tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 13, 2015 12:30am-2:31am EST
have to bring the line. how come nobody ever talks about that? guest: this is much bigger than a pipeline. this is much bigger than moving oil out of alberta to the gulf of mexico. this is a political instrument to draw contrast between democrats and republicans. they want to spark debate about energy and reform in this country. you will see that this is the start of a broader energy conversation in the senate. i think both parties would agree that it's been delayed for years amid real demand for some conversation. the underlying bill may be
authorizing the pipeline. if democrats and republicans can't work together and add enough things to it that would authorize and spark broader reforms regarding natural gas oil, wind energy, and other sorts of energy use, congress and the white house could put it together. they say that this is not just about moving oil. it's about constitutional powers of the president and his ability to stand in the way of something that americans want. it's a conversation about job creation. is it just a construction job that will be there for a little bit? it's a conversation about oil exports and whether we should be exporting oil or keep it here? it's not just about this pipeline.
it's important to remember as this and can use. it's a symbol of what hasn't been done on energy reform and how republicans criticize the president and how the president distances himself from the things that republicans would like to do. host: jim you are next. caller: these liberals need to get a grip. we do need it. that is the way i feel about it. host: coming from the state where the judge just ruled __ explain that. guest: it essentially allows the project to continue. it was a barrier to the state department finally giving authorization to this.
host: david from ohio. caller: i am currently on social security disability. i understand that in the next couple of years that fund may run out of money. i want to know what congress will do in the next couple of years to restore it. guest: social security will run dry. i think we have had that conversation for the last 40 years. it is on the agenda, there's no specific proposal on the agenda yet. i think it is something that both parties understand it needs to be done. their proposals out there to deal with this. i think we will see more on it
this spring when the republicans roll out their budget plans, and when the president rolls out his. it is an odd_numbered year, which means there's no one up for reelection this year. host: what are some other ambitious goals for this congress? guest: tax reforms. there is an ambitious plan laid out in the pages of the post today. republicans are proposing an idea to give tax breaks to middle_class families. it is a lofty idea. it is another example of how the parties are talking about things that they could conceivably be done if party control were different, or if
we were in a time of more bipartisan projects. the affordable care act. in social security reform always is a big concern. again, there is no real aggressive or current plan. host: back to crisp __ chris van hollen's speech, and that will be taking place this morning at 9:30 am on c_span 2. he was also our "newsmakers" guest yesterday on c_span, if you miss that, go to c_span.org. our next caller is up next. caller: talking about the keystone pipeline __
it feeds our water supply. [indiscernible] guest: you make a good point. pipeline security, and the security of oral across the country remains a big concern. it will likely factor into the debate in the senate over the next few weeks. host: the debate on the senate floor has already started taking place. if you missed it, go to
c_span.org to see some of the arguments that have been made for and against the pipeline. thomas from new york. good morning. caller: i just have a question. i was at an event this weekend attended by my congresswoman, and she talked a lot about keystone. she was very for it, saying that it will create something like 42,000 jobs. i just wanted to hear what your thoughts were on permanent jobs that you still will actually create. i've heard democrats say that it will not create they may jobs at all __ less than 1000. then republican saying 42,000. whereas each side getting the numbers and what is a realistic estimate? guest: i would refer you to a fact checker that was done by
my colleague at the "washington post." he looked at the two sides to try and see how may jobs would be created. 10,000s of jobs would be created and would last as long as the construction of the pipeline lasts. as far as permanent jobs, it is believed to be just a few dozen __ close to 40. i would refer you to that piece. you nailed it, thomas. it is somewhere just between a few dozen and tens of thousands. i think 42,000 is on the high end. 35,000 is on the low end, as far as construction jobs.
but to manage the pipeline, it is just a few dozen. these types of facts are the ones that have been thrown around in this debate. it behooves you to find out for yourself what is the truth. my colleague did an exhaustive job to try and find out exactly how may people would be employed by the pipeline. host: he also recently did a piece on republican claims on the keystone pipeline. if you google washington fact checker, you can see the different aspects of this debate. caller: hello. i have been listening to this issue.
i do not know why the keystone pipeline is necessary. it is not really helping the american people. are their biggest issues that congress could bring up rather than the keystone pipeline? it is not really helping american people. guest: it is a small part of the bigger debate on energy, also about the reach of the presidency. the hope here from mitch mcconnell and his staff is to get this over with as quick as possible and move on to other things. there's also understanding that there is a lot of agreement on this, and an ability to present bipartisan support. the jobs, we just talked about that, anywhere from a few dozen to thousands.
