Latest news with #HouseOversightandGovernmentReformCommittee
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Have Presidents Grown Too Powerful To Be Removed From Office?
The cover-up of President Joe Biden's cognitive decline is a scandal "maybe worse than Watergate," CNN's Jake Tapper opined recently. In this case, the key question is: "What didn't the president know and when didn't he know it?" Last week the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ramped up its efforts to answer these questions. Citing Tapper and Alex Thompson's book, Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, The committee's chairman, Rep. James Comer (R–Tenn.), issued demand letters to five senior Biden aides and subpoenaed the White House doctor who certified that the president was fit for duty. He clearly wasn't. Even in 2020, Biden struggled to feign lucidity in tightly scripted Zoom town halls. "He couldn't follow the conversation at all," said top Democrats who saw the raw footage; it "was like watching Grandpa who shouldn't be driving." The four Cabinet members who spoke with Tapper and Thompson described equally scripted Cabinet meetings with a president incapable of answering pre-screened questions without the aid of a teleprompter. One recounted being "shocked by how the president was acting" at a 2024 meeting: "'disoriented' and 'out of it,' his mouth agape." One campaign adviser asked himself after a post-debate conversation with Biden: "What are we doing here? This guy can't form a fucking sentence." Put more politely, the president was "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office"—just cause for removal. "This is why we have the 25th Amendment," Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) said recently, "it's clear now that it probably should have been invoked from the beginning." That key players instead propped up a semiconscious figurehead, hoping to gaslight their way to reelection, isn't just a scandal—it's a constitutional failure. That failure reveals an uncomfortable truth: As the presidency has grown ever more powerful, even manifestly unfit presidents have become nearly impossible to remove. Ratified in 1967, the 25th Amendment provides two ways the vice president can get the keys from a nonfunctioning president. Under Section 3, the president hands them over voluntarily; under Section 4, the VP can take them away when he or she and a majority of the Cabinet determine that the president is incapacitated. Section 4 was meant to cover cases of "mental debility," as one of the amendment's architects, Rep. Richard Poff (R–Va.), explained, where the president "is unable or unwilling to make any rational decision…particularly the decision to stand aside." Top of mind was avoiding a replay of the Woodrow Wilson debacle. Leveled by a pair of strokes in 1919, the 28th president spent the remainder of his term bedridden and incommunicado while first lady Edith Wilson essentially ran the executive branch of the government. "We dare not let that happen again," Rep. Emanuel Celler (D–N.Y.) warned during the House debate over the 25th amendment. Yet it arguably just did. In the six-decade life of the amendment, Biden's presidency is as close as we've come to the paradigmatic Woodrow Wilson case, complete with a latter-day Edith Wilson—Jill Biden—and a clique of advisers the Biden staff dubbed "the Politburo." An inert president may sound like a libertarian dream. Alas, it's not as if nothing gets done while he's checked out. The New York Times calls concerns about heavy use of the autopen a "conspiracy theory." But if reports from the Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project are accurate, it's at least interesting that, from mid-July 2022 on, most executive orders issued by the administration were signed remotely, even when Biden was in Washington. Despite the Politburo's efforts to conceal the president's decline, the Cabinet knew. At any point, the vice president and eight Cabinet-level "principal officers" could have moved to replace him via Section 4. Why didn't they? For one thing, the 25th Amendment's "eject button" is almost impossible to trigger: Even broaching the possibility risks crashing the plane. Any single Cabinet member who disagrees could "short-circuit the process by informing the President, potentially triggering a cascade of firings." (Something similar happened in 1920, when Wilson's secretary of state, Robert Lansing, was forced out for suggesting a transfer of power to Vice President Thomas Marshall.) Another problem is that even with the support of the Cabinet, it was unclear whether Vice President Harris could garner enough GOP votes in Congress to ratify the switch. Without a supermajority of both Houses, Biden would come back from time-out and the firing frenzy would begin. According to Tapper and Thompson, the 25th Amendment solution was never even considered. Instead, the Politburo's reigning calculus was that Biden "just had to win and then he could disappear for four years—he'd only have to show proof of life every once in a while." Meanwhile, the same people hoping to defraud the electorate subjected the rest of us to lectures about threats to "our democracy." Worse still, it isn't just the 25th Amendment that's broken. The Constitution provides another method for ejecting an unfit president before his term is up: the impeachment process. In the last five years, we've pressure-tested both failsafe mechanisms. Neither one worked. In his first term, President Donald Trump was impeached twice, the second time for provoking a riot while trying to intimidate Congress and his own vice president into overturning the results of an election he lost. Even that enormity didn't earn him conviction and disqualification in the Senate trial. The fact that we've never managed to eject a sitting president via the impeachment process suggests that the framers set the bar for removal—conviction by two-thirds of the Senate—too high. For Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which requires a supermajority of both houses, the bar is even higher. Lowering the bar to an impeachment conviction—say, to 60 