tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 10, 2014 5:00pm-7:01pm EST
5:00 pm
multiplier effects. we think there was some displacement. commissioner, thank you for being here today. i just want to go back to some things that mr. paulson had brought up. with population growth we have to see about 130,000 new jobs created every month just to maintain the low. is that right? number,is not a precise but there are numbers along those lines. number, ismiddle that arranged around 130,000? this month we created only 74,000 new jobs. just to maintain our employment 130,000, have to have this had 74,000.
5:01 pm
many times america will hear the unemployment rate go from seven percent to 6.7% and would view as the country going in the right direction in regard to job creation and economic growth. but would you agree that actually the reduction in the unemployment rate is not an indicator of strong job growth like many of americans may think? >> i will unpack things a little bit. the decline in the unemployment , is somewhere around two thirds due to the decline in labor force participation. and about one third to job creation. speaking, the employment and population ratio has essentially stayed about the
5:02 pm
same since late 2009. so that is problematic. but we have two different forces working on employment population. one is the demographic changes that would tend to depress participation just as baby boomers like myself age, the population genuinely getting older. we are getting into times we are more heavily weighted to parts of the parts of the -- occupation that participate less. compensate for this and that isssure, one of fact and the other is the recovery from the recession which would create -- which would require creating more jobs. earlier,estion from the sense that before 2009 they needed 130,000 jobs per month to
5:03 pm
maintain employment, with population growth. and are you saying that this year or the year before -- this is not true and we are static and population growth? gained,ve 74,000 jobs that we are moving in the right direction? the population growth is taking place at 130,000 per month right now. >> the average has been over the last year, this is 182,000. tom is going to take a stab at this. >> with the employment population ratio, that would indicate that job growth is basically enough to keep track with population growth, the growth of the population 16 and over. obviously lower than it was at the start of the
5:04 pm
recession so we are not gaining ground in terms of the portion of the population that is employed in getting back to the free -- the prerecession levels. we are keeping track of the population growth. >> i want to switch gears. see across the isle over the last several years comes from job growth. do you look at statistics and ore an analysis on whether not raising the minimum wage jobs, or doesre the effect of that create less jobs. >> this is very much a policy question. >> are you analyze that on this front? >> we don't have statistics that would allow us to answer that question. >> i will yield back. >> a vote is called in the house so the chairman joining on the committee, representative loney
5:05 pm
will be our final -- >> i want to congratulate you on your appointment, you are the whoth woman on this panel, i believe is still on the council of economic advisers. >> she actually stepped down in april. >> the statistics of the women's movement are -- more important than the first woman appointed is the consistent performance of women, what is is no longer something unexpected but i think you will be adding to that statistic. i think the statistics today are very encouraging. byh the employment increased 74,000, unemployment fell to 6.7%. but if you put this in the context of the overall economy, private sector jobs have grown months, withutive
5:06 pm
4.2 million private sector jobs created, and i do believe that in 2013 private sector 2.2oyment increased by million jobs, largely unchanged from the 2.2 million private sector jobs created in 2012. the economy is durable and improving and i would also like to note that the private sector job growth has been revised generally, from 217,000, jobs per00, with new month being created and could you elaborate on how these numbers fit into the overall economy and comment on the trend because it looks like we are direction, the right with an improved economy, not as good as we would like, but could
5:07 pm
you comment on the overall context of the economy and trends in the economy? >> all right. i would say that generally speaking, what we have seen over the last year is very steady, modest job growth, that has been primarily in the services. this has led to improvements by many measures, and yet there is still a long way to go to return to pre-recession conditions. that your report, you say payroll growth was concentrated in temporary health services, and last night, there were disturbing numbers out of new york city that i have the privilege of representing, one of our great retail stores laid off 2500 people, macy's. this is not the trend in new
5:08 pm
york state where we have added 100 40,000 private sector jobs during the last 12 months, but the progress in the city and the unemployment rate has been 8.5%r, we are now at rather than 8.9%. if new york city's experience, how does that fit into the broader perspective of the national picture? are other areas experiencing higher rates of unemployment than the nation as a whole? >> the nation is a combination of many different regions and many different cities within those regions, so there is always quite a variety of experiences because cities are termcted both i there long- sectional trends and the cycle that they are under. that they are within -- >> with joblessness and recovery, is this faster in
5:09 pm
rural or suburban parts of the country? is there any data on that? i think that this varies. >> i want to congratulate senator club which are -- senator club which are -- klobuchar --you say in your report that the drop was tied to the rate and knowing -- having people working to find a job and having that system as they try to become part of the thatmy, and she noted in report, this is a pass-through. anyone who is unemployed will put that money right back into the economy and work to create other jobs and create the hope
5:10 pm
in this country during a very difficult time moving forward. i do want to note that manufacturing employment rose by 9000 and i was thrilled to see industry, as one who supported their restructuring has added over 8000 jobs, but i did note that women have been moving jobs and manufacturing while men have gained them. understand, that, i noticed in the report. is, arethe question sectors of the economy where men are more heavily represented -- represented adding more jobs where women traditionally have a larger presence? the numbers show there is a more rapid drop in the unemployment rate for men. what explains that rapid drop in the unemployment rate for men? faced ahe recession men higher unemployment rate than
5:11 pm
in 2009nd it peaked while the unemployment rate for 1.1%?never exceeded >> we have run out of time, can provide a brief answer? >> the basic answer that we found is that there is no very strong pattern of job growth being concentrated in male or female dominated industries and it does seem to be a simple industry mix story. >> commissioner, thank you for your presentation. this is a cakewalk. we look forward to having you back. best of luck in retirement and the hearing is adjourned.
5:12 pm
>> the committee meeting to hear the jobs numbers for december, 74,000 jobs added, and the unemployment rate falling from seven percent in november 2 6.7%, the lowest level since october 2008. the government believes fewer americans are looking for jobs in december. the issue of unemployment came up several times in the white house briefing.
