Michigan Court Of Appeals Hearing On Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer & Her Magical Emergency Manager Powers Argument Simplified By Me

But, wait!

There is a fourth source of power a governor has to effectuate such sweeping powers of an Emergency Manager.

It is called being duly elected.

See, if you claim to be elected, in an election that was so jacked up, that it is still not certified because no one certified the 2018 Special Election.

That would make Gretchen Whitmer illegitimate, which means she does not possess any duly elected powers of goverening, in any shape or form, which means every single little thing she has ever done is retroactively nullified.

And, because everything I just said has been public information in the form of a play by play, real time narrative, Gretch, and her rogue ass crew cannot claim ignorance because I got the data of reading it all.

And, if they do play that, "Duh, I had no idea," crap, you know they are lying because they were stealin' the children, land & vote, where these "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) arguing on behalf of both parties, being the State House of Representatives and the Office of the Governor, should all be defrocked.

The last time I checked, you are supposed to present your instruments of authority to demonstrate your capacity to bring forth a cause of action, in the form of corporate parental rights, in the form of a certified, sealed, oath of office, filed in the Great Repository of the Great Seal of Michigan.

This is called a quo warranto because she has no duly granted authority to be the armiger of the state.

She has no right to keep and bear the arms of the State of Michigan.

Tah dah!

My legal arguments are way more funner than these "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).

Hey Boo Boo & Matt,

You may thank me in that constitutional executive orders thing you contemporaneously got going on.

#sealsmatter

#maytheheavensfall 

JonesDay needs to come out and play.....

Where is Don McGahn & Kevyn Orr?

Appeals court rules against Trump, says House can sue to enforce McGahn subpoena

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld the House's subpoena of former White House counsel Don McGahn, ruling that Congress has the right to enforce its subpoenas in court.

The 7-2 decision from the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses an earlier ruling from a divided three-judge panel that declared that congressional subpoenas were essentially unenforceable.

"The Constitution charges Congress with certain responsibilities, including to legislate, to conduct oversight of the federal government, and, when necessary, to impeach and remove a President or other Executive Branch official from office," Judge Judith Rogers wrote in the majority opinion. "Possession of relevant information is an essential precondition to the effective discharge of all of those duties."

Although the ruling is a clear victory for congressional Democrats, it does not mean that McGahn will be sitting for testimony anytime soon. The majority decision did not address the Trump administration's claim that White House officials are immune to congressional subpoena, so even if McGahn does not appeal the ruling, the two sides will still have more to litigate before the D.C. Circuit.

Kerri Kupec, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, didn't say whether the administration would appeal the ruling.

The circuit court on Friday also ruled that the House has standing to sue Trump over his diversion of Pentagon funds to border wall construction.

“While we strongly disagree with the standing ruling in McGahn, the en banc court properly recognized that we have additional threshold grounds for dismissal of both cases, and we intend to vigorously press those arguments before the panels hearing those cases,” Kupec said in a statement.

The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn last year as part of an effort to follow up on the former special counsel's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. That investigation eventually morphed into President Trump's impeachment by the House and acquittal by the Senate.

Trump directed McGahn, his former legal adviser, not to comply with the subpoena, and the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel said the president and his inner circle were immune from congressional subpoenas.

The House sued in federal court to get the subpoena enforced and a district court judge sided against the president in November, ruling that the president and his close advisers have no such immunity from congressional subpoenas.

McGahn, represented by the Department of Justice, appealed the decision and a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel ruled 2-1 that the House had no standing to sue.

The House then asked the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the case, arguing that the panel's decision would seriously damage Congress's ability to conduct oversight of the executive branch.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) applauded the ruling, saying that it "strikes a blow against the wall of impunity that President Trump has tried to build for himself."

“Today’s decision is a profound victory for the rule of law and our constitutional system of government," Nadler said in a statement. "The court rejected President Trump’s sweeping claim that Committees of the House have no standing before the courts to seek redress of the institutional injury caused when lawfully issued subpoenas are ignored. Today’s decision confirms the Judiciary’s ability to resolve these disputes."

