Latest Alberto Gonzales News | Fox News

A Christmas Story From A Former Attorney General, Tamales Very Much Included

Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:44:32 -0500

Whether raised in wealth or poverty, or in the inner-city or suburbs, Christmas is a special holiday for every child. So it was for me as a boy growing up with my seven siblings in a blue-collar neighborhood in Houston, Texas. It was because we were poor that my parents believed it important to keep Christmas special for us. If we could afford it, my father would buy a small Christmas tree from the local grocery store; if we were unable to afford one, he would cut down a pine tree in the woods surrounding our home. Our modest decorations included a little tinsel and a few large Christmas bulbs and ornaments. My mother insisted we place a small manger depicting the virgin birth of Christ at the foot of our tree in order to remind us why we celebrate Christmas.

Like many Hispanic families at that time, we had a custom of making tamales on Christmas Eve. My father would buy a hog’s head, and cook it in a big pot until you could actually peel the meat off the bone. The children’s job was to prepare the cornhusks by soaking them in hot water and drying them off. Mom spread masa and tender pork over the dried cornhusks, and then rolled them all up to be steamed. It was a slow process that took hours. Over the course of making 15 - 20 dozen tamales, our family enjoyed time together sharing stories and watching the single small black and white television in our cramped living room adjacent to an even smaller kitchen.

Nearing midnight, Mom helped us change into our Sunday best clothes, and we piled into an old Chevrolet and dutifully made our annual pilgrimage to Christmas mass. We were raised to be obedient in a strict Catholic home, but it was hard not to fidget throughout midnight mass as we dreamed about the upcoming visit from Santa Claus. After the last of the sacraments and hymns, we rushed out the church doors and ran to the car. Once home, we changed, then devoured some of the still simmering pork tamales before going to bed.

We lived in a small two-bedroom house, so my parents did not have their own separate bedroom. They slept in our living room, their bed just feet from the Christmas tree. Soon after the children were asleep, Santa put out the gifts for the Gonzales children. Although my parents instructed us not to wake up early, well before dawn we boys would designate one among us to crawl quietly to the Christmas tree on a reconnaissance mission and report back to the others on what Santa had delivered.

As children we usually received only one gift; and I do not recall a time back then when my parents exchanged gifts. One year I got a GI Joe, and another, it was a football — both gifts meant a lot to me. One unforgettable Christmas, Santa brought two bikes, to be shared between three of my brothers and me. Then, of course, there were those disappointing holidays when by necessity we received school clothes. Responding to our grumbling, Mom reminded us that we exchange gifts because the three wise men brought gifts to the baby Jesus. I also remember her telling us that a gift should be something someone gives you, not something you want.

We celebrate Christmas differently in my home today. We no longer put up a simple pine tree; instead, we buy a Douglas fir from the local scout troop or church. Instead of the simple decorations of my childhood, we adorn our home and Christmas tree with decorations and mementos from our children, family, friends, and our time in government service. Our college-age sons discovered long-ago the truth about Santa Claus. So today, because we truly have all we need, we buy a few small gifts for each other, one that we exchange on Christmas Eve and the remainder on Christmas morning. Tamales are still a tradition, but now we buy them at the store. And, they are not just pork — today we enjoy a variety, including cheese, beef and bean tamales.

Yes, some of the rituals have changed. We do not attend midnight mass, but we do go to Christmas Eve service and we continue to rejoice in the birth of our savior Jesus Christ. We are blessed that our three sons will be home with us this Christmas in our home in Nashville. We will give thanks to all the many blessings from God, for all the many opportunities we have enjoyed in our magnificent America. While profoundly happy with my life today, I look back with fondness and gratitude at the Christmas’ past and marvel still in the glory of the Christmas story.

Alberto Gonzales on Senate Confirmations: What is Fair is Fair

Tue, 26 Nov 2013 12:51:18 -0500

The Constitution gives the President of the United States the power to appoint individuals to fill executive and judicial branch vacancies. The Senate is charged with providing advice and consent for most of these appointments. Historically, that duty has been discharged through a confirmation vote within a reasonable period following a nomination.

Unfortunately, over the course of several recent administrations, a growing number of the president’s nominees either never receive a confirmation vote or have to endure a significant wait for a vote. The Senate’s failure to act has created judicial emergencies and left vacant key positions on the president’s executive branch team.

Last week, a majority of Senate Democrats voted in favor of the “nuclear option” to allow up-or-down votes on presidential nominees on a simple majority vote instead of the 60 votes required under the old Senate rules. Senate Democrats and the president insist this action was necessitated by the obstructionist tactics of Senate Republicans.