host: what are some of those other items that congress could get to? guest: we will see potential tougher sanctions on iran. you will see at some point conversations on tax reform. there will be proposed changes to the affordable care act __ coming up with a different way to fund parts of the law. perhaps changes to the 40 hour workweek rule. that is a big concern to many people across the country. there will probably be a vote to fully appeal the law, though there is an understanding that that will not go anywhere. the republicans will make their point, and they go on. there are these known show
votes, that are meant to draw attention to the way the presidency is voting. both parties are hoping to move beyond this and find real solutions. host: anymore fallout from those that oppose speaker boehner for a third term? guest: we saw through members almost immediately removed from the rules committee. that makes sense, because i committee is really what decides what makes it to the floor of the house. whether we see any retribution against others who were actively pushing for this, we will have to wait and see. i believe there is a desire amongst allies of the speaker to do something __ whether it
is to shrink their budgets, or anything else. the problem is that only amplifies it more. then, they can go back to the district, to tea party backers, and say, i'm now the face of those who are embodied to the speaker. you do not necessarily want to do that. you want to ignore them and discount them as much as possible. that may be why the speaker is completely holding off. host: are there any rumblings like that over in the senate side? aagainst majority leader mitch mcconnell? guest: no. certainly not yet at least. there may be republican senators who stand in the way of certain pieces.
that would behoove mitch mcconnell to find moderate democrats as allies. no one challenged him, and there has been no talk of real concern about leadership. host: he wrote a __ you wrote a piece this morning on moderate democrats in the senate. guest: it starts with joe donnelly, joe mansion of west virginia. other democrats who may be in the mix are the independent senator from maine, and the former governor of virginia. from there, you go to a whole host of people.
they could be game to work with both sides of the aisle on certain specific issues. it will just depend on what republicans are willing to bring forward. you will see, for example, menendez will work with republicans on the president's policy on cuba. host: city have that dynamic over in the senate. you also have 2016, with several republicans thinking about running. guest: you have marco rubio coming out with a book this week.
rand paul'sbook is coming soon. ted cruz is also want to watch. whether all of them are able to advance, or some of them back off given the intentions of jeb bush, mitt romney, and others. we will see. with democrats, some are interested in what elizabeth warren thinks to do. host: mitt romney said he will not run, and now he is. we have a tweet __ after cromnibus, what evidence do you have that congress will return to regular order? guest: after thursday, asked me again.
again, senator mcconnell said that there will be at a fair process on these bills. he has said that democrats and republicans alike will be invited to introduce amendments, and they will be voted on fairly. it will be a stark departure from how things were dealt with in the past two years. we will see. we will see to what extent democrats are in engaging on this, and to what extent republicans are willing to commit to this. this is a hopeful sign that things will be getting back to order. it is kind of going back to the way things are supposed to be, if you look at the rulebook. host: we will go to south carolina next. caller: i would like to know why you keep saying this oral
__ it is not oil __ it is tar sands. it is the nasty stuff on the planet, and no one can burn it except for china. host: we will go on to phyllis. caller: thank you for taking my call. i also want to ask about the keystone pipeline in. i'm a democrat, and environmentalist. taking the land away, and forcing eminent domain on ranchers and farmers, and especially native americans, who do not want this going
through their land. there's a little sad about their rights. i think we have a treaty with the indians __ and we're just trampling on their rights. guest: that is another element of concern. all of your callers are bringing a complicated issues that are involved with this. that demonstrates the breadth of this. host: and the debate on capitol hill. it will start today in the senate. obviously a lot of colors are interested in this topic. tune in to c_span 2. eddie in massachusetts. caller: good morning. the pipeline will give you oil. the more oil and you have to lower the prices.
the better chance that you can get a carbon tax. with that, you could supplement solar paneling. that's where jobs will be. host: john in florida. caller: thanks for taking my call. i wanted to comment on one thing. i want to think c_span for giving the american people a chance to talk. fox news, or all the other news media, they would not last 10 minutes under that scrutiny. my comment is __ i get my information from doctor jim willie __ a leading economist in america. he points out that there is a massive glut of oil in the world right now. the prices could drop down to $20 per barrel.