5:13 pm
here is part of that from today's briefing with jay carney. >> the jobs numbers, j, i seem to remember you at the podium not long ago showing us charts of job growth over the -- last couple of years and the implication of the white house taking credit for the president's policies contributing to job growth and now we have this report of 74,000treading water, jobs created and the workforce you are at ausly, low for almost 40 years. the lowest it has been since 2009. >> the white house, does the president's policy have anything at all to do with this jobs report? >> john, as i think you know, when we talk about the jobs reports -- we always begin with
5:14 pm
exceeds that whether it expectations or something below expectations, there is more work to do and this report is no different. what it does represent is 46 consecutive months of private sector job creation. >> that is barely anything for the economy -- >> we have to continue to have job growth, economic security, economic mobility and those priorities are the president's priorities and he wants to work with congress and outside of thatess, for an agenda continues on those priorities and expands the opportunities that economic growth affords. and what -- we have periods of late where the expectations are
5:15 pm
below and what we have seen, generally is consistent private sector job creation. have also seen is labor participation rates non- withstanding, is a fall in the unemployment rate from 10%, to 6.7%. is why too high and that we need to -- in spite of the drop this is too high. we have to have this as our focus and not get too hung up over ideological fights when we need to be focused on what we can do, coming together to spur job creation and economic opportunity. >> do you see this as an ominous jobs report? >> our economists were out there talking today, what we have seen in general in recent months has been largely positive economic data. i am not suggesting this is
5:16 pm
anything beyond the latest report, but i would point you to the economists to give you a broader picture of where we are, economically. the fact is that we have work to do and we are continuing to grow and create jobs. we have to create more jobs and that should be our priority in washington. that is what folks in the country expect for our priorities to be. they don't expect ideological haves, and veering off to debates about issues that don't seem to affect their lives directly. is very focused on these matters and you have heard him talk about them a lot lately and you will hear him talk about that a lot in the coming days and weeks. part of john boehner's reaction to the unemployment numbers --
5:17 pm
from the majority leader in the senate, harry reid -- the issue of unemployment comes up in our conversation with the steny hoyer, our guest on sunday and on newsmakers, at 10 a.m. eastern and again at 6 a.m.. -- 6:00 a.m. >> there is a way that we have set up this impossible series of expectations especially for our president, but for elected officials as a whole, that they will swoop in and save the day and when it doesn't happen we give congress a nine percent approval rating and the president a 30% approval rating. the expectations have to be lowered and that is what is quite amazing about the american founding. --is not as if the americans
5:18 pm
the founders said not to expect much from government. the government will not be the main driver of our liberty. the federal government exists to do certain things and it better do that -- it had better do them well. if it doesn't do them well nothing will be rapidly situated. but the main activity will be in the civil society. but in the election of local officers, at the local and state levels, even in that there is a measure of modesty, of recognizing that it is not possible for people from washington d.c. to run a nation of 300 million people. >> david gone on humility on c- & a." "q >> nancy reagan was the first sitting first lady to address
5:19 pm
the united nations and to address the country with the president. notife can be great, but when you can't see it. open your eyes to life and see it in the vivid colors that god gave it, as a precious gift for his children to enjoy life to the fullest and make it count. say yes to your life, and when it says -- when it comes to drugs and alcohol, just say no. >> first lady nancy reagan, as our original series, " first ladies influence and interest, continues. erest,"eintrest," continues. obama years ago president 2 positions -- and
5:20 pm
today, the cato institute in washington, 2 law professors debated the merits of the case. this is an hour and a half. >> good afternoon and welcome to the cato institute. --the directorn of cato institute studies and your hosted this afternoon. i am pleased to note that the federalist -- federalist society practice groups are sponsoring our debates today, on behalf of cato and the federalist society. let me introduce them through those watching us through cato institute live streaming and c- span as well.
5:21 pm
on monday,from today january 13, the supreme court will hear arguments in a case called national labor relations board vs. noel tanning. the court is expected to decide the term. at issue the president's recess appointments and his power to make recess appointment set -- they haveuire never determined the scope of that power. it is important to begin by quoting the constitutional text, so if you take out your cato constitution and turned to section 2, it says the president should have power to fill up all
5:22 pm
vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate, by granting commissions that will expire at the end of the next session. the purpose of that power is to enable the president to fill offices, especially important the that become vacant when senate is not in session. as would otherwise be required for confirmation. and the concurrent power of the senate -- these are an issue in this state. unfortunately with so much else in the constitution that is not how the power has been used in years. nowhere is that more clear than president obama on january 4, 2010, filled three vacancies in the national labor relations board without senate confirmation when the senate was arguably in session. not surprisingly, litigation
5:23 pm
followed, and the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia, in a state -- in a case before the supreme court held that the appointments were unconstitutional, both because they filled vacancies when the senate was not in true recess, and because the vacancies had not actually happened during the purported recess. it was a ringing opinion, written by then chief judge davidson pell and it was followed by two other appellate court decisions, with the third and fourth court finding the appointments unconstitutional. we take up the question as a fromaste of what to expect the supreme court on monday. this is straightforward, president obama's recently appointed recess appointments were unconstitutional.
5:24 pm
rosencrantz will argue in the affirmative, and professor victor williams will argue in the negative. each will make opening arguments of no more than 18 minutes followed by a five-minute response each, after which we will open it to questions from you in the audience followed by lunch upstairs in the george m. jaegar conference center. aofessor quinn -- is professor at georgetown and also a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the cato institute. he holds a ba and a jd from yale university and his articles have appeared in the harvard and stanford law reviews. he clerked for judge frank easterbrook on the seventh circuit and four justice anthony
5:25 pm
kennedy on the supreme court. he served as an attorney advisor at the office of legal counsel at the u.s. department of justice. he often testifies before congress as a constitutional expert and has also foul briefs and presented oral arguments before the u.s. supreme court, his most recent supreme court brief was on behalf of the cato institute. victor williams teaches at the catholic university school of law where he is a clinical assistant professor in the lawyering skills program. economics and and lawyering skills, with a masters degree in education from harvard a jd from the hastings college of law where he was the articles editor of the constitutional law quarterly. and the university school of law where he was a member of the --
5:26 pm
arbitration and law and economics from the george mason university school of law. professor williams's academic articles have appeared at william and mary and george mason and elsewhere and more recently, the huffington post featured a series of commentaries on the federal appointments process. he suffered -- he served as an extern for the u.s. court of and the 11the -- circuit and the u.s. court of ofeals, judge joseph sneed the ninth circuit and he interned with the securities and fccange commission, at the regional offices in los angeles. we will have each speaker speak we about 18 minutes, and
5:27 pm
will have them respond for five minutes each. we will begin with professor rosencranz. please give a warm welcome to both of our speakers today. [applause] >> thank you so much, roger. i am happy to be here. i will spend a minute or two trying to put this issue in context before getting to the argument. ofroger gave you the text the recess appointments, i should give you the text of the appointments clause, for comparison. shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint ambassadors and other public ministers and judges of the supreme court and all other officers of the supreme court, whose appointments are otherwise here or provided for -- that is
5:28 pm
the general rule. matter, thegeneral senior appointments are to be made by the president with the advice and consent of the senate. exceptionhere is this to the rule. what we are talking about is the exception. the vacancy clause. up allsident will fill vacancies that happen during the recess of the senate by granting commissions that expire at the end of the next session. it is not hard to imagine the paradigm case for this. why do we need an exception to the rule of the paradigm case. thes around the lines of, senate is not around and some key, crucial general is killed on the battlefield and the president needs to appoint someone to fill his shoes and the senate is not around. there is not some mechanism
5:29 pm
under circumstances like those. that is what they were imagining , that is the paradigm case. that is not the only case but that is the paradigm case that motivated this clause. thatis is a case constitutional law professors will love. is reason is because there almost no doctrine about that. reporters said almost nothing about this. that leaves us going back to first principles. --n we don't have dr. doctrine to parse, we have to go structure context and and figure out what this document means. we dig into the text and try to figure out what it means. as roger explained, president obama made some appointments and early january, purportedly to
5:30 pm
use this recess appointments that these were valid figure that, and to out we have to parse the language of this clause, and it actually raises three distinct issues. i will tell you the three issues. this is not really an original analysis. we give you the response and the these, andbout excellent brief in this case. there are three issues, and the point i want to make before i before the francisco court and i, here before you, only have to be right about one of them. you have to be right about one of them to win. i have to be right about all three in order to lose. mind, you to bear that in
5:31 pm
the first thing to figure out here is the president will show power to fill up all the vacancies that should happen during the recess of the senate. what is the recess, what do those words mean? 2 possibilities present themselves. meansssibility is this the formal recess between the formal sessions of congress, the number of sessions of congress of which there are typically 2 or 3 in congress, one year long and there is the recess between the numbered sessions. this theory is the intercession theory, there is -- there are only intercession research -- recess and there is no such ession recess.tras
5:32 pm
this would have another name and this would be something like an adjustment, rather than a reset and the constitution uses the word, adjustment. -- adjournment. it is only triggered during that recess between those numbered, formal sessions of congress. that is the view of no francisco and that is the view i want to take today. but there is another possibility. the government view is that there can be intrasession recess, on the governments view that thengress and senate takes -- and the the government presenting that position has 2 analytical problems. one problem with that position
5:33 pm
is, can this really mean any can thiswever short -- mean a 10 million break or a five minute break or a lunch break? can it really possibly mean any break, however short? would it be possible if this were true? they would be there for lunch appeal theuld not cement consent, it seems like that would be crazy. the government is trying to deal with that problem while drawing the arbitrary seeming line that -- there is kind of an exception. it is the break of a substantial amount of time, and the government just halfheartedly says that this is about three days. this is about three days and if this is longer than three days it counts as a recess. they could have derived that
5:34 pm
from the adjournment clause of the constitution, neither house during the session of congress without the consent of the other should adjourn for more than three days, nor to another place that they shall be sitting but the government does not want to derived this three days from that clause. and they are halfhearted about the three days online. it seems they're wanting to leave open the door that tomorrow, they would like to argue that this is 2 days. they do not wholeheartedly endorse that but they do see the problem of the lunch break. that leaves them drawing the arbitrary line. and there is the second take analytical problem. this seems to set up a dichotomy between the recess and the session.
