Last year, due to grant funding, the Mississippi Bend Area Education Agency (AEA) was able to pilot technology which enhanced language to hearing impaired students. The pilot was such a success the Mississippi Bend AEA has decided to expand this technology to all preschool aged identified hearing impaired students (ages 1-6) who have hearing aids or cochlear implants. A grant in the amount of $14,256, from the Scott County Regional Authority, will help do this. The grant will assist seven deaf and hard of hearing students at home and in the classroom - helping to close the achievement gap between them and normal hearing students.  This grant in combination with last year's grant and additional department funds will reach a total of 19 deaf and hard of hearing students with FM technology.

When hearing impaired students are fitted with either hearing aids or cochlear implants, they typically do not have access to additional technology to support their hearing needs. Parents usually cannot afford to purchase this equipment and educational institutions do not allow this technology to leave the buildings. The Mississippi Bend AEA will use the grant money to purchase equipment to be used in connection with hearing aids and cochlear implants, which will increase their access to devices such as; computers, cell phones, iPods/iPads and other technology which normal hearing students do not have difficulty with.  Most classrooms have background noise that competes with the teacher or device (i.e. others talking, paper shuffling, other electronics, ventilation systems, outside traffic or construction, and hallway noise). This background noise can make hearing very challenging for people with hearing aids or cochlear implants. The technology being purchased will allow sound to be transmitted directly to the hearing aid or cochlear implant so the background noise is less prominent.

Introduction of language is critical in the early preschool years and is the key to all academic success. Without the technology to access language, preschools and parents are constantly playing catch up with their deaf and hard of hearing children. Having the opportunity to expand this project will forever change the lives of these young children.

#          #          #

The Mississippi Bend Area Education Agency is one of nine AEAs across the state of Iowa created by the 1974 Iowa Legislature. It provides educational services, media services and special education services to approximately 50,000 students in twenty-two public school districts and twenty-two approved non-public schools in Cedar, Clinton, Jackson, Louisa, Muscatine and Scott Counties.

The Mississippi Bend Area Education Agency does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, gender identity, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, age, socio economic status, or disability in its educational programs, services or employment practices. Inquiries concerning this statement should be addressed to Dr. Edward Gronlund, Equity Coordinator, at 563-344-6315.

Wallace: "It is time for a new generation of leadership..."

Rock Island, IL...Jonathan Wallace, candidate for State Representative in the 72nd District, will be hosting a meet greet at 5:30pm to 7:00pm Saturday, January 28. The event will be held at City Limits Bar Saloon and Grill, 4514 9th Street, Rock Island, Illinois. Open to the public. Suggested donation is $25.

"It is time for a new generation of leadership," said Wallace. "New people to cope with problems and opportunities, new people not bound by old rivalries or machine politics. These Young Guns have committed to something larger than themselves by running for public office."

Attending the event along with Wallace will be candidates Jim Wozniak for State's Attorney, Marc Ramirez for County Coroner, Tony Holland for County Recorder, Drue Mielke for County Board, Michael Zeitler for County Board, Mark Archibald for County Board, and Kevin Gouveia for County Board.

Wallace continued, "It takes courage to step forward and humility to serve. I expect nothing less from this group of candidates."

Jonathan Wallace is the new person running for State Representative in the 72nd District.

For more information about Wallace visit http://www.jonathanwallace2012.com.

##

OMAHA, NEB.- (01/23/2012)(readMedia)-- The following students from your area were named to the fall Dean's List at Creighton University for the fall semester of the 2011-2012 academic year.

Nathan Horst of Blairstown, a sophomore College of Arts and Sciences student

Michael Barnes of Bettendorf, a junior College of Arts and Sciences student

Adam Dilla of Bettendorf, a sophomore College of Arts and Sciences student

Emily Stensrud of Bettendorf, a third year School of Pharmacy and Health Professions student

Elizabeth Hines of Davenport, a sophomore College of Arts and Sciences student

Alexandria Clark of Rock Island, a sophomore College of Arts and Sciences student

John Philibert of Rock Island, a junior College of Arts and Sciences student

Kailee Steger of Milan, a sophomore College of Arts and Sciences student

Full-time students who earn a 3.5 grade-point average or better on a 4.0 scale are eligible for the Dean's Honor Roll.