As someone who witnessed firsthand the partisan obstruction by Democrats of President George W. Bush’s nominees, this claim is just the latest example of Washington hypocrisy. Republicans, not surprisingly, have expressed outrage over the rule change. However, many fully expect Senate Republicans to set aside their indignation and take advantage of the rule change as soon as they control the Senate and have the opportunity to work with a Republican President.

The Senate, of course, can govern itself in any manner it sees fit — provided Senators discharge their obligations. The president’s job is to nominate good, qualified individuals to serve in his administration and in the judiciary. A great deal of care and energy is spent on every nomination. Once the president does his job, then it is the Senate’s turn to provide a hearing to evaluate the nominee and an up-or-down vote within a reasonable period. Elections have consequences and a president is entitled to have his team within the executive branch to help carry out his agenda, provided nominees are qualified by virtue of education and experience, and not disqualified because of background issues.

Judicial nominees present different considerations. Judges are not appointed to represent or defend the president, nor to help carry out his agenda or vision for America. Federal judges are appointed to dispense justice under the law without bias. Furthermore, unlike executive branch appointments, a federal judicial appointment is for a life term. The decisions of judicial appointees extend well beyond the term of the president who appointed them, and can have serious long term consequences for litigants, society and the rule of law.

Perhaps this is why the new rule leaves in place the established procedure as to Supreme Court appointments. The Supreme Court, however, hears relatively few cases every year. Consequently, much of our jurisprudence is shaped by the decisions of the courts of appeals. This is not to suggest the rule change is wrong and that the Senate should continue its same old dysfunctional ways with respect to judicial nominees. Quite the contrary, the current political gridlock has delayed justice, adversely affected the jurisprudence of this country and discouraged good people from serving in the judiciary. On the other hand, the rule change may make it easier for ideologues in the Senate to influence the president to place ideologues on the bench, and thus weaken the integrity and competence of our judiciary.

Some commentators have warned that future Senate majorities may change the rules further to include Supreme Court nominees, and even legislation. This would fundamentally change the way the Senate has operated as an institution. Whether such changes would be good for the Senate and for the country in the long run is unknown. What is clear is that the old way of doing business was not working. Hopefully, this rule change will motivate the Senate to treat nominees fairly by providing confirmation votes within a reasonable period of time.

Alberto Gonzales: Hispanics Are Tomorrow’s Voters And, Most Likely, Tomorrow’s Leaders

Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:06:15 -0400

Last week the Pew Research Center reported that three quarters of Hispanics living in the United States say their community needs a national leader, but roughly the same number either cannot name one or do not believe one exists. No one should be surprised that so few could agree on a national Hispanic leader. While Hispanics do share common values such as self-responsibility, hard work and love of country, the U.S. Hispanic population is diverse within itself. The culture, habits and traditions of Puerto Ricans in the Northeast are different from those of Cuban Americans in Florida or Mexican Americans in the Southwest. No one person can speak for all Hispanics, nor would it be in our interests as Hispanics to have just one spokesperson.

However, many Hispanic families need help desperately as they struggle to deal with enormous challenges. We need champions who will fight for jobs, better education, greater financial security and safe neighborhoods. These advocates need not be Hispanic of course, but it has been my experience that there is an added layer of trust – a bond – between people and leaders who share experiences and a common heritage.

Hispanics who hold positions of power are role models for Hispanic children — whether they choose to be or not. A Hispanic serving on the Supreme Court or the board of a company, or one selected as Attorney General or corporate CEO, sends an unmistakable message of the power of opportunity that exists still today in America. Why is this important? It is important because projections of the future population growth in this country tell us that Hispanics are tomorrow’s workforce, tomorrow’s voters and, most likely, tomorrow’s leaders.

So, how do we develop more Hispanic leaders? First, we nurture our Hispanic children, ensure they get a quality education, teach them the value of hard work and responsibility, demand a standard of excellence and high achievement, and train and prepare them to assume positions of leadership. Second, on election day, eligible Hispanics have to vote for the most qualified candidates who will advance their interests. Hopefully, over time, more and more of those candidates will be Hispanic. This is how America – the land of immigrants – develops new Hispanic leadership.

Developing national Hispanic leadership is a desirable goal, but it is one that will take time to achieve. Leadership at the state and local level is more easily attainable, and I believe more important. For example, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval are making decisions today in their diversity-rich states that fundamentally directly affect the lives of thousands of Hispanics. However, even their ability to touch the lives of Hispanic families cannot match the impact of a single Hispanic role model within a family. Nothing would be more effective in developing productive Hispanic citizens of the future than preparing Hispanic parents today – particularly fathers – to be mentors to their children. If we are able to just do that, then inevitably we will see a new generation of national leaders for the Hispanic community.

