I want to make a point here, and then move on to a broader one. Some years ago i went through an exercise of what is congress obligated to do under article iii . This has to go back to the 18 or do wonder a Federal District that were polished by congress and happened to read through all that debate and to begin to ask this question, but we are obligated to do is produce a Supreme Court of the United States. We could conceivably abolish all of the Federal Districts and the only thing left would be the Supreme Court and the own obligation we have there since it calls for a chief justice is to have a chief justice but we dont have to fund the building or its death. He could be at his own card table with his own candle. Thats what congress is obligated to do. So i would suggest that article iii is pretty limited if congress decides to assert its power and authority. If nothing else the workload would stack up on chief robert. That was an exercise in constitutional discussion more or less m
Committee today. Rather than rehash all of those i will refer back to those, it will cause me to vote against this nominee. She is undoubtedly a very bright lawyer she has had a successful career. I none of us have concerns about her willingness to stand as an independent evaluation of the legality and constitutionality of the administrations actions have caused me great concern. I hoped and expected my concerns would be alleviated during the hearings. They were intensified at that hearing and that is a source of disappointment to me. Has for bills that are under consideration today, in the last congress, and i supported senator coin ins legislation to protect the victims of trafficking. I hope to be able to do so again today but some of that made depends on the outcome of our votes on some of the amendments. I support senator blooms alls amendment and as unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of that amendment. Without objection so ordered. Some amendments cost me some concern i
Shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. If someone is here regardless of status, i would prefer they be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace. I know she corrected that and backed off the statement. I would say this is the president s policy. The president s policy is to allow people unlawfully here to take jobs in america, a policy she explicitly stated she intends to defend. She will use the power of the department of justice to defend this action, which is a direct affront to the congress of the United States. It was not a casual statement when i asked her that. This is the policy the president is planning on executing right now. I believe this is a historic moment. Professor Jonathan Turlock testified before this committee. He has described the situation we are in today as a constitutional turning point and i would like to read from his testimony. It was delivered before the house in february of 2014 nine months before t
Texas backlash to Obama fueled conservative drive to reinterpret U S Constitution tucsonsentinel.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from tucsonsentinel.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.