why is congress wasting our time doing this now, with the prices dropping. you talk about 40,000 jobs gained. art oil industry, because of these prices, are collapsing. we will lose tens of thousands of jobs in the oil industry. guest: another argument that democrats are making. host: all of those questions will be asked when we talk to the present and ceo of the american petroleum institute. jack gerard will be here. please, by all means, call in with those questions and comments for him about the keystone xl pipeline. we're talking about the congressional agenda, not just keystone, but what the
republicans will do in this 114th congress. let's talk about the minority party as well. senator harry reid was unable to make it to the congress, will he be on the floor this week? guest: we have not been told yet. it sounds like from an interview that he did with npr, he will not be back this week either. it sounds like his right eye is forever damaged by this accident. he said that surgeons have not been able to look at it just yet, and determine to what extent his site has been damaged. he said there is too much blood in it, he was very explicit __ to his credit, he has talked about transparency. he said he had at least three, four red __ ribs broken.
he was using some sort of exercise band, it snaps, he fell back. democrats will have a retreat this weekend, doctors said that he will not attend. we will see. he remains engaged. i think his staff is going to great lengths to know that he remains active and in tune, aand will heal and recover, and get back to work. he also made clear in the interview that this has no affect on his intention to run in 2016. he intends to come back as soon as he can. host: what about other democrats in 2016?
senate democrats about 2016. the field looks good for democrats to take back the senate in 2016. you have a retirement announcement by california senator. guest: on paper, i think democrats have about 10 seats that they need to defend, mostly in blue states. the problem with going back to the issue in might article in the paper, some of the democrats in the mix are considering gubernatorial races in 2016. a number of them have gubernatorial ambitions. they have flirted with the idea of going back and running for those jobs in 2016 __ in a presidential year when they think they could do well.
that is a bigger problem for democrats. either that year, or 2018, when somebody new could get on the ballot. there could be some real concern for democrats in the next 4 to 6 years about their ability to hold onto seats, if they cannot find candidates who can appeal in these purple or red states. barbara boxer retiring. there are enough republicans in california that could raise enough money and now a serious campaign. i think if the gop operative is hoping, you vote for someone like condoleezza rice, or arnold schwarzenegger.
you have to be able to raise at least $20 million to start. host: the democrats you mentioned, gathering in baltimore for their retreat. republicans holding their retreat in hershey, pennsylvania. what's on the agenda? guest: jay leno. tony blair. every year, the different caucuses get together and plan out the year ahead. john boehner saying needing to have a family conversation to
talk with house republicans. this roughly 50 to our retreat will focus on a number of issues. i think having the house and senate republicans work on this __ is saying, if the senate do something quickly, we will get over to the house, and vice versa. the bigger question is __ to what extent does the president work with these folks. there is a meeting tomorrow where the president and top leaders will talk about a number of these issues. guest: who pays __ host: wwho pays for these retreats? guest: the parties pay for it. transportation wise, they usually go together.
they chartered buses to take them up to her she. usually it will be a series of buses that will take them from the back door of the capital to the retreat center. host: lease __ lisa is up next. caller: the coalition in this area got together. we did an extensive research on the affect of drilling to the aquifer. we decided against it. in the meantime, when the economy went south __ we still have citizens in outlying areas that signed leases many years
prior. they are senior citizens, poor people, middle income people, that are still to this day living on bottled water. of course, the oil companies are providing the bottled water. we do not want that to happen. also, there was an article in the paper and on tv about pollution from the tar sands. i think the main conversation needs to be about our environment. once your water is gone, it is god. i think the main argument needs to be about the purity of water. thank you. host: lisette sounds like you are watching this debate pretty
closely. caller: like i said, we were part of the coalition back in 2008. we did get a lease that was similar to the one they have in fort worth, texas. it was a pretty big lease. in september 2008, it is when we pulled back, and the money was gone. i'm glad it happened. host: you can hear from our callers __ keystone sounds like a good rallying cry for both sides. guest: absolutely. there is money to be raised, support to be had. people are aware that this resonates in all sorts of ways __ economic arguments, environmental arguments, party
arguments. that is why there is such great interest. it is known that it could reap great benefits for both parties in many ways. if a deal is extracted between the present and congress, that could be great for both sides __ to see them working on something serious. yes, callers are right. the pipeline itself is not that great of a deal in the scheme of things. but the debate is on environmental concerns and energy. there's a lot of hope that this will happen in a responsible way. host: would environmentalist be okay with this being passed with some reforms.