About Creighton University: Creighton University, a Catholic, Jesuit institution located in Omaha, Neb., enrolls more than 4,200 undergraduate and 3,500 professional school and graduate students. Nationally recognized for providing a balanced educational experience, the University offers a rigorous academic agenda with a broad range of disciplines, providing undergraduate, graduate and professional degree programs that emphasize educating the whole person: academically, socially and spiritually. Creighton has been a top-ranked Midwestern university in the college edition of U.S. News & World Report magazine for more than 20 years. For more information, visit our website at: www.creighton.edu.

Twenty-eight
rural organizations sign letter urging President Obama to remember
rural America tomorrow in his State of the Union Address


Lyons, NE -
Today the Center for Rural Affairs urged President Obama, in his State
of the Union address, to speak to the challenges facing America's rural
communities by publicly
committing to work with Congress to reauthorize the Farm Bill in a way
that revitalizes the rural communities that form the backbone of our
heartland.

"We
urge the President to remember the nearly 50 million people who live in
Rural America, not just today but throughout the Farm Bill debate.
America's rural communities need a robust Rural Development Title, not
just a return to the failed farm and rural policies of the past," said John Crabtree with the Center for Rural Affairs.

Last
week, a coalition of 28 rural organizations including the Center for
Rural Affairs, sent a letter to the President urging him to address
these issues in the State of the Union (http://files.cfra.org/pdf/Rural-State-of-the-Union.pdf).

The organizations to sign the letter included:
Rural Community Assistance Partnership  
American Public Works Association
Center for Rural Affairs
Coastal Enterprises Maine
Corporation for Economic Development
Forest Guild
HomeCorps
Homestead Affordable Housing
HomeStretch Nonprofit Housing Corporation
Housing Assistance Council
Illinois Rural Partners
League of Rural Voters
National Association of Counties
National Association of Development Organizations
National Association of Towns and Townships
National League of Cities
National Network of Forest Practitioners
National Rural Development Partnership
National Rural Health Association
National Telecommunications Cooperative Association
NeighborWorks Umpqua
PathStone New York
South Delta Regional Housing Authority
Stand Up for Rural America
The Support Center North Carolina
Watershed Research and Training Center
Wyoming Rural Development Council
YouthBuild USA

For a copy of the letter and complete list of signatories visit: http://files.cfra.org/pdf/Rural-State-of-the-Union.pdf

Washington, DC - January 23, 2012 - Today, Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) released this statement following reports that US Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois suffered a stroke:

"I was surprised to hear that Senator Kirk suffered a stroke this weekend.  Carolyn and I have Mark in our thoughts and prayers.  We hope his recovery is swift and he can return to service in the US Senate soon."

# # #

Congressman Loebsack, area residents, others to testify

WASHINGTON, D.C.–On Friday, January 27, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, will convene a field hearing of the Committee to discuss ways to rebuild the middle class.  Congressman Dave Loebsack will join Harkin as part of the hearing.

"For decades, the middle class has been  falling behind," said Harkin.  "Wages have not kept up with costs, and families' savings accounts have dried up along with home values and good jobs. Iowans are justifiably worried about the future.

"It does not have to be this way.  It is time to rise to these challenges and face them head-on, as a nation, by remembering what made our country great. Creating good jobs, investing in education, rebuilding our infrastructure, and preparing our workforce for the 21st Century will help to ensure that the middle class has a bright future ahead, in Iowa and around the country."

Harkin has held a series of hearings in Washington over the past year examining the causes behind the decline of America's middle class.  Last year, Harkin staff members visited all 99 counties to gather insight into the challenges facing middle class families.  This field hearing will focus on what is working in the Quad Cities to rebuild the backbone of America's economy.

HEARING: "Rebuilding the Middle Class: What Washington can learn from Iowa"

DATE: Friday, January 27, 2012

TIME:

12:15 PM: Tour: Prior to the hearing, Harkin and Loebsack will tour the welding room at the Blong Center, which houses a partnership between John Deere, the local schools, and workers.

