Jerry Nadler

The right to vote in a free and fair election and the right to have our votes counted, is at the heart of our system of government.

This conduct is unbecoming of this Committee and of this House.

The Voting Section needs to make a first priority of protecting service members whose first priority is protecting all of us.

If we are going to turn these hearings into veritable able kangaroo courts, then we should drop the pretense that we are actually engaged in objective oversight or legitimate fact finding.

We are back again with another oversight hearing airing allegations, most of them demonstrably false, against the Department of Justice without inviting the Department of Justice to testify.

The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to confirm the identity of voters.

The Voting Section must ensure that those military members who are defending our Republic have the opportunity to participate in it.

We need to examine the unprecedented array of State restrictions on the right to vote.

DOJ's so-called solution systematically disenfranchises military voters.

Neither Congress nor the Executive Branch is free to ignore these interests, and--far from waging a war on the Constitution or on religion--President Obama and his Administration have sought a sensible balance that ensures that all women…

How would you strike that balance?

Sacrificing the rights and needs of women and of the public health by removing the requirement for these critical services or broadly exempting anyone who might object is neither wise nor is it constitutional.

The First Amendment, "gives no one the right to insist that in pursuit of their own interests others must conform their conduct to his own religious necessities."

Neither Congress nor the executive branch is free to ignore these interests, and far from waging war on the Constitution or/and religion, President Obama and his Administration have sought a sensible balance.

The Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in an authoritative 1905 report that the Framers meant the word recess 'Should mean something real, not something imaginary. Something actual. Not something fictitious.'

I do think that we have a constitutional problem when a minority in the Senate takes it upon itself to rule against the will of the majority.

Whether there was executive overreach is a matter that will be determined by the courts.

This is an invasion of the prerogatives of the Congress that passed the law, and of the obligation of the Executive to enforce the law.

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary.

We must not wait to impose security measures until containers reach the United States.

If there is a nuclear bomb inside a container and it is detected by radiation portal monitors in Newark or Miami or Los Angeles, it may very well be too late.

We as a Nation must do a better job of ensuring the security of the cargo arriving on our shores every day.

Our Constitution will remain our Constitution. We will not give authority to what is being done in foreign countries.

We've been here before. In 2004, my Republican colleagues held a hearing on this issue to rail against the Supreme Court's decisions in Lawrence v. Texas and Atkins v. Virginia.

Of course, in addition to instances where a judge may look to foreign law as non-binding but informative, courts sometimes must consider and be bound by foreign law in reaching a decision.