guest: some may, others are entirely opposed to it. host: are using it up on capitol hill __ in the hallways? not just the debates are happy on the floor, are you seeing the lobbying efforts going on? guest: it has been going on for years. i think you'll really ramp up in the next two weeks. there will be a lot of intense interest in this. my colleagues who covered this a little more closely __ they are up there. there is great interest from their perspective. we know that their meetings underway, there calls. we expect that it will continue as long as the debate continues. host: rob from florida, your next. caller: thank you very much. i am a republican turned
independent. my situation is this __ i hear a lot of these arguments. the canadian oil is not going to disappear if we do not bring it into the united states. nor would be handled any better. the whole world will suffer as much, or even more, because in this country there are standards as to how the oil is put back out to be used. many other countries __ china __ will probably do it however it takes __ it would be dirtier. therefore, the environmental argument should be in favor of keystone. also, as far as jobs __ the
fact is that most jobs in this country are temporary. these temporary jobs are monies for people in the united states __ whether they are temporary or not. host: arguments that we will probably hear coming up. i hope that all of you who have called will continue to watch. we'll take more phone calls and talk about whaling gas coming up. ed o'keefe, before we let you go __ let's recap the agenda of the coming weeks in the 114 congress. also, who to watch. guest: mitch mcconnell has promised an open debate process. we'll see how that plays out.
the house is planning to talk about funding up for the department of homeland security. how to respond, or punish, the president for his actions on immigration. the president has been rolling out parts of his action across the country. there is a meeting on tuesday between him and congressional leaders about the year ahead, and even next few weeks ahead. people to watch __ look at the moderate democrats that i mentioned today in my piece in the posts __ especially those who are thinking about 2016 and jobs back home. in the house, you have to keep an eye on those new republicans. those who are just taking their seats. to gauge how much they are with leadership, or those rebellious representatives.
boehner did a great amount of travel around the country to support them, with the expectation that they would support him and his priorities. in the senate, the same thing. watch the 10 or 11 new senators and who they side with. >> on the next "washington journal", the gop agenda and obama's president presidential state of the union speech. plus, u.s. national security concerns in the wake of the paris, france, attacks. and then later the effects of the current lobbying restrictions on former members of congress.
"washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> tuesday come in the house foreign affairs committee holds an assessment hearing on north korea, state and treasury and homeland security department officials will testify at 10:00 a.m. eastern on our companion that work c-span3. >> here are a few of the comments that we have received on the 100 working congress. >> the thing that really needs to happen is going back to what the income majority said. they need to get back to regular order. if they go back and they passed these deals that it takes to fund the government, then everybody can see who voted on one, who put what amendment up and then let the president pass it or veto it.
>> i hope it is a more mature and responsible congress that we can see emerging in the next two years. and i think that this situation we can see an irresponsible congress, we see it reflected in the john boehner challenge today. it is time for both parties to put aside the bitter partisan battles and get on to the task that they are constitutionally required to do to govern and to legislate and i think what the american people said of both parties is that it is time to see that finally start to happen. >> i think -- i don't know. this 114 congress, what can we expect of them? especially with citizens united, all the politicians who are they representing? us?
the keystone pipeline is an issue of. >> frankly the american people are prepared to get past the polished language and the false promises and we need you to understand the work for us and we have seen nothing but foreclosures, people in the street and frankly we are tired of the silly games being played and we don't believe anything that we are hearing any longer to it create jobs that is still over one out. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. cost that (202)626-3400. send us a tweet like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> next the debate on the balance of power and president obama's executive action on
immigration. we examined whether obama's actions are consistent with the role of executive ranch this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> good afternoon. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. good afternoon, everyone, thank you for joining us on this rainy and cold day in washington. i'm a resident scholar hair and director of the program on american citizenship. we are here today to discuss president obama's recent decision to expand protection from deportation and that includes illegal aliens who are wanting permanent residents. although it is an inevitable that we will be touching upon the policy implications, the
primary focus today is on the issue about this decision and whether it is constitutionally appropriate and the president's executive power. this includes the president's executive power to faithfully execute the laws. joining us to discuss this issue and its broader implications are a columnist from "the new york times" and author of three marvelous books with the latest being bad religion, how we became this nation. [laughter] and also what we plan to do it is continue on with an author called a great immigration but
trail. explaining how this can be a kind of power grab that former senator and candidate obama once criticized what we were engaging in. next up is the brookings institution the professor of the university of maryland and the domestic policy adviser to bill clinton. bill has also written several important books mostly on modern liberalism. i have been reading his books for four decades now and i read the dissertation back in the mid-70s, which means that i was only 12 when i was doing it, of course. [laughter] bill is also a columnist for the "washington journal" and has talked about being with obama on immigration, written shortly after the president announced men, obviously we have a different take on the president's decision among other