1:15 PM: Hearing begins

PLACE: John T. Blong Tech Center?, 8500 Hillandale Road, Davenport

###

Q:      Why are recess appointments in the news?

A.     On Jan. 4, President Obama bypassed the Senate and appointed Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three members of the National Labor Relations Board.  His move is highly controversial over whether he exceeded his constitutional power to make appointments during a Senate recess and so exceeded the power of his office.

 

Q.        What's at stake when the President circumvents the Senate with nominations?

A.        Our constitutionally outlined system of checks and balances among the three branches of our government is undermined when the President ignores the Constitution in making appointments.  The Constitution expressly assigns the Senate an advice and consent role in presidential nominations.   The President nominates, the Senate acts to confirm or disprove the nomination.  The Constitution says each house of Congress makes its own rules of proceeding.  The Administration argues the Senate was in recess during the President's appointments, but that's a red herring.  In effect, the Senate is in session when it says it's in session, not when the President says the Senate is in session.  And, according to its own rules, the Senate was not in an extended recess during the President's action.  The Constitution does provide for the President to make appointments when the Senate is in a prolonged recess, but there are restrictions on those powers.  And in addition to constitutional limitations, practice, tradition, and legal opinions all have influenced the process.  If constitutional constructions are flouted, the President could choose to make all of his own appointments and skip the Senate's advice and consent role.  Similarly, if the Senate were to declare the law of the land without seeking a presidential signature or veto, that would be a clear violation of constitutional strictures.   The White House would protest, just as the Senate is protesting now.  The Constitution works to keep any one branch of the government from getting too powerful.  It's what keeps our country a republic, not a monarchy, the form of government our founders fled, fought, and rejected.

 

Q:        Why are you unconvinced by the Justice Department's opinion about the ability of the President to make recess appointments in certain circumstances?

A:        The conclusion of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel is at odds with the text of the U.S. Constitution and the administration's own previous statements.  It fundamentally alters the careful separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches that the framers crafted in the Constitution.  It relies on no Supreme Court decision for its conclusion that the Constitution allows the President to make these appointments.  In fact, many of the Administration's conclusions are unsupported in law or the Constitution.  The Justice Department recognizes that the courts might well disagree.  And the action flies in the face of more than 90 years of historical practice.  Taken together with a laundry list of other assertions of the power to act without Congress, this clearly is an escalation in a pattern of contempt for the elected representatives of the American people.  The Senate will need to take action to check and balance President Obama's blatant attempt to circumvent the Senate and the Constitution, a claim of presidential power that the Bush Administration refused to make.  No president since Theodore Roosevelt has tested the limitations on a president's power to make recess appointments as President Obama has.   It was seen as a blatant power grab when Theodore Roosevelt did it, and it strikes many of us the same way from President Obama.

 

Monday, January 23, 2012


DES MOINES -- On Tuesday, January 24th supporters of President Obama across the country will host more than 2,500 parties to watch the President deliver the annual State of the Union address, in which he will lay his vision, priorities and important policies for the year.

 

Across Iowa, supporters of the President will gather in their neighborhoods to watch the speech, celebrate their work so far, and to build on their organizing plans for the coming year.

 

***Media interested in covering the event should RSVP to press@ofaiowa.com ***

 

WHAT:           State of the Union Address Watch Party

WHEN:           Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 7:30PM

 

DES MOINES

Tally's Restaurant, 2712 Beaver Avenue, Beaverdale

Bennigans, 4800 Merle Hay Road, Urbandale

 

CEDAR RAPIDS

Home of Rebecca Lain, 222 9th Street NW, Cedar Rapids

Home of Denny and Karla Goettel, 3440 Grant Wood Forest Lane SE, Cedar Rapids

 

IOWA CITY

The Mill, 120 E. Burlington Street, Iowa City

 

CEDAR FALLS

Home of Natalie Surigra, 1708 Quail Ridge Rd, Cedar Falls

 

DUBUQUE

Home of Dianne Roche, 5451 Meadow Ct, Asbury

 

DAVENPORT

Mary Sue's Café, 1615 N. Harrison St., Davenport

Buzz Coffee Shop, 116 W. Davenport St., Eldridge

 

COUNCIL BLUFFS

Home of Chuck Rensink, 15460 Crestview Dr., Council Bluffs

 

SIOUX CITY

Home of Linda Smoley, 6836 Cypress Point, Sioux City

 

http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/state-of-the-union-preview

In a part of the world as beautiful as it is brutal, the fate of two brothers and a nation are at the mercy of a ruthless military general, in author David Fergusson's adventurous and chilling tale of modern Africa and its continuing struggle for freedom and self-determination in the new novel Tribe of Shadows - The Hunted(http://davidfergusson.tateauthor.com/).