5:35 pm
the president should have the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate by granting commissions that should expire at the end of their next session. andit sounds like recesses sessions alternate. when you are not in recess, you are in session. it sounds like these ideas alternate. if they are right about these they without the view of many little sessions spread out across many little recesses. if you had a 10 day session and on thatay recess, have theou would appointment during that four-day gap, and it would only last
5:36 pm
through the 10 day session. and through that it would not end. the government does not like that. they don't take that view. recess means it is colloquial meaning -- means the colloquial meaning like you would have in school, that would be very short and anything that is three days or more. the session is formal and long and lasts the full numbered year. they don't want to sign on to the idea of the recess versus the session, the dichotomy of the 2. they are forced to believe that you can have both at the same time. they are also in session, they have the formal view of the
5:37 pm
session, the informal short view session, contextually -- this also creates an audit anomaly if you talk about it. session, themal formal session starts on january 4 or fifth, there is a short little recess. you,rom the governments of you can appoint someone during that recess and it lasts, that expires at the end of their next session. that is not the session we are on during the current view. this should last just short of two years. the length of the congressional term. this is a long time and plenty of time during which the senate is around.
5:38 pm
the recess appointment during that four-day gap is going to count for almost two years. the government is required to believe that recess and the short and informal sessions -- and the employment at the beginning of the intrasession recess, this lasts almost two full sessions. the government is forced to believe all of that. that is the first intercession and intrasession listen to this language -- and listen to this language again. the president may fill the sessions -- and we are talking 'happen.'word, we talk about the plain reading of this, you would think that this means, it comes into existence. it begins.
5:39 pm
case, thearadigm general who was killed during the general killed during the recess happens, appointmentsma's did not happen during the recess on anyone's view. what happens is that the vacancies existed, they came into existence while the senate was in session. what the senate went into the president says is a recess, which is debatable. and now the president says the vacancy exists during that recess. of them says, happening, coming into existence and having them occur. the government wants to say that happened does not mean occur. means continuing to exist or happens to exist.
5:40 pm
arounde president looks the world and sees a vacancy, it is happening at that moment. that is the governments. . ishink the plain language kind of crystal-clear. the government's reading is quite implausible. the president does have one thing in his favor, a huge amount of history. the firstly days, generation from 1789 until about 1823, everyone assumes what i am offering as the common sense plain meaning of everything that happened but an attorney general in 1823 wrote an opinion that this happens to exist -- and the executive branch has more or less taken that position, i
5:41 pm
would not say consistently, from then on. they at least have that argument. on, the executive branch has taken that position and that raises the interesting mythological death -- mythological -- methodological position. you thought the plain answer was right and 1789 in the first iteration and that the attorney general was wrong in 1823, does it matter that that wrong interpretation has been the executive branch view for 180 odd years? this is an interesting methodological question. it reclines to the additional meaning and not even though there has been this long history. but this long history matters to
5:42 pm
a lot of folks and it will matter to a number of the justices. this is a strong argument but not really a good argument from text, but from position. that has happened and just to and ihe third point here, cannot imagine the government winning -- on the third point, what the senate has gotten in the habit of doing because of this phenomenon is holding what they call pro forma sessions. what they do is every three days, a senator will gavel the place to order, and if you sessions later they gavel it closed, and they do that every three days, exactly so that they are in session rather than in recess. and that has been annoying to presidents for 20 or 30 years.
5:43 pm
presidents have nevertheless said i guess i am out of luck. the placedveling order and i guess i am out of luck. this has been unknowing to them but this is the state of the world. though, andama, this is unprecedented. president obama said that that is not a real session. you say that you are in session but i say that you are not. i say that that is not a real are in recessu and i feel that i have the power to make these recess appointments. that is what was going on. this is the first time that the president has ever done this. during the time when the senate itself believed that they were in session. the president claiming the power the senate isher
5:44 pm
in session or not. judgment about whether they are in session despite ther textual demands that senate is the master of their own rules. imagine, i cannot imagine the government when -- would win on that point, they have to win on only one of these points and i have to re- emphasize that. anyone of these points could persuade any of the justices. that with any of these three points and i would predict to you that one of these would persuade all nine of them. i will offer you a reckless prediction that this is going to be 9-0. i don't think that this was a close case. thank you.
5:45 pm
>> we will hear now, from victor williams. >> it is a privilege to be here. at cato. for the field of law and economics, a prince of -- a privilege to be at a place with that name on the wall. my goodness. it is great to be at an event sponsored by the federalist society, which has done so much -- and in the ideas law schools across the country, a genuine privilege here, and kudos to the federalist society for doing that and having enough of the pre-market of ideas -- on the progressive side, to also do exactly the same thing. is ane and anywhere, it honor to discuss our great constitution.
5:46 pm
with joy and pride, my students say i do this with too much enthusiasm so i will try to dial it back a bit. i was one of three in support of president obama's recess with all future recess appointments, resident rand paul, president hillary clinton, they will need present and temporary authority to fulfill their appointments. and it won't be that long. originalism,tempt i always think, i have to go back to our 1st constitution. i have to go back to 1781. all,mind myself and remind
5:47 pm
under the articles there was no executive. no judiciary and no national judiciary. executeate branch, to the law and administer the government. congress had all the power and all of the responsibility and they failed badly. we all hear about this function, the dysfunctional government. in the 1780s there was genuine dysfunction and dangerous dysfunction. the confederation congress had failed miserably in their attempts to legislate and to administer the new republic. these are specially constituted -- by the congressional committee, god for bid. had notadministrators been able to execute the law for the new government. one of the many reasons that in summer of 1887, delegates were sent to philadelphia to draft
5:48 pm
our constitution, our second constitution. framers formally separated executive authority from the congress. the congress was stripped of its executive function, they had failed. weretive powers transferred through what came to be article to. a single individual. a chief executive, a chief administrator, a commander-in- chief. left withas and oftive powers -- course one president, one individual can't do the job of administering the government,
5:49 pm
even back in 1789. so the debate continues. the president needed help, obviously. who would hire the help? who would hire the principal? and the high-level officers? who would hire the folks to fill the benches that would be created? convention, any folks went in with the assumption that congress would continue to do that job, that congress would continue to appoint the officials and the new judges. that is the interesting thing about our founding era. debate and discussion mattered. 1787, this wasf debated. who would best fill these positions and who was the best person to choose our officers
5:50 pm
and our judges? the minds were changed, minds were changed, and at the end, the final summary judgment was to grant the president a strong, predominant authority. andpresident would choose the house had no role whatsoever. the senate was restricted to a they wouldn vote, give a simple majority and that was -- majority vote and that was their advice. the president could and usually does except their confirmation advice, but he does not have to. he still has appointment power. he can choose to accept and assign the commission. that is the appointment, the president signing the commission.