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also praised the ruling, calling it "a victory for the rule of law and Congressional oversight."

"The Court reaffirmed our Constitution’s system of checks and balances and rejected the President’s outrageous claim that Congress cannot enforce its subpoenas," she said. "The House will continue to pursue justice until Don McGahn and all Administration officials comply with our rightfully-issued subpoenas. We remain committed to our oversight responsibilities and to our nation’s fundamental principle that no one is above the law – not even the President.”

The ruling, which can be appealed to the Supreme Court, affirms that Congress has the power to investigate the president and his branch of government and holds that the authority is especially important during impeachment proceedings.

"To level the grave accusation that a President may have committed 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,' the House must be appropriately informed," Rogers, who was appointed to the appeals court by former President Clinton, wrote in the opinion. "And it cannot fully inform itself without the power to compel the testimony of those who possess relevant or necessary information."

All seven of the judges in the majority were appointed by Democratic presidents, and both dissenters were appointed by Republicans. Two judges, Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both of whom were appointed by Trump and worked in his White House, recused themselves from the case.

The two judges who dissented — Thomas Griffith and Karen Henderson, both appointed by former President George H.W. Bush — argued in separate opinions that the courts should not be mediating disputes between Congress and the president.

"The majority’s decision will compel us to referee an interminable series of interbranch disputes, politicizing the Judiciary by repeatedly forcing us to take sides between the branches," Griffith wrote. "I cannot join the court’s expedition into an area where we do not belong and can do no good."

While Friday's ruling comes months after the conclusion of the impeachment process, it's a blow to the Trump administration, which has repeatedly argued in an unprecedented number of court battles between the two branches that Congress is limited in the ways it can fight back against the president.

The administration has had a mixed record in its legal battles against efforts to investigate the president. In a 7-2 ruling last month, the Supreme Court rejected Trump's argument that he has absolute immunity concerning a grand jury subpoena for his tax returns issued by the district attorney in Manhattan.

But the same 7-2 majority also dealt a setback to congressional subpoenas for Trump's financial records, ruling that the courts must carefully balance the interests of the two branches when faced with such disputes.

Though the high court ruled on the legal merits of those congressional subpoenas, it has yet to consider whether Congress actually has standing to enforce its investigative demands in the courts.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

WHITE HOUSE: Message to the Congress on the Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism

NATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENSE

Issued on: September 19, 2019

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days before the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date.  In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism declared in Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, is to continue in effect beyond September 23, 2019.

The crisis constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York and Pennsylvania and against the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on United States nationals or the United States that led to the declaration of a national emergency on September 23, 2001, has not been resolved.  This crisis continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.  For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13224 with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 19, 2019.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

WHITE HOUSE: Text of a Notice on the Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism

NATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENSE

 Issued on: September 19, 2019

On September 23, 2001, by Executive Order 13224, the President declared a national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York and Pennsylvania and against the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks against United States nationals or the United States.

The actions of persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.  For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 23, 2019.  Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism declared in Executive Order 13224.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 19, 2019.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, CUMMINGS, CONNOLLY & CICILLINE Request Documents about President Trump’s Regulatory Task Forces’ Secret Meetings and Conflicts of Interest

Washington, D.C. (August 7, 2017)—Today, Reps. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Gerry Connolly, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, and David Cicilline, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, sent a letter, below, to Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator Neomi Rao expressing grave concerns about the secrecy of the Regulatory Reform Task Forces and requesting information about the nature of their meetings.

“We write to express our alarm concerning the lack of transparency, accountability, and independence of the Regulatory Reform Task Forces,” the Members wrote. “We believe that the interests of the American public must be paramount when reviewing the worthiness of regulations. Therefore, these Task Forces must have an effective and transparent guard against conflicts of interest, especially those in which industry lobbyists seek to overturn environmental and health protections for financial gain. It appears that the current Task Forces are already failing on this front, and instead are actively hiding their members and their meetings from public view.”

The Democrats explained that press reports indicate these Task Forces appear to have operated in private without public input, and some agencies have refused to release basic information about their activity or maintain a record of their meetings as required by the Federal Records Act.