things that support many thanks as well. today it is pretty straightforward we are going to let everyone speak and then we will probably have a bit of a discussion and back and forth between us. we want to give you and the audience a chance and we will hopefully provide enough time for that to happen. before i begin i just want to take a second to note the passing of walter burns, a long time former professor of political science and government ideal cornell and georgetown university. walter was a remarkable scholar with the american constitutional order. a wonderful colleague and
friend. there are a number of items on his life and we have the link there as well to walter burns.org which has [inaudible] he is quite a scholar and today's topic that we have talked about and have found supremely interesting we welcome you. >> thank you so much for being here. to explain this and thanks to all of you for being here as well. i'm grateful because i think the
language of constitutionally appropriate is a lot more helpful to my side of the dispute than the legality because i think that in this issue of discussion on immigration, you are in an area where it's hard to bring the issue to so sharp of a point on the question of the written material of the loss to prove once and for all that this was illegal. i think it was very clear in what they have considered constitutionally inappropriate they have existed in many areas, particularly in this area and it is constitutionally inappropriate that is connected to a broader pattern
particularly this one which you have seen was an expansion of unilateral beyond the arena of foreign policy and deeper then previously domestic policy. i think that this is something that most people on both sides of the partisan divide tend to concede, that we are in this presidency feeling a great deal striking creativity, shall we say, and how particular domestic policy areas are dealt with in the face of congressional opposition or gridlock. this ranges from what you might call defensive operations with the health care law and obamacare and around the individual mandate and the employer mandate where you have sort of temporary bureaucratic suspensions in order to keep this while working and keep it
running effectively that is why the administration would be hard-pressed to get this is a congressional fix. something similar or least related in areas related to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, where there has been a creative use of the d.a. and bureaucracy to get a version of carbon taxation, it doesn't work exactly that way as implemented in case of president obama is first two years and also straightforward opposition. but i think that the case of immigration is distinctive which is why i wrote several shrill columns before it happened so we can actually analyze it academically.
and it's different for a variety of reasons but it's basically different because it isn't intersecting combination of factors that make this inappropriate and troubling. and so obviously we have this presidential reversal where we have the executive power been claimed, the power to grant legal status, work permits and so forth to him millions of illegal aliens, explicitly and repeatedly disavowed in the face during earlier stages of the immigration debate. so we had a situation where one point not so very long ago not in a political reincarnation, we
have this that was a violation of the own constitutional obligations. so i think it is very easy to see why the president would have read this in that way. first of all it is clearly true that the president has wide latitude and we had that subject and is a point that i think is clear generally if you go back of presidential action on immigration and you find a great deal of presidential action on immigration which versions of his legal status just granted are granted by many different individuals for many different groups. what is distinctive is twofold
first is how many people affected and it's safe to say that around three to 5 million somewhere in those terms, it's close to half the illegal alien population in the and in that sense there is no resemblance whatsoever to the vast majority and nearly all of the cases involved discrete particular and narrow populations of migrants in their home country that made it impossible or extremely dangerous for them to return. so essentially you have the use of this in a lot of different situations where you're dealing with small refugee populations sending them back with a kind of
death sentence. and you you're dealing in most of these cases in numbers 25,000, sometimes hundreds or thousands, but again nothing possible with the size of things undertaken here. and then that intersects with the level of local controversy involved and the fact that this is not an issue where the president is asking this in a political vacuum where congress has some sort of de facto public way has given him permission we're immigration legislation has been hotly debated in many different situations over the past decade over republican and democratic presidents alike, has repeatedly found it around some of the very specific issues that the president is addressing head-on with the current and
future of aliens who have come to this country over time and not in some particular refugee situation but over time and who have come here illegally brought by the southern border, it is clearly the case that the president is acting in some form of political opposition and strong congressional opposition and we cannot claim is essentially to be filling in some kind of website congress that has been created and so on the only president that has come close to this one is a sort of cleaning up involving families of people affected by the 1986 immigration reform that was undertaken under president reagan and really under george bush. but if you look at the
situation this is where a version we had a partisan environment where there was in effect a kind of agreement by congress that something like this made sense before they actually got around to clarifying the law and nothing like that situation contained here, but it is again precisely the population that they have acted about an issue of the heated ongoing congressional debate. it's that combination and i think a third combination is added as is the case where the president is using unilateral action and the threat of unilateral action. and so they have stated this in