5:51 pm
he has the first lucrative advantage, and he has final authority. day, thatme summer this accord was struck, the house, with no role whatsoever and the richer could advisory consent, and the president's final authority -- the question arose, what happens if the senate is not available? what happens if -- what happens to these officers? these are support -- supposed to be important officers. they lay fallow until the senate returns e and -- north carolina, a richer state, stepped up and said, no, the simple solution is to grant the president a unilateral authority when the senate was unavailable. gone, the is president has no need to make a
5:52 pm
formal nomination, the president has no need to wait for the senate advisory consent, under clause three of the commission -- the president puts the individual to work. this is not an exception to the appointment authority, this is the capstone of presidential predominance and appointments. the convention delegates unanimously accepted this grant appointment authority, for the president. there was no additional debate. there is a functional design for executive appointment authority. the president's appointment authority would be vested and operable at all times regardless of the attendance of the senate to its duties. the president puts the official
5:53 pm
to work. all presidents have used this authority, to keep the government and the judiciary working. unlike the articles of confederation, this was going to work for the people. and thanks so much for the -- i wish my common law professors have been so clear and direct. that was wonderful and i really do appreciate that. were president obama's amendments constitutional? of course they were. we will hear more of this in the discussions. the sham pro forma sessions are nothing more than that. i argued strongly against them when they started in 2007 and 2008 and i encouraged george bush to challenge harry reid's
5:54 pm
las vegas bluff. he didn't, obama did. the fact not change that the senate was unavailable. 20-day, no planned business break. it was gone. there was no quorum to be had. this exclusively grants the executive both a responsibility, availabilitycement and the discretion to assign -- alexander hamilton described in 1767, the president -- alone, may make temporary appointments,". te.close quo only the executive has the institutional competence to know
5:55 pm
when such an appointment action is required. articles -- article 2, section 3 mandate. he is required and takes an oath. to take an oath to god care that the law be faithfully executed and commissioned with all officers of the united states. only the executive has that confidence to know when temporary commissions are needed. as to the specifics of the regretfully, iluctantly biased ruling, have to reference you to the solicitors -- solicitor generals -- available through the excellent website -- they have every article away
5:56 pm
from the court. the brief is exhausting, detailing why the intrasession break -- for the pre-existing positions. the solicitor general rises to the challenge, and defeats the circuit's ruling on original grounds. the contemporary practices of the founding era, to support his the sentencesrams as if we were in ninth grade english. thebrief fully explains purpose and the temporary appointments, and most effectively, the appendix lists the names of hundreds of officials and judges whose intrasession and pre-existing
5:57 pm
vacancies and commissions have been made. with military appointments the numbers go into the thousands. as i strongly support the solicitor general's position, i do have to come forward and say that i strongly believe he made a mistake. his mistake was in the fact he should have made an alternative preemptive argument. he knows that. a perimeter -- argument -- with taxation and sometimes it worked out well, and for the d c circuit -- and i believereme court, he has a nonpolitical question to the court. some questions are committed by the constitution and by the text of the constitution to the exclusive discretion of the
5:58 pm
elected political branches. could it be that the court does not have the last word, could it be that john roberts court has a wonderful opportunity to prove its conservative credentials with judicial restraint, to stay out of the partisan fight over a point met? -- such asdern cases goldwater versus carter, nixon versus the united states. let's just take one of them in the interest of time. in the 1993 case of walter nexen, the federal judge down in refusedppi, the court the shortcut for the trial process, they did not have time to transform this themselves, into the high court of impeachment, rather they have
5:59 pm
in evidence committee that work for legislation. we have the committee and 12 senators actually hear this and eight senators don't. they are also doing other things. and then all 100 senators come together and all 100 thumbs-up and thumbs down. stripped of his salary as a federal judge. of course and sought to have the court and the judiciary , for theis shortcut impeachment trial process. well, chief justice rehnquist knew that impeachment removal was an important constitutional check on the judiciary. exercising prudence and restraint. our nation's highest court would not even define the word try in
6:00 pm
the impeachment trial clause. in article 1. here, they should not attempt to define the just as judges should not be the final arbiters of the senate process, the court should not have the final say, temporaryword, on the appointment method used to regulate bench composition and our court'ssform racial and gender demographics. how recessear appointments have been used in the 300 judges that have come to temporarily. the first female judges, by recess appointment. first jewish federal judges, by recess appointment. four of the first five u.s. court of appeals african-american judges by recess appointment. -- judicial oversight of
6:01 pm
recess appointments is a blatant interest.f the court should stay out of partisan fight. let's just leave it to the tocted political branches fight out and the ideological interest groups it fight out. there were 25 amicus briefs obama'sposing barack recess appointments? were they really? opposinghey just barack obama? that's to leave it to the political branches to fight out. the termoda mior used recently in an argument, just selectedto the political branches to, quote, duke it out." [applause] >> we're going to have five minute responses from each of speakers, then we'll open it up for you folks.
6:02 pm
that was a very interesting presentation. i guess i'm going to speak to it first. the good professor spoke, argued the case is nonjustisiable, that the court should stay out of it. he argued that in a brief before heard himand you argue it for five of his 18 now.es just guess,fers up, i terrific teachable moment for the law students in the room. that is not the question of our debate. question of our debate and i'm going to help you to understand that by reading the resolution. "resolved, president obama's recent purported recess appointments were
6:03 pm
unconstitutional. the question of constitutionality and the aretion of justisiability quite different, distinct questions. at the officeears of legal counsel, department of we answered questions of justice all the time which will never show up in court. we're argue about whether the president violated the constitution quite regardless of court ought to be answering this question and that is we're wanting your view, our whether the constitution was violated. we're not doing the court's view. we're doing our view. was this constitutional or not? entire agree with the last five minutes that you heard and it has nothing to do with this debateout how should come out. we're arguing about so that'sonality here important and people i think in law schools in common law classes you sometimes come to think or you sometimes -- might
6:04 pm
come to think that these are the same, right, if the court is -- if the court won't declare it somehow it isal, constitutional. that's not so. there are questions the court of, they'ret nevertheless legit constitutional questions for us, to consider,eople, and, you know, this may be such a question. has nothing to do with this debate. so ok. heard the good the recessay that women's clause was a cap sten, not the exception. the vast, vast majority of advice andwith the consent of the assistant. it's quite clear that in the framers,t papers the explained,essor debated at length about how appointments were going to work thequite what the role of legislature was going to be but the recess appointments clause, all. was no debate at
6:05 pm
they thought, oh, yes, we'll have to have something like that and they wrote that in and there about it at all after this carefully wrought mechanism for appointments on the one hand, this quick appointmentsrecess clause with no debate at all. surely that suggests they thought that was the exception to the rule. i heard professor williams say the president, i think i heard you say that the president even if the appointment the senate votes no, did you say that? >> of course, of course. that -- so i'm going to give you the primary clause again. the president shall nominate and by and with the advice and the senate shall appoint. professor williams is telling that if the senate votes no, the president can make the appointment anyway. hear to tell you nobody thinks that. that is -- that is not the
6:06 pm
conventional wisdom, i don't think i've ever heard that view esspoused before. so that's an unusual claim. about that hear more but that is not conventional wisdom. professor williams called these things sham sessions. these little micro sessions or called themssions, sham sessions. sessions during which the senate do any realsibly business. the senate actually voted for a bill during one of these sessions only 10 days these appointments. so we know for a fact the senate do business during these sessions and did, and did, think you -- i don't can quite call these sham sessions. you actually can do business and the senate has. now, as all of these questions raised in my opening presentation, the logic of the
6:07 pm
iternment's view, is possible that it includes even just a lunch break and if you want to say not a lunch break, where do you get these three days from and why is it and recess could be short informal but session means an entire year and this anomaly you do it at the beginning then it's going to last for two whole years. that, we heard no answer whatsoever except to refer you excellent s.g. brief. that's, i think, an unusual win - way to win a debate but at the s.g. brief noah francisco brief and see what you think but ask a lunchr williams, does break count and if not, why not. the strongest point you heard from professor williams is this giant appendix with all of these prior appointments that seemed the vacancy arose, not during the recess or where was, was intrasession
6:08 pm
rather than intercession and a legit argument and you have to ask yourself, how much does that matter to you. i'm rightthink that as a matter of first principles, nevertheless believe something like but there's so orh water under the bridge, you can either believe something like, yes, that's wrong, but we it anyway eventh though it's wrong because we've stuck with it for so long. so you could believe something like that. or you could believe something tradition long actually changes the meaning of the constitution so that even though it was wrong before, it's become right here now via tradition. i don't believe either of those things but those are at least believe.e things to >> nick, your time is up but i want to stop you before you give away too much. >> fair enough. >> vick?
6:09 pm
>> legit arguments versus nonlegit. reminds me more of law school. by that.comforted gosh, where do we begin? friend, david davis, his at that point, abraham lincoln needed all the friends he could court. the u.s. supreme would not have satisfied the test of the d.c. circuit obamaer to get rid of the appointments. general,irst solicitor indeed the first solicitor general of the united states, of these prohibited recess appointments. to the 11thr jr., circuit. miguel estrada to the d.c.
6:10 pm
circuit, he didn't have the courage but he did for william circuit,the 11th intsession appointment to a 11thxisting vacancy on the circuit, down where i used to found memoriese of alabama. william cryer and that was andlenged by teddy kennedy that crowd and the 11th circuit isd, of course this constitutional. nonjustisiable, it's that, too. parts but of course it's constitutional. intercession recess appointment, i think the recess appointment of 10 days.g others, irving crystal, to a media board. june kirkpatrick to the united nations. nobody going to stand here and that jean kirkpatrick was not constitutional. she stared down tyrant small and large. a constitutional appointment.
6:11 pm
work at thed's united nations. what else can we say? talk more about justisiability. i could remind that it was in marbury versus madison that john informed thatt questions in their nature, political, or which are by the constitution and the laws, submitted to the executive, can this court.e by the president has certain for whichary powers he is "accountable only to his political his character and to his own conscience." and that's more than justisiability. that's constitutional. aat's what it means to have president. another case just for your water v carter. the court rejected challenge of a congressional delegation of a
6:12 pm
presidentainst carter's determination to terminate with taiwan. an associate justice, william here, why thete, constitution is express as to the manner in which the senate shall participate in the ratification of a treaty, it is silent as to that body's abrogationon in the of a treaty. similarly with noel canning and recess appointment challenges that have been ginned up all across this country. 2, section 2, clause 2, manneressed as to the that the senate participates in of an ordinaryn permanent appointment. the next clause of the constitution and we're talking here, it is the constitutional read that we do. the next clause negates that body's participation in the president's decision to sign a
6:13 pm
commission to the pro forma sessions, i argued this reid when he started this childishness, this 2007.ess in it is an embarrassment to the senate as an institution. waste of taxpayers' the place withup deference to c-span, to run cameras, i have one minute these pro forma sessions are in their latest development, that wasn't even the senate. objecting ton't these recess appointments. that was a partisan minority of the senate colluding with the housemajority, the ajournmentfused consent so the senate was forced into these pro forma sessions.
6:14 pm
colludes withrity the senate minority for the sham sessions. majority,he house shame on the senate minority. kudos to president obama for making his constitutional , forntments precedent rand paul, hillary clinton, to run our government. >> we've heard from our debaters. from you. before we begin, please wait to be called on, wait for the microphone so everyone in the room and our audience watching online can hear the questions. for purposes of c-span, stand when you get the microphone and give us your name and any affiliation you have, try to make your question short and i've asked our speakers to
6:15 pm
answers, as well. ok. let's start with this gentleman here. i begin, while we're fielding questions. you could give me your hand and i'll send the people to you so we can save time there, too. ok, go ahead. >> sam wright, retired navy lawyer. on the appointments clause, not the recess appointments clause, every cabinet department the line has been assistant secretaries and above require senate confirmation. deputy assistant secretaries and below do not. how did that line come to be drawn and is that a defensible line and where is the line what requires senate confirmation and what does not? for?o's that question >> both. >> for both, ok.
6:16 pm
again, senate shall ambassadors, judges, -- and shall be established by law. not ihas not -- there's wouldn't say clear doctrine about quite where those lines but there'sdrawn senior officers and less senior therers but i don't think actually is the line of tradition, i don't think there's quite a clear constitutional about who requires senate consent and who doesn't as to that. could just say, certainly i agree with that. of course, the partisan both fromn we've seen the democrat and from the republicans, lend us to want to of officialsmber that are subject to senate confirmation. ways that's unfortunate that the senate can't perform
6:17 pm
butconstitutional function i have to agree, at this point, we should reduce the number this torturous process. >> gentleman right over here. soble, washington, d.c. even if it's not within the the debateounds of topic, i'd like to hear respond toosenkranz professor williams justicability argument on the merits. actually, i believe that this is justisiable because i believe that noel canning has a legitimate dispute. is, i think, that there is a real case or controversy involving this canning, and i actually think that separation is about at its core individual liberty so i don't think this is the kind of thing politicalft to the branches to work out on their own and i think this is the sort
6:18 pm
of thing that the court ought to be -- the court ought to take a at and i think the court, granted cert in the case, is likely to reach the merits. a predictive matter. i don't think the court will say nonjustissable and i don't think this will say that. but this debate is not about that. trying to answer the constitutional question quite regardless if the court ought to be involved. if it were nonjustissable, it fall by default to the president, would it not? >> no. you could believe it was nonjustissable, you could believe the president was bylating the constitution these appointments and you could think there were other proper remedies. for example, you could believe impeach was proper or you could believe this was a proper reason to vote for the other next election or to vote for the other party when you're voting for your senate.