“Withholding the names and titles of Task Force participants may also violate the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),” the Members wrote. “Simply put, it is unacceptable for federal agencies to operate in such a clandestine and unaccountable manner especially when the result could be the undoing of critical public health and safety protections.”

The Members also expressed concern that several employees stand to profit from their work on the Task Force. For example, the wife of one Task Force member at the Environmental Protection Agency is the top lobbyist for a large oil company.

“Rather than ‘drain the swamp,’ these conflicts threaten to influence the outcome of the review process against hardworking Americans and in favor of regulated industries and agency staff,” the Members wrote.

The Members requested documents and information, including a description of every Task Force created pursuant to the executive order, a list of the names and titles of every member of each Task Force, and communications related to non-governmental entities participating in Task Force meetings.

Congressional Letter To OMB On Executive Order On Regulatory Task Force 2017-08-7 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & NADLER Call Out Trump's Misstatements On The Judiciary At Hearing On 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals

Washington, D.C. – At a hearing to reexamine the structure of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,  House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and senior Judiciary Member and Subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) today called out President Donald Trump’s dangerous misstatements about the Judiciary in response to court rulings that blocked his Muslim/Refugee ban.

In his opposition to restructuring the 9^th Circuit, Ranking Member Conyers said, “The hearing takes on added importance in the wake of a series of decisions in the 9th Circuit and elsewhere overturning President Trump’s Muslim/Refugee ban.  Instead of coming to terms with the legal flaws with his own executive order, President Trump has chosen to attack the 9th Circuit, which has said is “in chaos” and “frankly in turmoil.”   Last night, after learning of the Hawaii court’s decision again rejecting his ban he said “people are screaming to break up the Ninth Circuit … You have to see how many times they have been overturned with their terrible decisions.”

“Of course, none of what the President has charged about the 9th Circuit is true.  The Ninth circuit is as well organized as any in the country.  Of the very few Ninth Circuit cases the Supreme Court takes up, a significant portion are overturned, but that’s true for every circuit, several of which are overturned at a higher rate than the Ninth Circuit.  And overall less than 1/10 of 1% of Ninth Circuit decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court.

“The reality is, this is not a new debate President Trump has brought us to.  It is one that we have had for decades.  Although I will not speculate about why there continues to be such interest by some of my Republican colleagues to divide the Ninth Circuit, there are several points we should keep in mind.”

Read Conyers' full Committee statement here.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler called conservatives’ calls to restructure the federal courts a dangerous attempt at judicial gerrymandering. In his opening statement he said, “What this debate is really all about is that conservatives do not like the more liberal rulings that occasionally emerge from the 9^th Circuit, and they believe they can manufacture a new circuit that will produce more conservative results.  That is a very different—and a more dangerous—matter.

“Like clockwork, we see proposals to split up the 9^th Circuit whenever it delivers a controversial decision with which conservatives disagree.  Whether it is ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance should not include the words “under God”; overturning restrictions on abortion or gay rights, or, most recently its unanimous decision to uphold the temporary stay on President Trump’s unconstitutional Muslim and refugee ban, the 9^thCircuit has long been in the sights of Republican politicians.  Just last night, President Trump said at his campaign rally, “[p]eople are screaming, break up the 9^th Circuit. And I’ll tell you what, that 9^th Circuit – you have to see. Take a look at how many times they have been overturned with their terrible decisions.

“But to manipulate the federal courts in order to achieve the political ends you seek is highly inappropriate.  Just as there is a nation-wide movement to end legislative gerrymandering, we should resist this form of judicial gerrymandering as well.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement for the Hearing on “Bringing Justice Closer to the People: Examining Ideas for Restructuring the 9th Circuit” Before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Today’s hearing provides an important opportunity to examine whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is able to adequately perform its duties as it is currently structured.

The hearing takes on added importance in the wake of a series of decisions in the 9th Circuit and elsewhere overturning President Trump’s Muslim/Refugee ban.  Instead of coming to terms with the legal flaws with his own executive order, President Trump has chosen to attack the 9th Circuit, which has said is “in chaos” and “frankly in turmoil.”   Last night, after learning of the Hawaii court’s decision again rejecting his ban he said “people are screaming to break up the Ninth Circuit … You have to see how many times they have been overturned with their terrible decisions.”

Of course, none of what the President has charged about the 9th Circuit is true.  The Ninth circuit is as well organized as any in the country.  Of the very few Ninth Circuit cases the Supreme Court takes up, a significant portion are overturned, but that’s true for every circuit, several of which are overturned at a higher rate than the Ninth Circuit.  And overall less than 1/10 of 1% of Ninth Circuit decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court.

The reality is, this is not a new debate President Trump has brought us to.  It is one that we have had for decades.  Although I will not speculate about why there continues to be such interest by some of my Republican colleagues to divide the Ninth Circuit, there are several points we should keep in mind.

To begin with, splitting the Ninth Circuit would not “bring justice closer to the people.”  Instead, it would likely result in further delay, reduced access to justice, and wasted taxpayer dollars.

If the Ninth Circuit were divided there would not be sufficient judicial resources, particularly with respect to addressing the significant caseload demands of the district and bankruptcy courts.

Although legislative proposals introduced this Congress take differing approaches to dividing the Ninth Circuit and creating a new Twelfth Circuit, inevitably all of these have one common problem.  Such restructuring would result in a significant financial cost to American taxpayers because millions of dollars would be needed to construct a new Circuit headquarters and for other costs.

Another concern I have is that splitting the Ninth Circuit would do little to improve judicial efficiency.

And, none of the legislative proposals would actually resolve the heavy caseload problem because a clear majority of the Ninth Circuit cases come from California. 

Any circuit that includes all of California will still have the largest number of judges and appeals and it would still serve the largest population. 

Finally, I am particularly skeptical of any legislative proposal ostensibly intended to assist certain entities when, in fact, those very same entities oppose or question the need for such legislative “fix.” 

Dividing the Ninth Circuit is opposed by a majority of the judges in that Circuit as well as by the bar, including the American Bar Association. 

In fact, the White Commission, which Congress established to study this issue, concluded in 1998 that splitting the Circuit was impractical and unnecessary.

So for these reasons, I am opposed to dividing the Ninth Circuit. 

Nevertheless, I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and look forward to the testimony from today’s esteemed witnesses.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & KILDEE Applaud Michigan Federal Judge Victoria Roberts For Upholding The Law Against Trump's Un-American Muslim & Refugee Ban

Washington, DC – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (MI-14) and Congressman Dan Kildee (MI-5), today released the following joint statement after Michigan U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts issued an injunction against Trump’s Muslim and refugee ban Executive Order:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“The permanent injunction issued by Judge Roberts is yet another demonstration that Trump’s Executive Order is both illegal and offensive to American values.  Every court to have reviewed the Executive Order thus far has sided against the President and taken immediate action to prevent unconscionable injustice.  We applaud Judge Roberts and Federal Courts across this country for reminding us that we are both a country of laws and a nation of immigrants."

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Remarks Forum on “An Examination of Trump’s Un-American Muslim and Refugee Ban”

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Detroit - Today’s forum comes as our Nation stands at a crossroads.  For decades, we have granted safe haven to families fleeing persecution and violence.  Will we continue down that path of refuge, tolerance, and inclusion pursued across parties and Administrations, or will we veer down the path of intolerance, xenophobia, and paranoia as the current Administration appears to be heading?

If we are to correct course, it will require each and every participant in our republic to take action. 

It will take actions by citizens such as we have seen over the last two weeks – in the Women’s March on Washington, and in spontaneous demonstrations that erupted all over the country. 

It will take a free press -- not willing to simply “shut up” as the Administration has insisted -- reporting on the many abuses we have witnessed in the President’s first 14 days – such as the report over the weekend that Steven Bannon personally intervened to prevent legal permanent residents from being able to return to their homes, and the report last night that Mr. Trump insulted the Australian Prime Minister and compared Syrian refugees fleeing terrorism as being the “next Boston Bombers.” 

It will take an independent judiciary, such as the five courts that stayed parts of the executive order over the weekend and last night; and independent Inspector Generals, such as the review announced today concerning legality of the Muslim ban. 

It will take employees of the federal government, willing to offer their honest and principled dissents -- such as we have seen at the Department of Justice and the Department of State -- even when facing outrageous insults from the President and threats from the White House Press Secretary to simply “get with the program” or quit. 

And it will take Members of Congress willing to stand together and speak truth to power which happened at the Supreme Court on Monday and is happening here today.    

I take a back seat to no one in our Nation’s efforts to combat the threat of terrorism.  That is why our refugee system already extensively vets and confirms each and every individual seeking entry to our country. 

But we don’t defeat terrorism by alienating our allies, by dividing our citizens, or by shredding our Constitution.  The sooner the Trump Administration comes to that realization, the sooner we can return to the values our Nation was founded upon.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

More Than 100 Members Of Congress Call For DHS Briefing This Week On Trump Muslim Ban Executive Order

Washington, DC– More than 100 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, led by House Judiciary Committee Member Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), and House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), wrote to the Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly condemning the President’s Muslim ban executive order and calling for a full Member-wide briefing no later than Friday, February 3, 2017.

In their letter, the Members wrote, “We hope you will urge the President to immediately rescind the Executive Order, which has created profound chaos and fear among refugees and immigrants who have been admitted to the United States, as well as their families. As a nation of immigrants that has been a refuge for people fleeing persecution from around the world, these actions are contrary to who we are as a nation.”

On Tuesday, Secretary Kelly briefly met on the hill with a few select Committee Chairmen and Ranking Members. The Members are calling for a full Member-wide briefing on the Executive Order this week, writing, “Given the urgency, widespread confusion and dangerous impact of the Executive Order, we would appreciate hearing from you as quickly as possible so that we may ensure the briefing occurs by no later than Friday, February 3.  The lives and well-being of many individuals, as well as our ability to partner with foreign governments to fight terrorism, depends on it.”

More Than 100 Members Of Congress Call ForDHS Briefing On Trump Muslim Ban Executive Order Letter 2-1-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Signators of the letter:
1. Rep. John Conyers, Jr,
2. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Rep.,
3. Rep. Pramila Jayapal,
4. Rep. Pete Aguilar,
5. Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán,
6. Rep. Karen Bass,
7. Rep. Joyce Beatty,
8. Rep. Donald S. Beyer, Jr.
9. Rep. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.,
10. Rep. Earl Blumenauer
11. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici,
12. Rep. Robert A. Brady
13. Rep. Anthony Brown,
14. Rep. G.K. Butterfield,
15. Rep. Salud Carbajal,
16. Rep. Tony Cárdenas,
17. Rep. Joaquin Castro
18. Rep. Judy Chu,
19. Rep. David N. Cicilline,
20. Rep. Yvette D. Clarke,
21. Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay
22. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver,
23. Rep. James E. Clyburn,
24. Rep. Steve Cohen,
25. Rep. Jim Cooper,
26. Rep. Luis J. Correa,
27. Rep. Joseph Crowley
28. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings
29. Rep. Susan A. Davis,
30. Rep. Peter A. DeFazio,
31. Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro,
32. Rep. Suzan K. DelBene
33. Rep. Theodore E. Deutch,
34. Rep. Debbie Dingell
35. Rep. Lloyd Doggett,
36. Rep. Keith Ellison,
37. Rep. Elliot L. Engel,
38. Rep. Anna G. Eshoo,
39. Rep. Adriano Espaillat,
40. Rep. Dwight Evans,
 41. Rep. Marcia L. Fudge,
42. Rep. Ruban Gallego
43. Rep. John Garamendi,
44. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva,
45. Rep. Luis Gutierrez,
46. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa,
47. Rep. Alcee L. Hastings,
48. Rep. Denny Heck
49. Rep. Jarred Huffman,
50. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee,
51. Rep. Hakeem S. Jeffries,
52. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson
53. Rep. Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr.,
54. Rep. Marcy Kaptur,
55. Rep. Robin L. Kelly,
56. Rep. Derek Kilmer,
57. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi,
58. Rep. Ann M. Kuster
59. Rep. Rick Larsen,
60. Rep. Barbara Lee,
61. Rep. Sandy Levin,
62. Rep. John Lewis,
63. Rep. Nita M. Lowey,
64. Rep. Stephen F. Lynch,
65. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney,
66. Rep. Doris O. Matsui,
67. Rep. Donald A. McEachin,
68. Rep. James P. McGovern
69. Rep. Gregory W. Meeks
70. Rep. Gwen Moore,
71. Rep. Seth Moulton,
72. Rep. Stephanie Murphy,
73. Rep. Jerrold Nadler,
74. Rep. Richard E. Neal
75. Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr.,
76. Rep. Jimmy Panetta,
77. Rep. Donald M. Payne, Jr.
78. Rep. Collin C. Peterson
79. Rep. Chellie Pingree,
80. Rep. Mark Pocan,
81. Rep. Jared Polis
82. Rep. Mike Quigley,
83. Rep. Jamie Raskin,
84. Rep. Cedric L. Richmond,
85. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard,
86. Rep. C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger,
87. Rep. Bobby L. Rush,
88. Rep. Linda T. Sanchez,
89. Rep. John P. Sarbanes,
90. Rep. Adam B. Schiff
91. Rep. Bradley Scott Schneider
92. Rep. Bobby Scott,
93. Rep. Terri Sewell,
94. Rep. Jan Schakowsky,
95. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter,
96. Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,
97. Rep. Adam Smith,
98. Rep. Darren Soto,
99. Rep. Thomas R. Souzzi,
100. Rep. Jackie Speier,
101. Rep. Eric Swalwell,
102. Rep. Mark Takano,
103. Rep. Bennie Thompson
104. Rep. Paul D. Tonko,
105. Rep. Norma J. Torres,
106. Rep. Niki Tsongas,
107. Rep. Marc Veasy,
108. Rep. Filemon Vela,
109. Rep. Nydia Velsaquez,
110. Rep. Timothy J. Walz
111. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz,
112. Rep. Maxine Waters
113. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman,
114. Rep. John A. Yarmuth

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

MEMBERS TO HOLD FORUM ON TRUMP MUSLIM BAN EXECUTIVE ORDER

                                           RVSP Here

Washington, D.C. – On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:30AM, Members of the U.S. House of Representatives will hold a forum to examine and discuss President Donald Trump’s recent Muslim and refugee ban Executive Order entitled, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” and the ensuing actions taken by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State to implement the order.

WHO:            Members of Congress

·        Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

·        Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer

·         House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) ·         House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Nita Lowey (D-NY) and House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security Ranking Member Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)

·         House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Eliot Engel (D-NY)

·         House Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS)

·         House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD)

·         House Committee on Veterans Affairs Ranking Member Timothy J. Walz (D-MN)

·         House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-CA)

·        Additional Members of Congress

Panelists

·        Khizr Khan, Pakistani-American lawyer and Gold Star Father

·         Thomas Countryman, former Assistant Secretary of State and Retired Foreign Service Officer, U.S. Department of State

·       Michael Breen, President & CEO of the Truman Center and Truman National Security Project

U.S. Army Veteran

·        Andre Segura, Senior Staff Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union

·       Galen Carey, Vice President of Government Relations, National Association of Evangelicals

·       Farah Al Khalifi, Iraqi SIV recipient and U.S. permanent resident

Former interpreter for U.S. military, married to U.S. citizen and Navy officer.

·       Omar Al-muqdad, Syrian refugee journalist and documentary filmmaker

Former political prisoner under the Assad regime

                                                                                                                                   

WHEN:        February 2, 2017

                     11:30am – 1:30pm

WHERE:      House Visitor’s Center Room 215 (HVC 215)

RSVP:          Media interested in attending should RSVP to Shadawn.reddick-smith@mail.house.gov.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & CICILLINE: LATEST TRUMP TWO FOR ONE EXECUTIVE ORDER WOULD TIE THE NATION IN RED TAPE & HARM CONSUMERS

Washington, DC – House Judiciary Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and  Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee Ranking Member David N. Cicilline (D-RI) released the following  statement after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to eliminate critical protections for consumers’ health and product safety, environmental protections, workplace safety, and consumer financial protections:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“Our Federal regulations create jobs and ensure the safety of our food, water and air are not undermined."

“This two for one Executive Order is a historic step in the wrong direction. By requiring that all Federal agencies eliminate two protections prior to adopting virtually every new rule—no matter how important or pressing—the Executive Order will practically guarantee a shutdown of the Federal government through administrative red tape."

“This measure is no different than requiring that two criminals are released for every arrest or that two stop signs are destroyed for every new one built."

“Simply put, the bureaucratic gridlock mandated through this sweeping example of Executive fiat will do little to help small businesses compete, create economic opportunity for American workers, or grow the economy."

“Every citizen who counts on the Federal government to be accountable, transparent, and responsive should be concerned by this unprecedented measure.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Condemns Monday Night Massacre

Conyers: Trump Has Commenced a Course of Conduct that is Nixonian in its Design

Washington, DC – Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, issued the following statement in response to Trump firing Acting Attorney General Sally Yates:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, JR.

“President Trump has commenced a course of conduct that is Nixonian in its design and execution and threatens the long-vaunted independence of the Justice Department.  If dedicated government officials deem his directives to be unlawful and unconstitutional, he will simply fire them as if government is a reality show.  I call on my colleagues, regardless of party, to condemn this executive order and the reckless firing of our chief law enforcement officer.

“I am also concerned that this decision to force Acting Attorney General Yates from her post before her successor is confirmed leaves an unacceptable gap in our law enforcement and national security capabilities. Ms. Yates was the only official of the Department of Justice currently authorized to make an application of any kind to the FISA court.  It is unacceptable to fire her and leave law enforcement and national security in the lurch.”

Shortly before Trump’s announcement to fire Yates, Ranking Member Conyers issued a statement praising Yates for her courageous act.

Conyers Praises Yates for Courageous Stand Against Immigration Order

Jan 30, 2017

Conyers: A Vote to Confirm Senator Sessions as Attorney General is a Vote for the Refugee Ban

Washington, DC – Tonight, in a letter to her senior leadership, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates ordered attorneys at the Department of Justice not to defend legal challenges to President Trump’s immigration order—which bans entry into the United States to travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries and to refugees from around the world.  Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, issued the following statement in response:

“After reviewing the facts and the law, Acting Attorney General Yates reached a conclusion shared by Americans from coast to coast—President Trump’s refugee order is neither lawful nor defensible.  It is likely unconstitutional.  It is beneath the character of the United States. 

“I am deeply proud of this act of courage and patriotism.  I hope her stand serves as an example for the men and women who continue to serve in government under President Trump.

“Before the President makes any rash decisions, I would remind him that any decision to force the Acting Attorney General from her post before her successor is confirmed would leave an unacceptable gap in our law enforcement and national security capabilities.

“And to my colleagues in the Senate, I say that you now face a clear choice.  Unless the President reverses his order, a vote to confirm Senator Sessions as Attorney General is a vote for the refugee ban. 

“The American people are watching.  They have just seen an act of integrity from our Acting Attorney General.  They expect the same from you.”

115th Congress

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House Democrats introduce legislation to block President Trump’s travel and refugee ban

WASHINGTON, D.C. – More than 160 House Democrats, led by U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) today introduced legislation to defund and rescind President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travel from Muslim countries and suspending the refugee program.

The SOLVE, or Statue of Liberty Values Act, introduced following profound confusion and fear after the implementation of an unprecedented Presidential Executive Order banning refugees and individuals from 7 majority Muslim countries. Over the weekend, Americans witnessed chaos at airports across the country as travelers, including Lawful Permanent Residents, children, and elderly persons were denied entry to the United States. 

Put simply, this Executive Order is bad policy and it makes our country less safe, and a growing chorus of foreign policy experts has condemned Trump’s Muslim and refugee ban as disastrous for U.S. foreign policy and national security.