votes—would better protect the public from an abusive president. It would also provide security against a future Biden/Wilson scenario. Though impeachment aims primarily at abuse of power, it was designed as a remedy for presidential unfitness generally: "defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate," as James Madison put it. Properly understood, that covers cases of "mental debility." Of course, that reform faces a dauntingly high bar of its own: It would take a constitutional amendment, the prospects for which are dim. But making presidents easier to fire is only one way to tackle our fundamental problem; the other is to shrink the job. "Incapacity, negligence, and perfidy" in the presidency are bigger threats than ever, because presidents now have the power to reshape vast swaths of American life. They enjoy broad authority to decide what kind of car you can drive, who gets to use which locker room, who is allowed to come to the United States, and whether or not we have a trade war with China—or a hot war with Iran. That's more power than any one fallible human being should have. Making the presidency safe for democracy will require a reform effort on the scale of the post-Watergate Congresses: reining in emergency powers, war powers, the president's authority over international trade, and his ability to make law with the stroke of a pen. It's a heavy lift, but worth the effort. If we're worried about the damage unfit presidents can do, we should give them fewer things to break. The post Have Presidents Grown Too Powerful To Be Removed From Office? appeared first on
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Comer launches probe into LA protests
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) is launching an investigation into California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) over their handling of demonstrations that broke out in the city this week over President Trump's immigration policies. 'Claims were made that state and local law enforcement had protests under control, however, police were clearly unable to quell the violence in Los Angeles prior to the arrival of the National Guardsmen,' Comer and Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.), who chairs the Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement, wrote in letters to the two California Democrats. 'You have championed California's sanctuary policies, which prevent local law enforcement's cooperation with federal immigration authorities,' the lawmakers wrote. 'You have also made it clear that you intend to block the objectives of the federal government, and defend aliens, regardless of their immigration status, criminal activity, anti-American views, or incitement to riot.' The two House Republicans requested that Newsom and Bass hand over all documents and communications related to the demonstrations among their two offices, state law enforcement, local law enforcement, and federal entities by June 27. The committee also requested 'all records and communications including video and dispatch logs, regarding the source of weapons (including rocks and cinderblocks) used by rioters.' The House investigation comes after Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who serves as chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, launched his own investigation into whether the Los Angeles protesters are funded by a local nonprofit. Hawley requested a history of internal communications and financial records from the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights to address allegations that it is fueling chaos in California. Newsom, Bass and Democrats have hit back at Republican criticism of the unrest in Los Angeles, arguing that Trump has provoked violence through his administration's use of deportations and deployment of the National Guard and Marines to the city. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Insults fly as blue-state governors battle GOP at feisty hearing
Sparks flew Thursday as a trio of Democratic governors clashed with Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee over immigration policy. The nearly eight-hour hearing with Democratic Govs. Kathy Hochul of New York, JB Pritzker of Illinois, and Tim Walz of Minnesota on sanctuary states was scheduled last month, but gained even more prominence this week amid unrest in Los Angeles over President Trump's deportation efforts. Each governor faced questions about their stances on working with the federal government on immigration, but politics overshadowed much of the hearing. Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), for example, first asked Walz, the vice presidential candidate for Democrats last year, if he had spoken to Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Kamala Harris about former President Biden's cognitive decline during last year's presidential election. 'No, not that I can recall,' Walz responded. 'As governor and being on the ticket, I was probably more concerned with my own debate performance.' A number of House Republicans hit Walz over his comments last month referring to federal law enforcement agents carrying out Trump's immigration crackdown as the 'modern-day Gestapo.' New York's gubernatorial election took center stage early on after Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), who is considering a run for governor, appeared at the dais in her capacity as a member of House Republican leadership. 'This is Kathy Hochul's New York. It's one of the many reasons why you're hemorrhaging support from hardworking New York families,' Stefanik said, citing a number of recent crimes committed by those who were in the country without authorization, including the burning of a woman on the New York City subway last year. 'We deserved a governor who stands up for New Yorkers, who doesn't put illegals first but actually puts New Yorkers first,' she continued. Hochul repeatedly told Stefanik she condemns the 'horrific' crimes Stefanik cited, but hit back at the congresswoman. 'Rather than you going after the viral moment, I suggest you look at the facts,' the governor said. Like Stefanik, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), who is also mulling a gubernatorial bid, went head-to-head with Hochul. 