Alberto Gonzales: The Government Shutdown And The Absence Of Leadership

Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:32:33 -0400

Last week non-essential parts of the federal government closed for business because certain Republican lawmakers opposed continued funding of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Next week has the potential for even greater disruption as federal government officials must reach agreement on raising the federal debt limit which allows the federal government to continue to borrow money. Their failure to do so will prevent the government from paying its existing debts. Given the current stalemate in Washington, it is not surprising the American people have such low regard for our federal leaders.

We need to reform our health care system. As a general matter, I am in favor of measures that make health insurance more affordable, thus making health care available to more Americans. Furthermore, like many Americans, I support provisions of the ACA that require coverage for pre-existing conditions, as well as those that allow family policies to cover children up to the age of 26.

There are, however, many Americans who simply do not want the federal government telling them they have to buy health insurance. Additionally, it now appears the president was wrong when he promised that under the ACA Americans would still be able to keep their same insurance coverage and their current doctor if they chose to do so. Another harmful consequence of the ACA is that certain employers are reducing the work hours of full time employees in order to avoid the higher costs of the insurance coverage mandated under the ACA.

Despite these problems, thus far the president has refused to compromise with Republicans. Rebuffing any attempt at change or delay, the president asserts the ACA is the law of the land, and reminds us that the ACA has been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court and validated by his re-election. The ACA is President Obama’s signature domestic achievement, and concern that concessions may be viewed as an acknowledgment the ACA is flawed is understandable. However, the president’s insistence lacks credibility since he has already effectively changed the law of the land multiple times by delaying the employer mandate and by granting numerous waivers and exemptions prior to implementing the ACA.

The president has said that a small extreme faction of one party should not be able to hold the federal government hostage. I agree, a government shutdown is not an appropriate way to govern. But, such tactics are certainly not unprecedented nor illegal. Delay and obstructionist tactics have been used by legislators from the minority party from the beginning of our Republic in order to prevent the majority from running “roughshod” over the rights and interests of their constituents.

Nevertheless, the president and Democrats are rightly concerned that concessions now will only encourage similar obstructionist tactics in the future. Republicans who hope to capture the White House and control the Senate should be mindful that one day the shoe may be on the other foot, and then they may have to deal with similar tactics by the Democrats. Governance by obstructionism - by either party - is a failure of leadership. If, indeed, lawmakers have a message they believe is right for America then they should try to sell it on election day.

I applaud the president for bringing the congressional leadership to the White House to discuss the situation, but meeting just to tell the other side there will be no compromise serves no purpose - and certainly does not serve the interests of the American people. Discussions about the ACA have somewhat faded. However, negotiations between Republicans and Democrats are necessary over the debt ceiling, where the risk of damage to the economy is far greater and the president’s position is much less popular, even within his own party.

We are all best served by the president acting as the “grown-up” and exercising leadership to facilitate a solution that helps address our healthcare crises, reduces our federal spending and the deficit, and restructures entitlement programs which in their current form cannot be sustained over the long term. The president is not responsible if members of Congress do not do their job, but neither is he blameless for allowing this situation to continue. It is time for him to lead.

Alberto Gonzales: Syria and the Price of Leadership

Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:52:32 -0400

I do not want to see another American killed or hurt fighting overseas, nor do I believe that the United States should respond, nor has the capacity to respond, to every act of aggression around the world. However, for the reasons discussed below, on balance it is in our best interests to respond forcefully to the unlawful use of chemical weapons in Syria.

The use of chemical weapons reflects a total disregard for humanity and the rule of law. It has been outlawed for almost a century. The United States has more troops stationed in foreign lands than any other country. There are thousands upon thousands of Americans living and working overseas. Their safety and our vital interests are threatened if other nations and groups like Al-Qaeda conclude they can use chemical weapons or violate other international norms with impunity.

The president has asked for congressional authorization to use force, but insists he does not need it under these circumstances. Certainly other presidents acting alone have initiated military action, thus establishing a practice and precedent. However, practice and precedent do not always provide the answer to the question whether government action is constitutional. Does a violation of the chemical convention, despite a direct warning by the United States, threaten vital U.S. interests and thus justify the use of force? I do not have access to classified information; however, an argument can be made that it does. If so, then the U.S. response should be proportional and effective in furthering our vital interests.