William Hunt is a renowned journalist living in London when his brother, Ross, who runs a photographic camp on the edge of an African game reserve, sends a desperate message as he runs for his life from a feared and powerful military leader who commands a legion of merciless guerillas.  Loosely based on actual events and the real life experiences of people who have endured civil wars and ethnic clashes in Sub-Saharan Africa, the novel explores the breathtaking violence and spiritual redemption of a struggling region of the world.

For Fergusson, who grew up in the former Rhodesia - now Zimbabwe - in its troubled transitional years, the story is personal.

"African nations are among the most beautiful, but most troubled in the world and I wanted to capture the essence of that struggle and do so in a way that allows readers all over the world to relate to the plight of the people who live there," says Fergusson, who now makes his home in Zambia.

"Tribe of Shadows delves deeply into the darkness of the lost soul, and the compassion and patience needed to draw it out of the shadows to a place of peace."

The novel undoubtedly will spark discussion of Sub-Saharan African nations who are continually struggling for self-rule, economic independence and higher standards of living for individuals who have endured centuries of colonization, military rule, crippling poverty rates and non-existent education and healthcare. Blessed with some of the world's most fantastic natural beauty, incredible wildlife and riches in natural resources, Sub-Saharan Africa remains a region uncertain of its future in a modernizing world.

Fergusson's work seeks to explore that difficult transition, following the two brothers, their friends and their family members as they are pursued by mercenaries intent on silencing a powerful secret the men hold. Their story culminates in a dramatic ending that reflects strong messages of resiliency and faith.

"If you know Africa as I know Africa, you will see its past, present and future reflected in this story," Fergusson says.

About David Fergusson

David Fergusson has turned his dramatic personal history into a riveting work of fiction in Tribe of Shadows - The Hunted. Born during a bush war in the waning days of Rhodesia, David grew up as his homeland transitioned into the nation of Zimbabwe. While most families left, Fergusson stayed to weather the difficulty for a further 26 years before finally ending up in Zambia where he currently resides.

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

On The Nomination of John Gerrard and

President Obama's Four Recent "Recess" Appointments

Monday, January 23, 2012

 

Mr. President,

Just over a month ago, on December 17, the Senate entered into a unanimous consent agreement to consider the nomination of John M. Gerrard, of Nebraska, to be United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

We are proceeding with this nomination, which I will support, despite the President's actions on his so-called recess appointments.  I note that during the last session we acted responsibly in considering the President's nominees.  Even the Majority Leader acknowledged this.  He stated, "We have done a good job on nominations the last couple of months. Actually, in the last 3 months, we have accomplished quite a bit."

I will have more to say about the recess appointments.

But with regard to this nomination I hope my colleagues understand that even though we are proceeding under regular order today, it is only because this unanimous consent agreement was locked in before the President demonstrated his monarchy mentality by making those appointments.  I am not going to hold this nominee accountable for the outrageous actions of the President.

However, as this is a matter of concern to my Republican colleagues, as it should be for all Senators, we must consider how we will respond to the President and restore a constitutional balance.

As I stated, since the adoption of the unanimous consent agreement governing the nomination before us, President Obama has upset the nominations process.   Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides for only two ways in which Presidents may appoint certain officers.

First, it provides that the President nominates, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints various officers.  Second, it permits the President to make temporary appointments when a vacancy in one of those offices happens when the Senate is in recess.  On January 4, the President made four appointments.  They were purportedly based on the Recess Appointments Clause.  He took this action even though the Senate was not in recess.  This action is of the utmost seriousness to all Americans.