'Frankly, New York is better off with you down here and not in the state,' Lawler told Hochul. 'I don't think it's better off with you here,' Hochul hit back. The New York governor did land her own zinger at the hearing after she was asked by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) if she was 'a proud, registered Democrat.' 'Yes, is that illegal in your country?' Hochul responded, eliciting some gasps in the hearing room. The third Democratic governor at the hearing, Pritzker, also faced his share of adversarial questioning. Like Walz, Pritzker is widely seen as a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2028. His most heated exchange arguably took place with Illinois Rep. Mary Miller (R ), who accused Pritzker of 'tying the hands of Illinois law enforcement.' 'You know Congresswoman Miller, I'm not going to be lectured to by someone who extols the virtues of Adolf Hitler,' Pritzker said, referring to Miller's past remarks in which she said Hitler was right about 'the value of influencing a nation's youth.' Miller apologized for the 2021 remarks. At one point, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) questioned Pritzker over whether he agreed with 'allowing men in women's restrooms' and whether he 'supports Hamas's agenda.' 'So you're admitting that this is just a political circus?' Pritzker responded. 'This has nothing to do with immigration and [is] really about you grandstanding.' It was not just the three Democratic governors who clashed with lawmakers during the hearing. It also devolved into a shouting match after Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) called on the committee to subpoena Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem after news broke that Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was thrown out of a press conference she held earlier in Los Angeles. 'We need to subpoena Secretary Noem,' Frost said as Comer repeatedly said he was recognizing Greene to speak. 'Democrats can't follow the rules. Can't follow up,' Greene said as Comer told Frost he was out of order. Amid the shouting, Comer looked toward Frost and said, 'Will you just shut up?' 'No, you're not going to tell me to shut up,' Frost fired back. The stakes were not only high for the three Democratic governors. Thursday's hearing could arguably be seen as an audition for many of the committee's members ahead of the election for the its ranking member position. Democratic Reps. Stephen Lynch (Mass.), Jasmine Crockett (Texas) and Kweisi Mfume (Md.) are all running for ranking member, while Republican Reps. Byron Donalds (Fla.) and Andy Biggs (Ariz.) are each running for governor in their respective states. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) is running for Senate, and Reps. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) and Greene are mulling gubernatorial bids. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Watch: Tlaib screams at governors over lack of action during immigration raids, family separations
Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib chastised the Democratic governors testifying at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on "sanctuary cities" for their apparent inaction during federal immigration raids and events that led to family separations.
Chicago Tribune
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Afternoon Briefing: Pritzker at House hearing slams Trump's National Guard moves in LA
Good afternoon, Chicago. Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker defended Illinois' sanctuary laws for immigrants in the U.S. without legal permission before a House committee today and pointed at congressional Republicans and Democrats for using the issue to try to score political points rather than enacting comprehensive immigration reform. 'The vast majority of immigrants contribute to our communities, pay taxes and abide by the law. We should value their entrepreneurship, ingenuity and hard work. Both political parties are to blame for America's broken immigration system. I hope that this committee chooses (to) be part of the solution by pursuing bipartisan comprehensive federal immigration reform,' the state's two-term governor said in remarks submitted to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Before Pritzker's opening statement, U.S. Rep. James Comer, the committee's chair, accused Pritzker, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, the two other Democratic governors testifying, of allowing 'criminal illegal aliens to roam free in American communities' as he sat in front of posters of undocumented immigrants charged with violent crimes. The hearing that began at 9 a.m. Chicago time, continued into the afternoon. Watch it in full here. Here's what else is happening today. And remember, for the latest breaking news in Chicago, visit and sign up to get our alerts on all your devices. Subscribe to more newsletters | Asking Eric | Horoscopes | Puzzles & Games | Today in History A JetBlue flight landing at Boston's Logan International Airport rolled off the runway and into the grass today, an airport spokesperson said. Read more here. More top news stories: The number of international guests staying at Chicago hotels is down amid tensions between the Trump administration and other nations, and economic uncertainty is discouraging business travel. Read more here. More top business stories: Experience can make the best teachers. And the Chicago Blackhawks definitely will have lessons to learn from new coach Jeff Blashill's staff. Read more here. More top sports stories: Here are our picks for events in and around Chicago this weekend. Read more here. More top Eat. Watch. Do. stories: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said today he has ordered the deployment of more than 5,000 Texas National Guard troops, along with more than 2,000 state police, to help local law enforcement manage protests against President Donald Trump and the ongoing federal immigration raids. Read more here. More top stories from around the world:
