrate a key part of the constitution's separation of powers. at least in the domestic atmosphere is the power to protect individual liberty. more precise think power not to seek charges against violators of a federal law or to pardon them. this would seem to support broad discretion to said enforcement and therefore nonenforcement priorities. does it not and how does that relate to the alleged violation

turnover constitution by the president in -- violation of the constitution by the president? >> thank you very much, congressman nadler. of course what judge cavanagh, who is one of the most respects and conservative judges on the federal bench, what he said here is absolutely credibility. the principles that he is enunciate arrange precisely why a court faced with the issue would undoubtbly uphold as perfectly compatible with the president's discretion in the immigration area in particular, the program that my co-panelists here are claiming is a violation f his duties to see that the laws are faithfully executed. if i can just quote one other authority. the supreme court in an important decision about a year and a half ago. a 5-3 majority including justice kennedy who wrote the opinion

and chief justice roberts. a principle feature of the removal system in the immigration area is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. federal officials as an initial matter must decide whether it makes sense to approve it at all. it embraces immediate human concerns. unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. that is completely at odds with the critics cramped interpretation of the president's enforcement in his constitutional authority. unanimous concept for one additional minute so mr. rosenkranz can answer that. mr. chairman? >> without objection, the

gentleman will have an additional one minute. >> i'm glad you asked. judge cavanagh said the president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition. they appropriate no money for a mandated program, the executive office cannot move forward. absent of a lack of funds that have not been rejucted by final court order, the executive must abide by statutory mandates and prohibitions. >> of course that is not the question. but thank you. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you. mr. rosenkranz and mr. cannon. mr. lazarus commented on the previous writing. you didn't have the opportunity to respond. did you want to take a moment to

do that? >> there was a comment about an oped i wrote in the "wall street journal" compare plg lincoln with the suspension of obama care. i agree with mr. lazarus. they are not the same. what is striking about the comparison is that president lincoln welcomed the involvement of congress. welcomed congress to ratify what he had done to pass the statute justifying what he had done. he was concerned that perhaps he had overstepped his constitutional authority. he welcomed congress' ratification of his action. president obama, by contrast, actually threatened to veto a statute that would have ratified his action. that i think is the startling contrast that i was trying bring out in that oped. >> thank you. mr. lazarus, whatever this issue of -- tax credits are authorized, 34 states, federal

exchanges. supporters of the administration's i.r.s. decision to offer them in federal exchanges talked a lot about what congress must have been thinking or could possibly having thinking or would they have done this, there is a reason they do that. because the statute is clear and it contradicts what the obama administration is trying to do. unfortunately for the administration, the legislative history also is completely consistent with the clear language of the statute. they have offered despite two years of people like me raising this issue what the i.r.s. is trying to do is illegal, they have even they have yet to offer one shred of one statutory provision or shred of evidence that supports their claim that this statute authorizes tax credits through exchanges established by the federal government under section 1321 or that it was congress' intent for this statute to authorize tax credits through those exchanges.

there is a lot more to be said about all of this, if i may, i would like to respond. >> let me cut you off after this point. i have a limited amount of time. mr. turley, let me ask you this. you had mentioned something among the lines, you were concerned that president obama is becoming the very dangerous that separation of powers was meant to prevent. and mr. lazarus mentioned earlier that there were -- i don't know who exactly he was referring to. some are hyper eventlating about this whole -- hyperventilating about this topic. >> it is not -- in my testimony, i -- the reason i think we have this disconnect in our view of this clause is that we obviously read the history differently.

i view the constitutional convention as quite clear. the framers were -- james madison, 150 years before they took a pen and wrote out this clause. there was a fight with james 1 about what was called a royal prerogative. it is very similar to what president obama is claiming. the right of the contingency to essentially stand above the law. i'm not saying that president obama is a monarch. by that was the issue that gave the impetus to this clause in my view. it did not change very much. ter people like benjamin civiliti wrote a very good paper about when the president could refuse to enforce laws and he basically said that it could only be done where there is an intrusion upon executive power. by the way, that was what was involved in the meyers case that we talked about or referred to

earlier ch or if it was clearly unconstitutional and that second issue, he established had to be very, very clear so the president does not exercise the authority. this is how he would respond. we don't have to hyper ventilate to look at a problem and say this is not about what who the president is today or what he is trying to achieve. what is lacking from the other side is any notion of what the orld will look like in a tripartheid system if he cannot avoid any major deadline and exclues whole classes of people from enforcement. what is left in that orbit that madison described? what is left is a very dangerous and unstable system. >> thank you very much. my time has expired. yield back. >> mr. scott for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. lazarus, first of all, on

the a.c.a., it seems to me absurd that the federal exchange is there for all intents and purposes to serve as the state exchange, the state marketplace, that would mean it would be absurd to interpret they are there are for all intents and purposes except for the purpose of the bill which is the subsidies. is that right? >> it is obviously absurd, congressman scott. there are, to say that the resident is -- therefore, so say that the president is violating his duty to see that the law is enforced because he is interpreting in a way that is consistent with his purpose and consistent with the known objectives of the congress that enacted it also it seems to me is quite absurd. >> thank you.

4 the congressional research service provided several examples in prior administrations with the i.r.s., delayed enforcement despite a congressly mandated executive date. can you say a word about the president's power to delay provisions when compliance is logistically impossible? >> yes. actually despite the spark s that areflying around this room about the president's actions with respect to the affordable care about, several people have noted that the president did not refuse to enforce a law for policy reasons. obviously correct, certainly correct and and it is obviously not what the president is doing. does president have policy objection for the affordable care act? i don't think so. the affordable care about or the

clean air act or certainly other laws that the e.p.a. administers, miss statutory deadlines very frequently because it is logistically impossible to prudently implement them in accordance with the deadlines. >> thank you. >> and if i can answer say one further thing about your first question, congressman scott, we should understand what the consequences of mr. cannon's interpretation of the a.c.a. would be and why it would drive a stake through the heart of the a.c.a. and every federal exchanged state. it is not that it would keep maybe 80% of the people who were expected to enroll for insurance exchanges from being able to afford that insurance. on that insurance. 80%. it would wreck that part of the program.

it would probably just cause the entire individual insurance could ask eveno those who could afford insurance, to implode. it would so screw up the actuarial calculation. it would drive a stake through the heart. to say that congress intended to is -- i don't know, it is hard to stomach. >> in november, members of the house wrote the attorney general a letter and ask rest concern was pursuing in -- casesng removal in some when so many other serious cases existed. set priorities? if the president sent -- if the

set prioritiest and enforcement, there is not enough money to enforce everything to the letter of the law. priorities if he can't enforce each and every provision? >> is the essence of the executive responsibility to do just that. i might note that i think increasedobama has the number of deportations to hisconsternation of some of dealupporters a very great , as i'm sure everyone is aware. it increased to 400,000 people a year. it is nearly four times as many around theer was year 2000. the reason for that is it is all that commerce has appropriated. expire.is about to i wanted to get another question. he talked about the obligation to defend the defense of

act when he believes it to be unconstitutional? >> i agree that the president should only very, very rarely, and with extremely good reason, law ind to defend a court. i have written about that. fault whatis hard to the president did in the case of doma. he concluded, with good reason, that there was no argument that justify doma. he notified the congress of this decision. he continued to enforce it. invited congress to intervene in litigation, to present that point of view. ultimately, the supreme court vindicated his judgment. it seems to me that it is very difficult to blame everyone on sides of these debates, and agrees that the

clause contemplates that the president may decline to enforce a law which he concludes, in a isponsible way, unconstitutional. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> the general fund -- generally from california is recognized. >> mr. lazarus, i hear you on deeply believing in his policy, his signature the affordable care act. he deeply believes, and every item once appropriated from congress or it two years later, it expires. he can't just spend money unless he comes back to congress him as congress.ack to isn't that true? quest i apologize, but i don't understand the question. president -- when

