Date: 2014-07-28
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

I want to thank the gentleman from New York. I just want to take a moment to compliment both Mr. HORSFORD and Mr. JEFFRIES for this Special Order. among others. I could not imagine. as we end this session. to have a more important statement to the American people. We want to work. and in a few days. we will be voting on an action to sue the President of the United States. Let me refer you to Justice Antonin Scalia. who has said in United States v. Windsor: Our Constitution rejects a system in which Congress and the executive can pop immediately into court whenever the President implements a law in a manner that is not to Congress liking. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that while some European countries allow one branch of government to sue another. that is obviously not the regime that our Constitution establishes. Our Constitution contemplates a more restricted role for article III courts. In fact. our Constitution clearly states the separation of the three branches of the government: the judiciary. the legislature. and. of course. the executive branch of government. That is the way it is supposed to be structured. Now. we come and find ourselves with the legislature trying to step into leading the executive. The President has made it very clear. What has he done wrong? We just heard the Speaker of the House tell the President with respect to the unaccompanied children: you can handle it. Well. frankly. I would make the argument that you are right. There are executive powers. and so the basis upon which this lawsuit is about to be projected. to me. evidences that we have lost our way. As my colleagues have said as I was walking onto the floor. we still have the extension of unemployment insurance. the raising of minimum wage. the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. and the fixing of the veterans health system. which I hope that we will be able to do this week. If not. we should stay here and fix it for our veterans. The Constitution is clear. and I want to say those branches of government again: the judiciary. legislative. and executive branches are separate. Scholars and conservative jurists have indicated that there is no reason for us to jump into court on the responsibilities of each particular branch. Mr. Speaker. I would make the argument that this week is going to be 3 days of wasted time. and I know that there are people who disagree with the Affordable Care Act. immigration reform. the unaccompanied childrennot one of those issues is attributable to the malfeasance of the President of the United States. I dont know whether this is a substitute for impeachment. but I would make the argument that the President has committed nothing equal to impeachment. and this second class citizenship of a lawsuit certainly is inappropriate. I believe the American people are much more interested in making sure that we follow what is good for them: creating jobs. protecting children. providing for education. and. Mr. Speaker. ending wars and fighting for what is right. This is not the way the people of the United States value their principles to be misused. The executive. judiciary. and legislature are three separate branches. We are expected to do our separate duties. I would. again. ask that we adhere to the Constitution by respecting these three separate branches of government. Lets do our job and provide for the American people. Mr. Speaker. I rise tonight to talk briefly about the GOPs march towards impeachment. But first let me make a distinction between impeachment and a lawsuit initiated by the House. qua House of Representatives. Article II. Section 4 of the United States Constitution states: The President. Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States. shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of. Treason. Bribery. or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. In any impeachment inquiry. the Members of this branch of government must confront some preliminary questions to determine whether an impeachment is appropriate in a given situation. The first of these questions is whether the individual whose conduct is under scrutiny falls within the category of President. Vice President. or "civil Officers of the United States" such that he is vulnerable to impeachment. One facet of this question in some cases is whether the resignation of the individual under scrutiny forecloses further impeachment proceedings against him. A second preliminary question is whether the conduct involved constitutes "treason. bribery. or other high crimes or misdemeanors." Now Mr. Speaker. whether we get to this point where we are actually considering impeachment of the President is a question that only the GOP Majority can answer. It appears that we are heading in that directioneven in the face of doubt from numerous experts as to whether the effort will succeed or not. Indeed. it is a matter of historical fact that President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending the terrorists of September 11. 2001. and weapons of mass destruction. "WMDs" have yet to be found. House Democrats refused to impeach President Bush. Let me state that again: "House Democrats refused to impeach President George W. Bush." Now I wish to turn to the resolution which the GOP Majority intends to put before this body in a lastditch effort to stir their base before November. Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger testified before the Rules Committee two weeks ago and had this to say about the potential lawsuit: The House of Representatives lacks authority to bring such a suit. Because neither the Speaker nor even the House of Representatives has a legal concrete. particular and personal stake in the outcome of the proposed lawsuits. federal courts would have no authority to entertain such actions. Passage of the proposed resolution does nothing to change that. If federal judges were to undertake to entertain suits brought by the legislature against the President or other federal officers for failing to administer statutes as the House desires. the result would be an unprecedented aggrandizement of the political power of the judiciary. Such a radical liberalization of the role of unelected judges in matters previously entrusted to the elected branches of government should be rejected. My colleagues on the other side argue that lawsuits by Congress to force the administration to enforce federal laws will prevent the president from exceeding his constitutional authority. But the Supreme Court has constantly held that the exercise of executive discretion being taken by President Obama is within the presidents powers under the Constitution. The doctrine of standing is a mix of constitutional requirements. derived from the case or controversy provision in Article Ill. and prudential considerations. which are judicially created and can be modified by Congress. The constitutionally based elements require that plaintiffs have suffered a personal injuryinfact. which is actual. imminent. concrete and particularized. The injury must be fairly traceable to the defendants conduct and likely to be redressed by the relief requested from the court.