“Donald Trump has recklessly instituted an executive order rooted in Islamophobia and xenophobia,” said Conyers. “It rationalizes fear mongering and is an unprecedented break with America’s humanitarian tradition, targeting the most vulnerable population in the world – refugees. What makes it even worse is that instead of making us safer, this order has the potential to bolster recruitment for terrorist groups. Today, I’m proud to cosponsor the SOLVE Act which would rescind this disastrous policy.”

“As a nation of immigrants that has been a refuge for people from around the world, these actions are contrary to who we are as a nation,” said Lofgren. “Trump’s Order not only harms our families and our economy, it betrays our core values and it makes us less safe. The Statute of Liberty Values Act states that President Trump’s Executive Order will have no effect or force of law and states that no funds or fees shall be used to implement the Order.”

Conyers is Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Lofgren is the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee.

The Solve Act of 2017 - "On the Executive Order of Banning U.S. Entry by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Top Judiciary, Foreign Affairs & Homeland Security Democrats Call Meeting With Homeland Security Secretary, Raise Concerns Over Immigration Executive Order

Washington, DC – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Eliot Engel (D-NY), House Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), and House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) today sent a letter to U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly to raise concerns about President Donald Trump’s recent immigration executive order and urge for a joint meeting as soon as possible and in no event later than February 1.

TOP HOUSE JUDICIARY, FOREIGN AFFAIRS & HOMELAND SECURITY DEMOCRATS CALL FOR MEETING WITH HOMELAND SECURITY... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Markup of H.R. 4768, the “Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016,” by the Committee on the Judiciary

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

H.R. 4768, the “Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016,” would eliminate judicial deference to agencies and require federal courts to review all agency rulemakings and interpretations of statutes on a de novo basis.

As a result, the bill would empower a judge to override the determinations of agency experts and to substitute his or her judgment, regardless of the judge’s technical knowledge and understanding of the underlying subject matter.

This legislation is harmful for several reasons. To begin with, H.R. 4768 would make the federal rulemaking process even more time-consuming and costly. 

This process is already severely ossified.  As the Nation’s leading administrative law scholars observed, agency rulemaking is hampered by many burdens imposed by both the courts and Congress. 

By eliminating any deference to agencies, H.R. 4768 would exacerbate this problem by forcing agencies to adopt even more detailed factual records and explanations, which would further delay the finalization of critical life-saving regulations. 

We are talking about regulations that protect the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we consume. 

Slowing down the rulemaking process means that rules intended to protect the health and safety of American citizens will take longer to promulgate and become effective, thereby putting us all at risk.

And, H.R. 4768 could also have the perverse effect of undermining agency accountability and transparency by encouraging clandestine rulemaking through civil enforcement actions, for instance.  

I am also concerned that H.R. 4768 will deter public participation in the rulemaking process. As the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has observed, “[p]ublic participation in agency decision making is highly sensitive to cost and delay.” 

By imposing greater scrutiny of agency rulemaking, the bill will skew the fact-finding process in favor of those with significant resources. Large corporate interests – devoted only to maximizing profits for the benefit of their shareholders – already have the edge with their vast resources to weaken regulatory standards by burying an agency with paperwork demands and litigation.

Rather than giving more opportunities for corporate interests to prevail, we should be evaluating ways to ensure that that the voices of the public have a greater role in the rulemaking process. 

Finally, H.R. 4768 would encourage judicial activism.

By eliminating judicial deference, the bill would effectively empower the courts to make public policy from the bench even though they lack the specialized expertise that agencies possess.

Although the Supreme Court has had numerous opportunities to expand judicial review of rulemaking, the Court has rejected this approach in recognition of the fact that generalist courts simply lack the subject-matter expertise of agencies, are politically unaccountable, and should not engage in making substantive determinations from the bench.

It is somewhat ironic that those who have long decried “judicial activism,” would now support facilitating a greater role for the judiciary in agency rulemaking.

Given these concerns and others presented by the bill, I accordingly must oppose H.R. 4768.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©