the president possibly has run must come back to congress for more authority. aca, thingsof the which were not in the law have gone wrong. page that had00 to be passed and read. it has flaws in it and they are erie flaws if not erected -- if not corrected. mr. rosen -- mr. rosencrantz, if the law does not give the authority and it goes wrong, i am presuming that the intended that you would come back to the congress to resolve that need for additional authority. abraham lincoln came back to have his suspension of habeas corpus to attempt the have it

it byed because if he did executive order, yet limited jurisdiction. i think -- he had a limited jurisdiction. i think a good example would be macarthur's promise in war. they came back with an act to undo some of the promises made people.o the filipino is there anything in the affordable care act that is different than at any other time you is out solve a lot that come to congress and say, i need authority to act. >> i quite agree congressman. it is really quite caught -- startling that this congress offered to ratify exactly what the resident wanted to do or it president wanted to do. far from welcoming this, the tosident actually threaten veto it. go through some

things that we can all agree on. to get the something mr. turley agree,hich you all without further onto the jackson that when andy heard from the u.s. supreme court that he had no right to move native americans to oklahoma and he then did it anyway, saying that the supreme court has no army, that i am it, that he was outside his constitutional authority? you would all to agree with that -- you would all agree to that. but the record show i had all shaking heads. when richard nixon tried to withhold his tapes that were essentially evidence of his in watergate and cover-up, and the court ordered tapes even after it fired a number of people, you would court's action there wasriate, that crime, it went to the white house, and ultimately led to nixon resigning.

you would agree that it was appropriate -- appropriate for to intervene in this constitutional dilemma of a president that did not want to turn over evidence related to his crime. would you all agree? i would. agree, maybe, maybe not, that when president asserted in the harriet miers case, and is was referred to earlier, that when the judge congress has a need to it,people in front of whether that person speaks or not, and this is mr. con yours case -- conier's case, you said the court must produce witnesses. you would say that was a good balance of decision, is that right? ok. then, on what basis does president obama say he is above when he asserted that

right to evenno decide whether or not a lawfully delivered subpoena should be ?omplied with in this case, judge amy berman jackson ruled that she has the right to decide that. the question for you is if we courts, aso the congress, with our standing vote, if weempt cannot go and get the court to decide the difference between branches, then the -- then the imperial presidency is complete? if we don't have standing, if court does not have a right to decide, then executive power essentially unlimited?

mr. turley, you have written on this. i would ask one minute for asking. -- answering. that that is ae problem here. the president is clearly 3wasserting unconstitutional our in this case. this administration has been that.uccessful in there is no ability to challenge aree things even if they you as flagrantly in fire and in violation of the constitution. one thing that the court say when we say the president is acting unconstitutionally, we hear from the judge saying that you have the power of the purse. in this case, the power of the purse is being violated. ofhave hundreds of millions

dollars being shifted in a way that congress never approved. we have a perfect storm. purse ispower of the by the courts as not meeting must -- meaning that can shifte president funds without review. >> i don't claim to be an expert --standing, as have the rightrt and obligation to make those final decisions on balance of ?ower if not, aren't we do? -- doomed? >> the courts do not have authority. they have authority to hear and controversies. they don't have constitutional to decide cases that controversies. that is why we have standing rules.

so refusal to comply with a subpoena would not be a problem, therefore it nixon never should resigned because his tapes never would have been discovered in your -- >> i don't think that that follows. >> he did not turn them over nhujzii= >> he might cap. -- he might have. >> some of the standing questions might be tricky but the ultimate check on issidential lawlessness elections and in extreme cases, impeachment. election should primarily be the check with >> when the irs prevents the word from getting conservative groups, they were the action -- the election. elections are no longer the final answer, are they? that irs extent targeting is an example of discriminatory -- discriminatory enforcement, you are quite right. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson is recognized for five minutes. forhank you, mr. chairman, holding this very important and significant hearing today. let me get my notes squared away. this hearing is here political theater. it is a farce. the audience has seen it so many times it is no longer funny. this hearing is an egregious waste of this committee's time. when one considers lefthe legislation untouched by the house. the senate has passed formehensive immigration -- reform but the speaker of the house continues to refuse to bring to the floor.

yesterday, i watched as most members kept their heads down. they wanted to avoid eye contact with the 50 or so young people standing at the foot of the steps in the cold wind. clasped their hands together, the young people, in prayer. the prayer was on behalf of immigrantsies of that are being destroyed as a nation's failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform. simple 1 --as a that speaker boehner allow the house to vote on comprehensive reform and for the end of this session of congress. kids --tral of those could not be avoided by embers of congress. their heads down, probably in shame, as they escape to the safety of their cars. i suggest that this committee

despiteearing on why, immigration reform being by the majority of americans, he passed by the having and the president said he would sign if it gets to his desk, why is it that we measured to that the house floor for a vote? this do-nothing house has only seven legislative days left before it adjourned for its well-earned your and holiday. same republican party that has voted 46 times to repeal the affordable care act is today, ironically, complaining that the president is not implementing the law quickly enough. at assassins, this hearing is simply a continuation -- enable 32 million

health care.e 46 times they've tried to kill it. this hearing will not change the that obamacare is the law of the land. once we're hearing testimony use of executive authority, let us not forget that the key is toity for congress, to check the power of the executive . by the way, this congress has not yet passed a budget. congress continues to shirk is constitutional duties under article one. it is not leadership and the people deserve better. hearing,ding another perhaps this committee can also take up the question of congress's duty on article one hearing entitled, the stitutional duty to appropriate funds.

as far as the aca is concerned, the individual mandate is constitutional. costs, prohibit patientsation against with pre-existing conditions. it will extend coverage to 32 americans. the individual mandate is the key to this legislation being successful. would ensure that millions of americans will not have to worry about him tonight health care current medical condition or fear that their coverage will be capped if they sick. to look back to 2003 when a republican led congress enacted the law creating the medicare prescription program. democrats voted against the bill in 2003. the program was also very unpopular with most americans. democratic members worked hard when the program was implemented

in 2006 and 2007 to make sure receivedr constituents the full benefits of the program. is unfortunate that the republicans today are not doing the same thing. thelazarus, this is not first administration to temporarily postpone the new legislation. how have prior republican and restrictions treated the implication of with statutory deadlines come on workable? >> objection. allow one additional minute to mr. lazarus to respond. quest prior to menstruation said them what this administration is doing. they have to. i've quoted president bush's secretary of health and human services in saying that the decision tocurrent

delay the mandate was wise. experience inwn medicare part d, the prescription drug benefit program. quotation -- the environmental protection agency that statutory deadlines cannot be met. we all know that. administration was often chastise by environmental for missing statutory deadlines and the environmental charged and charged in court, in fact, that the bush administration was using delays as a cover for simply spending the law. basis wasow what the or was not for that. the president refuses to enforce a law for policy states, is a violation of hair duties but that is our --

that is not what is going on here. >> thank you. i yield back. recognized that recognizes mr. king for five minutes. this is the one more interesting as i've been sitting here for more than a decade. as i listen, i listen to mr. dialoguend often your goes to the policy effectiveness rather than being tied to the language or the statutory language, although you have referenced both. i am curious as to what you power of theited president might be, even you such attitude to amend -- itare because it of conforms with the broader intent of the law. it really intended to allow for the application of taxes and the distribution of refundable tax credits even though mr. cannon testifies that that is not in the section that applies. can a broader perspective,

you tell me how you think the president's powers are limited and does he have the power to lay and collect taxes? >> i think the president's what -- bylimited by what the statute provides. i have said several times that i agree entirely that the simply refuseot to apply or enforce a law for policy reason. regulate commerce? >> the president is obligated to law --n a new >> i'm sorry, i hear that. i'm trying to get to the thatitutional limitations you think the president has. i passed enumerated powers with the exception of -- , and i go toppen mr. turley's statement about we dangerous area we don't have constitutional limitation. what's the president declared war? assumed that authority?