These appointments were blatantly unconstitutional.  They were not made with the advice and consent of the Senate.  And they were not made "during the recess of the Senate."

Between the end of December and today, the Senate has been holding sessions every three days.  It did so precisely to prevent the President from making recess appointments.  It followed the same procedure as it had during the term of President Bush.  President Bush declined to make recess appointments during these periods.

But President Obama chose to attempt to make recess appointments despite the existence of these Senate sessions.

In addition to being unconstitutional, these so-called recess appointments break a longstanding tradition.  They represent an attempted presidential power grab against this body.

A President has not attempted to make a recess appointment when Congress has not been in recess for more than three days in many decades.  In fact, for decades, the Senate has been in recess at least 10 days before the President has invoked this power.

Other parts of the Constitution beyond Article II, Section 2 show that these purported appointments are invalid.  Article I, Section 5 provides, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...."

In December and January, we provided that we would be in session every three days.  The Senate was open and provided the opportunity to conduct business.

That business included passing legislation and confirming nominations.  In fact, the Senate did pass legislation, which the President signed.  According to the Constitution - each House - not the President determines whether that House is in session.  The Senate said we were in session.  The President recognized that fact by signing legislation passed during the session.

Article I, Section 5 also states, "Neither House, shall, during the session of Congress, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days...."

The other body did not consent to our recess for more than three days.  No concurrent resolution authorizing an adjournment was passed by both chambers.  Under the Constitution, we could not recess for more than three days.  We did not do so.  The President's erroneous belief that he can determine whether the Senate was in session would place us in the position of acting unconstitutionally.

If he is right, we recessed for more than three days without the consent of the other body.  By claiming we were in recess, the President effectively dares us to say that we failed to comply with our oath to adhere to the Constitution.  Yet, it is the President who made appointments without the advice and consent of the Senate while the Senate was in session.  It is the President who has violated the Constitution.

Of course, the President does not admit that he violated the Constitution.  He has obtained a legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel at his own Department of Justice.

That opinion reached the incredible conclusion that the President could make these appointments, notwithstanding our December and January sessions.

That opinion is entirely unconvincing.  For instance, to reach its conclusion that the Senate was not available as a practical matter to give advice and consent, it relies on such unpersuasive material as statements from individual senators.

The text of the Constitution is clear.

It allows no room for the department to interpret it in any so-called "practical" way that departs from its terms.

The Justice Department also misapplied a Judiciary Committee report from 1905 on the subject of recess appointments.  That report said that a Senate "recess" occurs when "the Senate is not sitting in regular or extraordinary session as a branch of the Congress, or in extraordinary session for the discharge of executive functions; when its members owe no duty of attendance; when its Chamber is empty; when, because of its absence, it cannot receive communications from the President or participate as a body in making appointments."  Obviously, that report does not support the Department of Justice.  During these days, the Senate was sitting in session.  It could discharge executive functions.  The chamber was not empty.  It could receive communications.  It could participate as a body in making appointments.  In fact, it sat in regular session and passed legislation.

There is nothing in the 1905 report that justifies the President substituting his judgment for the Senate's regarding whether the Senate is in session.  In any event, a Senate Judiciary Committee report from 1905 does not govern the United States Senate in 2012.  The Senate as constituted today decides its Rules and Proceedings.

The Department is on shaky legal ground when it claims that "whether the House has consented to the Senate's adjournment of more than three days does not determine the Senate's practical availability during a period of pro forma sessions and thus does not determine the existence of a 'Recess' under the Recess Appointments Clause."  There is no basis - none -- for treating the same pro forma sessions differently for the purposes of the two clauses.  The department simply cannot have it both ways.

And the Justice Department's opinion contains other equally preposterous arguments.  For instance, the opinion claims that the Administration's prior statements to the Supreme Court -- through former Solicitor General Elena Kagan -- that recess appointments can be made only if the Senate is in recess for more than three days are somehow distinguishable from its current opinion.  Or that the pocket veto cases do not apply.

Or even if they did, the "fundamental rights" of individuals that the courts described in those cases include the right of the President to make recess appointments.