6:19 pm
weretil those two remedies available, namely, the next impeachment, then be de factot would successful in ignoring the separation of powers? congress has withheld the pay appointed perere some of these -- either intrasession or when the vacancy didn't arise during recess and ofre's actually a good bit debate about -- the government wants to say the senate's acquestionezzed in the sense that they've acknowledged there are such people in the world. francisco, noel canning, wants to say that's not acquiescing, that's retaliating against an unconstitutional the punishment fit the crime. maybe it doesn't rise to the impeachable offense but the framer's idea was that for these nonjustisiable
6:20 pm
questions, the way these things would get worked out is through weapons each branch has, the various arrows they big in their quiver and a arrow that the legislature has is the power of the purse. what theyactly expected would happen. >> this gentleman right here. i'm tate from the education foundation in australia. i'm asking the full bench what sort of precedent does this set if it isrocess deemed constitutional, if the president can determine when the and, b, whenting the positions become or happen to be vacant, doesn't this create a situation where highly political appointments will be made during these sham breaks or recesses in the future and is you want to head? >> we could talk about the recessncies of the appointment process and they are
6:21 pm
many. talk about the limitations. obviously the limitation of the terms appointment is the of limitation and while up to two years is a pretty long term the fullainly not presidential term or eight years presidential term, certainly not term of aears regulatory official or the live tenure and salary of a federal judge so there are many reasons not want tomight make recess appointments, many limitations to this alternative. out for thent record, barack obama's been very reserved, to my taste, i've asked him on the "huffington for being reserved, 32 appointments compared to again a couple of hundred by bush. w. >> i might just say this is a
6:22 pm
power from thein senate to the president, if this is upheld. i think that's what you're what's the precedent here. a dramatic shift of power from the senate to the president. the exception swallowing the rule so if this is ok, then the president can get around the need for advice and consent by little recess to do the appointments. it's the exception swallowing way that matters a lot as to appointments which is hugely important, hugely important executive power but it matters beyond that, too, because everything happens in of these separation of powers provisions. when they are negotiating about when they're care oring about obama whatever it is, in the shadow, nextght not confirm your appointee if you don't go along with us on x. the needle towards the president in all those negotiations about everything,
6:23 pm
not just about appointments. actually quite a big deal. georgen watkins from mason school of law. i had a question for professor williams. i was wondering if you could to what i consider kind of the most devastating historical evidence and that's that george washington when he was trying to appoint people, he to contact them first and confirm this f they wanted the he couldn'tbut if and the session was about to end appoint the senate to them anyway so if they resigned could the recess he appoint someone else. why do you not consider that to be relevant in this case as to not he can appoint someone even if it arrives before the end of the session? >> of course we look to the entirety of the historical again, a look to the general's for the hundreds, indeed thousands of recess appointments.
6:24 pm
thateorge washington, particular case, gosh, great to george mason and by lawyering, he had some bad advice, that is silliness poprding the vacancy had to open during the intercession recess were the only type of he could recess appoint so he was doing a little general, ofat maneuvering. rather extraordinary answer, isn't it? this is an argument really built so theory and tradition appendix in the back with a big list of appointments is the heart of the argument so if you have to throw george washington under the bus to make your argument work. >> just his lawyer. >> you have a bit of a problem, i think. that's quite an extraordinary claim. bernstien, george mason
6:25 pm
adjunct scholar at the cato institute. presidential unilateralism in the obama administration, this is small potatoes, but the related issue of the czars that presidents increasingly appointing to high-level positions that should be offices subject to confirmation but instead they the director of this, director of that. it, obama ist of doing more. the extraordinary thing i saw is that the senate and house passed legislation defunding in 2011 a couple of positions so enough bipartisan to get votes through and the obama administration is signing the legislation as part of a broader package but saying they can't defund these because it's part of the executive authority, to we want to so any comment on the growth of the czars to avoid thea,
6:26 pm
appointments clause completely and whether there's a plausible constitutional challenge that could arise in the judiciary to of these some appointments? >> it's extraordinary that we've for thesee word czar people. i think it actually turns on quite what their powers really are. they sound very important but i think you actually have to get on what authority these folks actually have. that they're just giving advice to the president, to the extent that they're like somebody in the white house the president and not sitting atop a structure, i generally think they're ok but i would want to get into the weeds on exactly what the authority of those folks are before i thought they necessarily needed senate consent. >> i certainly agree with that and shame on the senate for not timely offering its advice or framers intended. praise to the senate for getting rid of confirmation filibusters
6:27 pm
for supreme court nom that -- nominees. that's coming. mitch mcconnell said it would come during the republicans, good, let it come. simplemers intended a majority vote. the articles of confederation ailed because it required super majority vote so a unanimous vote among the states. so praise to the senate for filibusters.mation >> right here, please. wayne brady, american foreign policy council. we do a lot of things in this country based on tradition and may not beat constitutional. vice presidents succeeded to the presidency with no constitutional authority to do so until the 25th appointment in 1957 but nobody is arguing that retrospectively those presidents were illegitimate. if you look at the thousands of
6:28 pm
appointed to washington intercessional terms, aren't you opening up an incredible question of negation of an enormous amount of what u.s. officials have done and in particularly in foreign affairs, raise questions about what ambassadors, for jean kirkpatrick, for whom i once worked, conducted on behalf of the united states, if you draw into question the their official status. >> that's a great question. that's what i was starting to when roger cut me off from my own good. so tradition and practice does matter and that is certainly the most powerful argument on the other side here. i think it shouldn't win the day and probably won't win the day at the court for a few different reasons. a tradition and practice
6:29 pm
that starts in 1789 i think is conclusive but this didn't start in 1789. in 1823, started more suggestedtime anyone that had to mean something other than occur so the entire generation actually believed that happen means occur. may sound -- i guess to me matters so 1789 versus 1823 matters. it's 1789, that tells me i might be wrong about what the text meant, the original meaning text. but if it's 1823, then i'm comfortable saying, that circa 1823,eral, was wrong and got it wrong and the founding generation was this so to me that matters. second thing is, there's no so we --on this history has a lot of power when
6:30 pm
the early supreme court cases, we don't have any here. history will have a little less don't havese we doctrine. and third, this is not quite settled. even though there's this giant has prettyhe senate consistently resisted this and expressed its concern that this was not actually consistent with it'sriginal meaning, so not quite that the political branches reached an this, theion about senate quite acquiesced in this. this has been controversial and controversy has flared up in a number of different ways from on. it's just not quite settled in the way that might carry the think. >> it's a very important question, very important case tried to make this argument to the case in my amicus brief. court's not persuaded by its own precedent in history to
6:31 pm
partisan appointment fight, the brief phrases the domesticated perspective of the late great alexander bickel. bickel advised courts to consider the strangeness, the intractability, the minuteness of an issue. that we'verange case not seen before. he referenced the the selferability, doubt of an institution which is irresponsible and has no earth to draw strength from. case, thisctly that is exactly the bickel abstention judiciary has no earth to draw strength from. the partystay out of an mud fights of appointments. >> right up here? laettner, cato institute. if every senator and the vast president'sthe cabinet were to die in the middle of a senate session of a
6:32 pm
simultaneous heart attack, would president be able to use the recess clause to make appointments to refill his cabinet or would he have to wait for each of the states to send new senators? [laughter] catoly at katie would would you get a question like that. >> i'm going to leave that you, roger. >> he worked for me. it's yours. youabe, i'll see afterwards. we have a question right here. colorado lawwen, library of congress. do you think the removal of have the same procedures as the appointment and nomination because if we go about 200 years ago for the andrew, president johnson, escaped for one vote
6:33 pm