public. and they need to pass a bill with the implication that they need to do this and they aren't inclined to have this legislation to pass the senate right now without controversy among the republican majority. and so again is there any law in the books that say that he cannot do this and the congressional debate. no, there is no such law but using expansions, presidential authorities to bully and blackmail congress into particular actions strikes me as constitutionally inappropriate. and i think bad there's a lot of lower-level policy that we can probably get into a back-and-forth. so i will say that for them you
often hear this move described as the united states has somewhere between here believe away and the executive branch is only provided with sufficient resources to deploy the much smaller numbers 400000 and you can cast doubt on that particular number which concedes the general point but they're not the resources or the political will to actually attempt to deport 11 million people. and so the issue and maybe they will disagree, that there is a big difference in terms of
policy between saying that we are going to conceive that not everyone here has been deported, saying that we are going to take an affirmative death that leads to a situation in which they have work authorizations and again, you have that, it exists because precisely of these sort of smaller population situations and this is how many of them continue you want to give them the capacity and for the much larger illegal alien population i don't see any evidence of the existing law or the intent of congress to say that we are going to have those 11 million and definitely and have no sort of labor market cost of their being here. i think it is perfectly reasonable to have an immigration law that says you have a priority and everyone
who comes here illegally is going to have to bear some of the consequences of being here without authorization and so on and what the white house has done is essentially remove the primary burden of illegal status imposes. and i do think that that is a much rigor policy than simply saying that we are not supporting the 9 million and so on and we are not likely to deport that population, it's not merely for it would happen with the presence of people and the manpower of moving out. so that is one place where we could weigh on that there's a real policy change your and i will tell you why i am terribly
mistaken. thank you so much. >> well actually, i am not going to spend a lot of time telling you why you are terribly mistaken. and that leads to a broader point. events like this bill debates and they hold this at all costs and this includes a lot of things that i agree with and there are some things i have said a lot of things that he agrees with. the issue of appropriateness unlike legality of constitutionality is something not given to algorithms. and it might be for the consideration capable of becoming mess but nothing like what is approved in this category. so having said that one other
pulmonary i would be derelict in all sorts of duties, but i wouldn't began where gary ended. invoking the memory of walter burns, studying constitutional law in cornell university several years ago i would never forget that experience. and i will never forget this they are and this was debated with walter. i live in move with who would agree or disagree with what i was saying. he was a surprising man in all sorts of respects, and so i can
tell you one thing for sure, i always cared about what we thought. and as we only democrat running a weekly column in "the wall street journal", that is not something that i can say of everybody responding to what i think are you but in walter's case, just to put my cards on the table is truthfully as you have put yours we have six propositions, some of which engage and some of which social sciences would say they establish some parameters of the discussion. proposition number one is that the action is consistent with
the understanding of the appropriate role of the executive branch. except to point to to the lee case in this area which was down in 1986 and that includes mr. rehnquist and the graviton of that decision, which i will quote which this court has recognized on several occasions over many years not to prosecute, whether civil or criminal process generally committed to an agency and absolute discretion. does that mean that it's never reviewable? no, but it means that as they went on to say that they have
presumption of ambiguity. and that points us to something important and that is that this is essentially a struggle between the executive branch and the legislature. that is the terrain during which this would have to be the fallout. and here is my second proposition that this action is consistent with the role of the executive branch in immigration policy specifically. here are the candidates with the lead decision by justice kennedy in which chief justice roberts among others have joined.
and to give you the phrase of that decision there are a few quotations from it, the principal feature of this system is the broad discretion of immigration officials. and that includes even where they are committed as a movable of dense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. and the opinion continues discretion embraces this immediate concerns and unauthorized workers trying to support it this include aliens who commit a serious crime and then the court went on to make an important point which i will talk about in a couple of minutes, some decisions in this
area involved policy decisions and it's inanimate relation of relationships in this includes respect to those and other realities. until proposition number three, which i don't want to spend a lot of time. this action is consistent but i will say that it is formally consistent when we establish the executive branch practices in immigration and policy and administrations going back then have done things as the sore and i will get to the questions and
a minute, the congressional research service published the report in which it found no less than 20 such instances between 1976 and the beginning of the obama administration. and so let me focus on the one that was singled out and so it has implemented a family therapist program that authorized extended voluntary departure qualifications. that includes children of aliens that have been granted an this has been since 1990 and the bush 41 administration asked meaning that up to 1.5 million individuals have potential beneficiaries. work authorization 1.5 million individuals, which means as the sole distinction it seems to me