There was a time when Presidents believed that they could take action only when the law gave them the power to do so.  They obtained advice from the Justice Department on the question whether there was legal authority to justify the action they wished to take.  But Theodore Roosevelt started to change the way Presidents viewed power.

He believed that the President could do anything so long as the Constitution did not explicitly preclude him from acting.  When he used that theory to create wildlife refuges against a rapidly expanding industrial base, there was no objection.  But a dangerous precedent was set.  When he claimed that he could make recess appointments during a "constructive recess" of the Senate, the Senate rejected this view in that 1905 report.

When a President thinks he can do anything the Constitution does not expressly prohibit, the danger arises that his advisers will feel pressure to say that the Constitution does not stand in the way.

At that point, a President is no longer a constitutional figure with limited powers as the founders intended.  Quite the contrary, the President looks more and more like a king that the Constitution was designed to replace.

This OLC opinion reflects the changes that have occurred in the relationship between the Justice Department and the President on the question of presidential power.  Formerly, the Justice Department gave legal advice to the President based on an objective reading of texts and judicial opinions.  It was not an offshoot of the White House Counsel's office.  This more objective view of the limits of presidential power also provided a level of protection for individual liberty, the principle at the core of our constitutional separation of powers.  The President might refuse to accept the advice.

He might choose to fire the officer who gave him advice with which he disagreed.  He could seek to appoint a new officer who would provide the advice he preferred.  But he risked paying a political price for doing so.   An official who thought that loyalty to the Constitution exceeded his loyalty to the President could refuse to comply, at great personal risk.  That is what Elliot Richardson did during the Saturday Night Massacre of the Watergate era.

During the Reagan Administration, OLC issued opinions that concluded that the President lacked the power to undertake certain acts to implement some of his preferred policies.   The President did not undertake those unilateral actions.

President Obama originally submitted a nominee for OLC that was wholly objectionable.  The Senate had good reason to believe that she would not interpret the law without regard to ideology.  We refused to confirm her.

The President ultimately withdrew her nomination and nominated instead Virginia Seitz.   We asked important questions at her confirmation hearing and through questions for the record.  Ms. Seitz responded that OLC should adhere to its prior decisions in accordance with the doctrine of stare decisis.  And she stated that if the Administration contemplated taking action that she believed was unconstitutional, she would not stand idly by.  Relying on those assurances, the Senate confirmed Ms. Seitz.

Mr. President, Ms. Seitz is the author of this wholly erroneous opinion that takes an unprecedented view of the Recess Appointments Clause.  And I suppose it is literally true that Ms. Seitz did not stand idly by when the Administration took unconstitutional action:  rather, she actively became a lackey for the Administration.  She wrote a poorly reasoned opinion that placed loyalty to the President over loyalty to the rule of law.

That opinion, and her total deviation from the statements she made during her confirmation process, show extreme disrespect for the institution of the Senate and the constitutional separation of powers.  I gave the President and Ms. Seitz the benefit of the doubt in voting to confirm her nomination.  However, after reading this misguided and dangerous legal opinion, I'm sorry the Senate confirmed her.  It's likely to be the last confirmation she ever experiences.

Mr. President, the Constitution outlines various powers that are divided among the different branches of our federal government.  Some of these powers are vested in only one branch, such as granting pardons or conducting impeachment proceedings.  Other powers are shared, such as passing and signing or vetoing bills.  The appointment power is a shared power between the President and the Congress.  When one party turns a shared power into a unilateral power, the fabric of the Constitution is itself violated.  And a response is called for.

In Federalist 51, Madison wrote that the separation of powers is more than a philosophical construct.  He wrote that the "separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government" is "essential to the preservation of liberty."  The Framers of the Constitution wrote a document that originally contained no Bill of Rights.  They believed that liberty would best be protected by preventing government from harming liberty in the first place.  That was the reason for the separation of powers.

And they designed a working separation of powers through checks and balances to ensure a limited government that protected individual rights.  Madison wrote, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.  The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place."

That is what the Framers intended in a case such as this.  When the President unconstitutionally usurped the power of the Senate, the Senate's ambition would check the President's.  In this way, the Constitution is preserved.  The power of the government is limited. And the liberties of the people are protected.