impeachment. thank you. >> so the constitution has provisions about appointment aboute have been talking but it actually doesn't say anything about removal so it was to believe that these things were supposed to be symmetricle. you could have believed if you needed the senate consent to also needed senate consent to remove. that was a plausible thing to there was no text on this and some smart people did actually believe that but now the conventional wisdom is the president gets to remove those folks on his own motion even though they were -- that is unilaterally, even those who the senate had to consent to and i think that's aght but it's certainly as matter of first principle, there were smart things to be said on the other side. the d.c. circuit's ruling would limit the president's discretion in terms of removal sense that if you take them at their word, it has to be
6:34 pm
that magic little time, less hour between sessions, and so you would need to fire that hour andng recess commission your folk in that same hour of an intercession recess. orant president rand paul hillary clinton to be able to fire folks when they need to and will do it.ry >> right up here is the next question. >> i'm an economist, not a your indulgence law. ignorance of the professor williams has a couple of occasions referenced a 51 vote. read of the constitution is it seems to be silent and the itste in my read should set own rules and richard cord ray did get a senate vote, did not read 60. i will also note the day before the recess appointments, his returned to the white house so my second question is, as a former senate
6:35 pm
do a lot ofhad to paper work, i consider the exchange of paper work and messages between the executive branch and senate to be business so my question would be, are things weonly consider business in the senate or what exactly is senate business if it is not the exchange of receipts and messages of the executive branch within 24 hours of the appointments? >> that's a very interesting question. i didn't know that. i would have to think about that a bit. pro formam with these sessions since harry reid started them in 2007, 2008, we to see the senate's business as monkey business, we come to see it as child's play it's a good question and i'll have to give thought to that. with harryt start reid, did it? >> it doesn't start with -- business.he monkey >> thousands of years ago. >> question right here. my name is wilma liebman. >> speak up into the microphone,
6:36 pm
please. >> my name is wilma liebman, the thediate past chairman of national labor relations board. my leaving the agency in august of theseted one recess.s filled by a >> could you speak up? >> professor williams talked fact that the difficulties in making these appointments were occasioned by the house of representatives was refusing to theent to a recess of congress. constitution says that you need the consent of both houses to a recess. the constitution also says that can declare the congress in recess if the two houses cannot agree. so my question mostly to professor rosenkranz is, do you think president obama would have been better served following think, during this period the two routes were being heated and studied, would
6:37 pm
have been better because the constitution expressly gives him authority? >> that's an interesting question. i'd have to think about that, actually. question.'s a good was actually quite a lot of encouragement for him on "huffington post" and other such wonderful sites in our new technology age. i wish that he had. i think that he should have tried that. i certainly do. talking about lawyers and talking about lawyers making outrageous arguments, unusual arguments, it was robert kennedy, wasn't it, that said, the most important characteristic of a lawyer is courage and that means thinking outside the box and making arguments. >> sir, i guess i'll get one other thing out on the table as to that. so it's important to note the
6:38 pm
the congresst says shall assemble at least once in every year and such meeting shall begin at noon on the third day of january unless they shall by law appoint a different day and president obama believes pro formaf these sessions sufficed for that counts forcounts, purposes of the 20th amendment so the administration wants to the position that these someons are legit for constitutional purposes but not for others and that's a bit awkward. disbanded congress, then i suppose -- depending on the riskedou might have running afoul of that provision he would something have had to bear in mind at least. stan wayweek. uscpa. i'm not certain of the george
6:39 pm
mason's professor's question on -- czars and he had a congress' power was there a question about congress' power to fund or not fund? >> that may go to the point i making about the congress' remedies do not. yeah, so if congress believes that the president is violating the constitution, one of his -- of their remedies is to not his favorite things and it may be the salary of appointees or it may be the certain agencies or whatever and that's actually the way that's supposed to work. that's the idea. georgetown law alum. if the supreme court says that
6:40 pm
the senate doesn't really have its own power to decide when its doing its own recesses, what reasons would they give for this and has the supreme court ever senate's rule the making and its own kind of before? making power >> would you repeat the question? quick restatement? >> has the senate -- has the theeme court ever said to senate, no, this is not a recess or you don't have or we're going to contravene your power to are?e what your own rules >> perhaps they've come close in terms of the removal cases but i believe they've addressed this. i think that's one of the reasons this case is so important. the question is driving at is, has the court ever second-guessed the senate its own rules. i think the answer is no. >> in the walter nixon case, they removal were affirmative in not doing that.
6:41 pm
very interesting question. question,e budgetary that's right, that's right. i come from arkansas, wilbur wilbur mills.r ways and means congress can have interaction with the president. if c. borden gray believed the intrasession recess appointments are unconstitutional, think maybe he6, should give back the title and treasury should call back the salary. >> he could afford it but in any event -- roger? question.sk a i have been waiting for you to ask the question i want the answer to. isfessor williams, how short too short? do you believe a lunch break is a recess? i do not believe that the adjournment clause three-day applies -- provision applies to or restricts the president. in a time of national emergency, i do not want to handcuff the
6:42 pm
shortent in terms of how is too short. i would ask you a question, in a recessession of appointment of a vacancy that pops open during that intercession that lasts 45 minutes, does the president have recess appoint? it happens. but sorry, so your answer was yes? would count, >> your answer was less than lunch. don't do a 45 minute lunch. roll.oesn't get past the >> up here, please. you, matthew crist, in virginia. i wanted to say, first, even if 1,000 unconstitutional actions, that doesn't support
6:43 pm
this argument that this president's unconstitutional action is constitutional. that evidence will not help you. of what i want to ask, if all of this history toll permits president obama aggrandize his power, that isn't asited to president obama, you said, president rand paul or president hillary clinton would power, but the problem is we have, about, i ofld estimate, 100 years essentially the constitution being in abeyance, especially 1937 but i think from 1913 so we have a continual aggrandizement of the presidential power and isn't this just one more step to where president is just taking power more and more power away from the kpmg. congress, that was to professor williams. >> it's a serious question, i it as a serious question in obama, barackk hussein obama, i would go back fact that he has been
6:44 pm
very, very restrained. only 32 recess appointments. 250 for ronald reagan but i accept the question. it's an important question. we need to think about that question and we need to go past article 1, article 2, we really 3.d to go past article we need to go to article 5. that's how we make constitutional change, not through the courts, if we're serious about it being a democratic republic, we go to article 5. ifamend the constitution, you're concerned about it. >> time for just one more question. david? david ray, the federal society. this question really is for rosenkranz but before i do, that very quickly, i think maybe an applicable case that addressed whether or not the supreme court could ever involve itself in congress setting its own rules might be adam clayton powell case. that was just to throw that out my question, the previous gentleman asked earlier that i didn't hear an answer to,
6:45 pm
courte that the supreme does exactly what you predict, rules 9-0 in favor of noel canning. does that then potentially open cornucopia ofzing challenges to just myriad made for decades and decades? if the effect of those rulings still being felt by parties today? >> yeah, that's a great question tricky for the court. the first question is, on what tounds is the court going decide. justices several decide on the narrowest ground pro formaimply these sessions count. these pro forma sessions count to -- these appointments, president obama's appointments that are issued in are case, they unprecedented. this is the only time that a purported to appoint folks when the senate that it was in
6:46 pm
session so deciding on that ground casts into doubt only appointments, none of the other thousands. and i predict at least several will decide on that narrow ground. even as to that narrow ground, --re are some trickyra remedial questions. thes it everything that nlrb has done since that date? i think there are tricky questions. nlrb can probably retroactively ratify most of but maybe notone all. there might be some things they have to do again. the nlrbe tricky for to handle that. >> justice thomas will write a the wordce about "happen." >> i think that's right. thank you so much and i can tell for being here and loving way i do,tution, the and for all our folks listening out there. the people, and i agree there. >> it's time now to break for