what is the recourse, what would your counsel be to this congress if we objected to such a thing we objected to it on constitutional grounds that we got was a good policy decision vetoed a resolution to declare war. that you get us to the bottom of the discussion. >> the president does not have the authority -- >> correct. >> the congress does. the congress has not been eager to exercise that authority in my lifetime. that is a complicated subject and -- >> thank you, mr. lazarus. there is a war powers act. >> let me pick it up from there. i am illustrating this point incrementale is an march down through as a president overreaching his constitutional authority, in my opinion and the may -- in the of many people in this the, he could assume any of enumerated powers and the recourse that congress would had, all the way down to the

declaration of war, and the had -- of congress what would have would be to pass a of approval. fundinguld shut off the through the power of the purse. the president has already assume that. if we find out that the courts not grant -- grandstanding of congress, i think it is the word that i will not utter in this hearing. the frustration of this balance of powers, because of the the competing branches of government. will argue that the founding fathers envisioned that each branch of government would itsously protect constitutional authority. that balance would be the brighter line of the articles of the constitution. what would finally resolve this? i know we said election.

if elections are affected by executiveof the of branch, what did the people do that come if they are even frustrated by the election? i am asking mr. cannon. >> i think it was to me. you are asking if there is no electoral remedy, what did people do. to what sort of abuses? any one of the list of the enumerated powers, ending with a declaration of war. that is the starkest of all. >> there is a procedure in the that has allowed people to amend the constitution without going through congress. that is another method where the people can try to restrain the executive. happen, whyould would it executive with such honor and amended constitution from a constitutional convention?

>> that is an excellent question. >> i would like to turn to mr. turley and ask if you had time reflect on his earlier statement of the situation we are in and where this goes. what does america look like the next 25 years every we have executive upon executive that this continual stretching and disregard of restraint and disrespect for article one. >> you may answer the question as quickly as you can. >> i really have great of of where we're heading. we are creating a new system here. something that is not what it is is designed. the center of gravity is shifting. that makes it unstable. you have the right's of an uber presidency -- the rise of an

uberpresidency. i think the founding fathers would be horrified by that ship. dedicated there were -- there were dedicated to that balance and i think we lost it. >> i think the ultimate check is think you but i don't should be hesitant to speak the word in this room. executive lawlessness is impeachment. if you find the president is willfully and repeatedly iflating the constitution, tom on your hypothetical, he were to declare war, i think it would be a clear case for an beachfront. >> this is the first time i have heard someone complain about the this presidentt will unilaterally declare war. i do really think that is much of a description of his foreign- policy.

congress has lots of power if they choose to use it. policy using thewould find wayt power, which were not doing. we're hearing complaints about actions to not enforce deportation against .ertain classes of immigrants instead of complaining about that, the committee can hold a out a and report conference of immigration reform bill, send it to the floor -- >> mr. lazarus come up the questioners 2.5 minutes over. if you can dispense with giving us advice on what our legislative agenda should look like, i would be grateful to you.

>> at is my answer. anderce has a lot of power you should use it. that thesuppose is an activee that power. >> there is one last thing to which the people can resort if government does not respect the restates the constitution places on the government. about alincoln talked revolutionary right to overthrow it. is something that no one wants to contemplate. in my written testimony, if the people come to government ishe no longer constrained by the laws, they will conclude that no longer are they.

it is a dangerous sort of thing for a president to do, to wantonly at nor -- to ignore the laws. >> an excellent conclusion. i yield back.

>> i yield back before. to >> i do not want to get into the diesels of that. i find that interesting that you made the issue the speaker of the house said that we have to pass it before it is in it. let us get real about this. -- we are finding what is in it or what is not in it. i am hearing about how this is destroying them. let me be the first to say that i think everybody needs health care and we that can afford it have to help. i firmly believe that.

i would like to lead -- i would like to read you something. i'm not a constitutional expert. i follow constitutional law. in the federalist papers number government, what is itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? it went back to refer to the great security against gradual concentration of the civil powers in the same department consists in giving to those who would minister each department and the constitutional means and .otives to resist encroachment the government was set up to specifically prevent this. , i am seeings here, and not only in t