But the Framers did not anticipate the modern Presidency.  It took Justice Jackson's famous concurrence in the Youngstown case to address presidential powers in today's world.    When the Judiciary Committee held its confirmation hearings on President Bush's Supreme Court nominations, my friends on the other side of the aisle posed many questions about the Jackson concurrence.  That opinion sheds light on these so-called recess appointments.

For instance, President Obama argued in a nationally televised rally that his actions were justified because "[e]very day that Richard [Cordray] waited to be confirmed . . . was another day when millions of Americans were left unprotected. . . . And I refuse to take 'no' for an answer."

Justice Jackson anticipated these hyperbolic statements.  He wrote: "The tendency is strong to emphasize the transient results upon policies....and lose sight of enduring consequences upon the balanced power structure of our Republic."

President Obama has definitely let transient policy goals overtake the Constitution.  His argument is that the end justifies the means.

His argument is that he can say no to the Constitution.  Or, in essence, that the Constitution does not apply to him.  But the Constitution demands that the means justify the ends, and that adherence to established procedure is the best protection for liberty. A monarch or a king could say "no" to the Constitution.  But under our Constitution, the President may not.

It is the Constitution, and not the President, that refuses to take 'no' for an answer.

Justice Jackson was also aware that the modern President's actions "overshadow any others [and] that, almost alone, he fills the public eye and ear."  By virtue of his influence on public opinion, he wrote, the President "exerts a leverage upon those who are supposed to check and balance his power which often cancels their effectiveness."

Some people believe that President Obama challenged the Senate for partisan purposes.  But Justice Jackson understood the true partisan dynamic that is now playing out.  He recognized that the President's powers are political as well as legal.  Many presidential powers derive from his position as head of a political party.  Jackson wrote,

"Party loyalties and interests sometimes more binding than law, extend his effective control into branches of government other than his own, and he often may win, as a political leader, what he cannot command under the Constitution."  Finally, he concluded, "[O]nly Congress itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers."

Mr. President, outside these walls, in the reception room, are portraits of great senators of the past.  The original portraits were selected by a committee that was headed by then Senator John F. Kennedy.  They included such figures as Webster, Clay, Calhoun, LaFollette, and Taft.  Yes, these senators were partisans.  But they were selected because of the role they played in maintaining the unique institution that is the Senate in our constitutional system.  In particular, they protected the Senate and the country from the excessive claims of presidential power that were made by the chief executives of their time.  Where are such members today?

Where is a member of the President's party today who is like a more recent Senate institutionalist, Robert C. Byrd?   He defended the powers of the Senate when Presidents overreached, even Presidents of his own party.  Where are the members who recognized that our sessions every three days rightly prevented President Bush from making recess appointments but who stand idly by as President Obama makes recess appointments without a recess?

I remind my colleagues of my experiences as chairman or ranking member of the Finance Committee.  I refused to process nominees to positions that passed through that committee to whom President Bush gave recess appointments.  That is how I used the authority that I had to protect the rights of the Senate.

Mr. President, I do not believe that we should let the powers vested in the elected representatives of the American people slip through our fingers because we place partisan interests above the Constitution.  I have shown how the Framers understood that supposedly expedient departures from the Constitution risked individual liberty.  The constitutional text in this situation is clear.  It must be upheld.  We must take appropriate action to see that it is done.

Nor should we wait for the courts.

Although the NLRB appointments are already the subject of litigation, we should take action ourselves rather than rely on others. The stakes are too high.  On the other hand, even the OLC opinion recognizes, as it must, the litigation risk to the President.

For more than 200 years, Presidents have made very expansive claims of power under the Recess Appointments Clause.  The President and the Senate have worked out differences to form a working government.

Now, the Obama Administration seeks to upend these precedents and that working relationship.  It may well find, as did the Bush Administration, that when overbroad claims of presidential power find their way to court, that not only does the President lose, but that expansive arguments of presidential power that had long been a part of the public discourse can no longer be made.

Although I believe that this ironic result will ultimately occur here as well, the Senate must defend its constitutional role on its own, as intended by the framers of the Constitution that we all swore an oath to uphold.

-30-

Pages