6:47 pm
lunch. there are restrooms downstairs on this floor and on the second floor. going up to the george m. up theconference center spiral staircase for lunch. let me thank the federalist its practice groups for co-sponsoring this event today with the cato institute. have a good relationship with our friends over at the mostalist society in cases. in any event, let's conclude with a warm round of applause for our speakers. [applause] [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> the senate is continuing to agreement ton extend long-term unemployment benefits. the congressional agenda
6:48 pm
next we're, omni bus spending bill and legislation in the house on the affordable care act. as congress wraps up its first full week and gets set for week of legislative action, the headline on "national journal" is falls flat, deal putting senate back in irons. joins us fromhors phone, michael catalini. thee do things stand on unemployment bill in the senate? >> on monday the senate comes back at 2:00 and we expect a amendment by senator jack reed who was one of the original co-sponsors of the three-month unemployment insurance extension and what happened last week was we saw to pay forg together unemployment extensions for one year which is something republicans said they wanted to but late last evening what we saw was that deal fell to
6:49 pm
reason it fell to pieces was because the republicans are upset that leader harryity reid was not allowing them to have amendments on the three-month extension. >> as the week starts, they have favor ofors who are in moving forward with debate and now at the end of the week debate asking for more on amendments? >> what those six senators had advanceer they voted to the bill was they did that on the condition that or the wouldtanding that they get a vote on two of their amendments. on theired them votes amendments saying some were not and ruled out any of the neaments amendments having to do with defunding the affordable care act. so they have 24 pending werements and many of them germane so what we'll see on monday is a vote on the reid
6:50 pm
that would pay for it for a year and pay for it through an extension of the sequestration cuts for another a provision as backed by republican from ohio calleduld prevent sew double dipping in uninsurance benefits and disability benefits but republicans are balking at that because they're saying they have 23 other amendments they offer and reid isn't allowing them a vote on those. the senatefloor of and the house, negotiations have been continuing on the 2014 federal budget with the january 15 deadline looming. it looks as if the house next take up at least a short-term continuing resolution. what's the status of that longer term, that omnibus spending bill? >> what we know about that is, lawmakers, two top inopperators, harold rogers the house and a democrat from
6:51 pm
maryland report that progress is ongoing, they're in town working the so-called omni bus havere and they expect to something by the end of next week and the short-term goes expect saturday and we omnibus presented in time for members to vote and get out of town for the weekend. only other item in the house that we know of is a bill dealing with the healthcare law. working on their first at least of what's expected to 2014 nextr more in week in the house. what a that's bill look like? require the will administration to report to congress on users, americans interact with healthcare.gov as you and your listeners know, the rollout was very bumpy for and this is an --empt by republican you
6:52 pm
lawmakers to shine a light of transparency on the bill and administration to report how the website is faring. >> you can follow michael atalini's reporting nationaljournal.com and on twitter. thanks for joining us. [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> former senator tom daschle at theith students washington center for internships and academic seminars. the senate rule change requiring a simple confirm presidential nominees other than supreme court justices. here's a look at senator daschle's comments. >> what is it that we ought to at the statee look of governance in our elected in washington in the year 2014? i would argue that there are a number of things we could and wouldly should do and i
6:53 pm
argue that they are defined in large measure by how difficult they are, defined as, if i could such simple terms, as to say there are big things and there are little things that could be to advance the cause of bipartisanship if we really wanted to achieve it. some don't, but i think the vast majority of people in this see congress act more productively, want to see more commonty, want to see more aspirationalnd approaches to our national policy agenda. me just talk briefly about the big things and the and then i'd love to get into a conversation if i could with you. on the big side of things, the that would take some real effort and some heavy lifting, one is the way we select our candidates. increasingly in this country
6:54 pm
today, our elected officials choose their voters. ourvoters don't choose elected officials. and they do that, of course, gerrymandering in particular, moving districts around to make sure you've got a very defined group of people in your congressional district. moreis happens more and and i think as a result democracy has suffered. we also have primaries today are skewed and in many cases dominated by a very small the tea party has had parties,success in the and threatened members of congress with a primary because so well organized, recognizing that voter turnout quite primary process is low so that's number one. we've got to look at the way we publicour candidates for office. number two, i think that one of
6:55 pm
have,ggest challenges we believe it or not, is the airplane and i should explain. the airplane has made it very easy for people to leave washington and because it's so leave now, they leave on thursdays, they come back on tuesdays and they try to govern on wednesdays and one can't run a country as sophisticated as day a week. we've got to recognize that time int to spend more washington dealing with the nation's business than we do i'll come back to that in a minute. but the airplane, and all of its ramifications, has had a profound effect on how congress other, the fact that they don't socialize like they used to, the fact that no one moves their families to washington anymore. has contributed to this lack of time spent in this city doing what they were elected to do. the media has changed dramatically. when i first started in
6:56 pm
networks we had three and walter cronkite was the referee. the the media is more participant than the referee, maddow or's rachel rush limbaugh or anybody on either end of the political spectrum, there's a significant andnt of philosophical political inclination as these media celebrities are able to influence the perception of and the actions of many of the members of congress. say the last would big, big issue is money. last cycle, there were two races where the amount of the race exceeded $80 million. typical congressman or senator has to raise -- i should say aboutr, those raise $10,000 every single day he or
6:57 pm
to is in office to be able accommodate the average cost of a senate campaign today. driving a big part of the agenda and it's something about.ot to be concerned deadline's approaching camc-span's student video competition. answering the question, what's the most important issue address thisld year with a five to seven-minute documentary that includes c-span programming. there's $100,000 in total prizes. due by january 20. [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> it's disappointing to all of us to see the deterioration, deterioration of the security inside of iraq. of my life over 2006 torom 2006, end of 2010, i was there as we
6:58 pm
oftinued to reduce the level violence and the sectarian violence was going on. i believe we left it in a place where it was capable to move forward. we've now seen because of several political issues to iraq that security situation is now devolved into in my mindhat is concerning but this is not just about iraq. mind, it's something we have to be cognizant of as you look across the middle east, what's going on in syria, what's going on in lebanon, what's iraq and it'se of this sectarian -- potential building of sectarian conflict between sunni and shia and the nonstateion of that by actors such as al qaeda and other organizations who will try to take advantage of this. on c-span, army general rayff odierno looks at the security east.ion in the middle 2, mary matlin and
6:59 pm
james car will have on their love and war relationship. >> c-span, we bring public from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional events,, white house briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel to gavel allrage of the u.s. house as a public service of private industry. we're c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable provider.te the nationalf grass, saysl frank national guard readiness is higher than ever
7:00 pm
good afternoon. to the national press club. aing angela keana. we are the world's leading professional organization for journallities, committed to our profession future with programming such as events like fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club visit our website at www.press.org. offered too programs the public through the national institute journalism visit press.org/institute. i would like to welcome our as well as those in the audience. our head table includes guests asour speaker as well working journalists who are club members and if you hear applause from the audience, i would note that members of the general public are also attending so it evidence of arily lack of journalistic
107 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News ArchiveUploaded by TV Archive on