the issue of political controversy and we can get back later to the question of political controversy for the exercise of one of the points that you have referred to. proposition number four the administration's action is consistent with explicit congressional directives concerning enforcement priorities. and congress has voted many times was written solely in the 2014 apartment of homeland security appropriations bill including prioritizing the identification and removal of aliens conflicted of a crime and to do so based on the severity of the crime and as the court
has repeatedly noted the immigration act reflects congressional concerns about family unification. and that includes whether or not we serve the country well the existence of a long-standing basis, it seems to me to be undeniable as a fact. opposition number five, given the mismatch between the scope of the immigration and the means available to enforce it, the choice is not between complete and selective enforcement, and it is now three different divisions of the department of homeland security and the question is what kind of selective enforcement, so the
real choice is between establishing policies. and to give you an idea the current estimate of this ranges from 11.3211.5. resources available to dhs to engage in will proceedings had a maximum of 400,000 per year so keep that in mind 11.5 versus 100,000. and that includes the obama administration doing though and this is hardly an instance of
abdication of the obligation to take care of the law that is faithfully executed. but it seems to me that establishing these priorities is much closer to what we ordinarily mean by the rule of law in determination and then one that we have also aggrandized who say that the president cannot secure full execution of the law if congress denies adequate means of doing so the president talked about his constitutional duty with the means and instruments provided by congress including securing the faithful execution of the law and this is seems to be the
heart of the table. because the separation of powers in our constitutional system, there is something on the provision of functions the constitution is part of what and this is a classic case of the overlap. supreme court has held that in this area this is a fundamental act of sovereignty. the right to do so soon stems not alone from legislative power by the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. so we're dealing with
immigration but having this is what was interpreted because of the connection of this issue. and as i said earlier we have enjoyed a presumption in the struggle is between the executive and the legislative branches. this declared this may not carry out the delegated power with sufficient vigor that this not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the courts have the most appropriate body to include this performance. that decision is in the first instance to make. and it brings me to this.
i don't think it is unconstitutionally inappropriate for the president to challenge congress and to respond with actual legislation. he has had this gone to congress as court and i think it is now the responsibility to respond. i think that it is very unlikely the court will bill the congress now. and let me say one other thing about the spirit this great machine is in some respects a hydraulic machine. the constitution like nature accords the vacuum that if one branch fails to perform its
constitutional responsibility others are likely to lose with solutions for this functioning congress and it's about time that we had one. >> thank you. >> i think that working back to this and starting is probably most of the agreement, i think that it can bring your final point to simultaneously be correct and it can still be an indictment into acting this way that our system is a hydraulic system but one populated by human beings with action for them to have their decisions determined by what is left what
gridlocked and his functions exist. and again this is where i see a difference between what has happened here in what has been happening around health care led to nation. and so there are issues that are always going to be adjudicated by the court. so you have a certain kind of arbitration available. but here i think you do have a case of a white house not just responding to what is going on in congress. but trying to exploit it in a way that is reflecting existing realities and that includes being unfortunate in some ways and as you know it is also a move chosen to dramatically
expand his own power over a certain area of the law and pause the and also bite tension in what is happening those willing to say this is from the judicial realm as well and so forth and so on, but politicians and activists do not have to take all of the african unity for that. and so when politicians and lawmakers do take all of those opportunities and when they are not bound by certain norms and precedents you can sometimes have a kind of hydraulic effect and things can ultimately balance each other out and you can also get into a dynamic way
of essentially the way that constitutional order just changes and that is what basically happened in the united states over the last 50 or 100 years depending on this with foreign-policy and things like that. it's very important to understand exactly how this is working. [inaudible] >> sometimes i think it's a good thing as well. i have some interesting views but it is the reality and it took significant change from american foreign policy in the past. and so i think that if you imagine a situation where something has happened something happening on domestic front, you have to acknowledge that there is this implicit part
of these movements and we need to talk about what that means and just how much power it ends up concentrating in the hands of the executive branch and generally, i mean, look. we are living in an age when power has moved in different ways to an unelected branch and an elected but less democratically accountable branch and this is a very much part of that process and it should be recognized in this way. but there are many things that congress can and should do to essentially try troops were a partial balance. so that is a big picture point. so what has happened since the decision was made to indicate those points and also anxiety you can see obviously the
republican leadership wants nothing to do with pushing back. they want to push back symbolically, but they don't want to expend the political debate for all kinds of reasons. and the press being the press to sort of moves on, there is another controversy there something else happening there. i write weekly and daily on this that is sort of the reality of how we cover politics and how it works but it means that if you don't have immediate pushback they become locked in and part of the political landscape. that is what i basically expect to happen with this. and so i just want to say briefly about those earlier point that again i would like to stress, as i did a little bit in my opening remark the difference
between current position in what the administration is actually done. the reality is that they were quite right with enforcement prioritization both legally acceptable and a practical necessity in policy that kind of prioritization artier existed and it existed passively for a long time and warmly and the obama white house under the morten memos that is basically laid out that undermines this decision and what wasn't combined with was the specific statement of deferred action that enabled the white house to offer the kind of work permits associated with the kind of much generally smaller administrations going back to the ford era. there is a decision made to go
beyond and enforce the kind of enforcement of the law allows for in the policy requires and it does amount to what i think substantive change in actual policy. so again there is a reason that these work permits and legal status and connections talk about this they are the issue and where they can look at the money that is allocated in the way that the laws are written they must have intended it for the white house to go ahead and do something like what they did. and so it is a little bit complicated in this specific situation with the one great precipice that george bush talked about, because in the end that estimate turned out to be correct. but that doesn't tell us is a
silly about this case because it could be that by that argument this could be inflated and we'll have to wait and see how that can work. but in that case i do think that my argument and the argument of other critics as to why that is different, this comes down to convergent situations. you have the conversions with the fact that there is a lot of clinical debate and if you go american history is long and complicated if you go back to you on it, you can find immigration log on trent lott was handled in this way there was very little congressional influence and congress has a certain more control in certain ways of until recently. until you can find this in the
1940s this was authorized by congress and then fdr without congressional authorization, you can find lots of particular example is about this and you can have one example of the white house doing something they. but that tendency in all those cases has been for those to be small and you have implicit agreement between the white house and congress which again simply doesn't exist in this case but i'm agree that that is certainly an invitation to a struggle and it is unfortunate that it does not necessarily seem to be forthcoming. >> because this is billed as a
constitutional discussion, i would like to respond to the big picture as opposed to the small because i think that you're absolutely right that the big picture is what matters constitutionally speaking. and 25 years ago i think it was the american enterprise institute that published a book called the fettered presidency. and this is a book that faithfully represented what many republicans and conservatives have had in the reagan administration and has handed in on all sides. so it's understandable that
starting in that congressional reaction, congress restricts itself big time especially in the area of budgeting in the 1970 or budget act just that so everyone can understand what it is about no president has ever considered the constitutionality which remains on the looks to talk about the basics trouble. it's an invitation to the congress has spectacularly refused to expect. so that tells you something about that but the broader point i'm making is that they seem to be suggesting expansion at the end of which a fair
reading is that it's cyclical. if the executives have been seen as going too far systematically, congress would eventually reassert itself and that could take this form of it once again. so i do not share that this is a one-way ratchet. i think that this is the latest act of an ongoing constitutional drama watching it unfolding for 2.5 centuries or it i don't expect that any times in. more what i wanted to. >> we actually authored one of those essays would how old i am. and it's good that you have now associated with obama went nixon
and the power. we are running out of time and i have 40 questions myself and that's not fair to you. so what i do is raise your hands if you have a question and then get ready for the mic and identify yourself. >> my name is mark. on one hand i would agree with most of the proposition that i consider brookings to be one of the organizations in washington who is far more objective than they had considered some of the outlying ideas. however i do have and share the concern of what i have found
myself when i had my fiancée that i had proposed to. and this is why it, the u.s. embassy did not grant her a visa and i filed a lawsuit, i was told that the executive branch has unlimited authority to deny it without this view. and i was amazed and said that it is to me a complete denial of democracy than the judicial review should be basic to any decision that the executive branch mix. and that is not there, but that should be edited in whatever ways so that our president cannot just let that go.
>> very briefly your call is with the u.s. supreme court, which had established a resumption. >> my name is scott walker ahmad from the research center and thank you to the tribute to walter was a great scholar and a great gentleman. you responded to a lot of the points that was made. but i don't think you did a lot in response of the president himself in previous years but only failed to make these arguments that you are making but repeatedly contradicted them. would you like to give us an explanation for his contradictions? >> okay, sure i think that it
is a good thing when presidents are capable of learning things. you may genuinely have believed that his legal authority was substantially smaller than it turned out to be. in the interest of full disclosure the president that this, took the action that we are now discussing i was taken aback. my first reaction was to say that this cannot possibly be right constitutionally speaking. i spent a week doing nothing and i read a lot of constitutional commentaries and i came to the conclusion that setting aside
for one minute the question of appropriateness, which i think is appropriate that the president was on much firmer legal and constitutional ground and i have understood. and i had no actual basis for answering the actual question that you put on the table that the president after a year of dialogue that we were considerably broader. and so for all i know it is cracked situation. >> i would just say briefly that i quite confident that the president did not see himself at