Whatever the reasons, the president has sought congressional authorization, and the country is stronger whenever the elected branches of government act together. Having asked for authorization, I hope the president respects the will of the American people as reflected by the votes of their elected representatives. He should abide by the decision of Congress, unless circumstances change that further threaten vital U.S. interests. Furthermore, I suggest the president reassure the American people that he will not take action if Congress votes “no,” so that members of Congress understand their vote has real consequences for the people of Syria and for our enemies around the world watching to see if we will have the courage to confront them should they choose to ignore U.S. warnings and violate international law.

The American people are weary from years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and understandably skeptical about a limited military operation. War is unpredictable, so we must be wary of promises of limited involvement. The Syrian government will likely respond if we use force on their country. As an ally of Syria, Russia may also take action, as may other Arab states. In that event, the president may be forced to act in self-defense and to protect vital American interests. Yes, Congress can constitutionally limit our initial engagement in Syria. However, once military action commences circumstances may require the president to rely on his own constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to expand the use of force. This is what many Americans and members of Congress fear. The Administration is undoubtedly anticipating and planning - as they should - for retaliation if we use force. For this reason, the president should level with the American people about what our government believes may happen if we proceed down this road.

Some opponents of intervention declare this is a situation of the president’s own doing, believing we should not risk American lives in order to preserve his credibility. Perhaps the president has misjudged how to best deal with the Syrian regime; however, the ongoing debate over the congressional resolution is not about one person - it is about U.S. foreign policy and doing what is right and in our vital interests.

I wish that members of the international community who profess to support the rule of law would join us in punishing this clear assault on international law and values. The fact we stand alone speaks volumes about how America - including our president - is perceived by others around the world. Yet, we must acknowledge that doing right is not always popular, and it is rarely easy. Going alone to do the right thing is one of the burdens of being the greatest country on the face of the earth.

We have a distinguished record and unique history of delivering other nations from tyranny, as well as championing the rule of law. We did so in the past because to have done otherwise would have threatened our own vital interests. No other people have sacrificed more for liberty and freedom around the world. Sometimes that struggle has been alone, sometimes in concert with others. Either way, it is the price of leadership.

Alberto Gonzales: Refocusing our Criminal Justice System

Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:31:12 -0400

As the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Eric Holder was correct in speaking out earlier this week about the challenges to our criminal justice system. I agree with much of what he said and several of his recommendations. In a time of shrinking budgets, the Department of Justice should better spend its resources wisely, and better coordinate with state and local law enforcement, objectives we worked hard to achieve under President George W. Bush.

The Attorney General is correct in saying we cannot simply prosecute or incarcerate our way to becoming a safer nation. Education, rehabilitation, and treatment is often a better way, particularly for non-violent offenders. I was also pleased to see the Attorney General acknowledge DOJ priorities of national security, combating violent crime, fighting against financial fraud, and safeguarding the most vulnerable members of our society.

The Attorney General expressed reservations about the harsh results of the mandatory minimum sentences imposed by Congress for certain minor drug offenses, and he called for greater discretion by federal prosecutors in charging these offenses. The mandatory minimum requirements for sentencing, and to some extent the Department’s charging policy, were intended to promote uniformity in the overall administration of justice. Defendants in Vermont should not be punished differently from defendants in Texas for essentially the same conduct. It is ironic that in the same speech in which the Attorney General laments the racial disparity in our criminal justice system, he announces a change in charging policy that creates the potential for even greater sentencing disparity by giving more discretion to federal prosecutors. While I agree that prosecutors should have discretion, Congress and the American people should monitor this new policy carefully to ensure such discretion is not abused.

I agree with the Attorney General that new solutions are necessary for our war on drugs. However, I worry that what he calls a new approach is in reality a surrender, at least when it comes to recreational use of marijuana. The Attorney General’s decision to not prosecute minor drug offenses, coupled with the Department’s indecision to challenge state constitutional amendments in Washington and Colorado legalizing recreational marijuana use, sends an unmistakable message to our young that recreational drug use will be tolerated. The administration has already developed a disturbing pattern of selectively declining to enforce laws simply because it disagrees with the policy choices of the Congress. It is dangerous when the Executive intentionally disregards congressional statutes not otherwise unconstitutional, especially in the arena of domestic policy. The President’s repeated failure to faithfully execute the law upsets the balance of powers between the elected branches.

Finally, while I appreciate the Attorney General speaking out on the values of a just criminal justice system, it may have been more beneficial for the Hispanic and African American community for the administration to speak out more forcefully for the institution of marriage, and the importance of a safe and stable home where there is a father or father-figure who can serve as a role model. The most important job of any parent is to be present to raise their child, to instill the values of self-accountability and responsibility, and to learn respect for self, others, God and country. While most of the changes discussed by General Holder are commendable, refocusing on these other values for America’s youth will go a long way in reducing the burden on our criminal justice system.

The Bush Terrorism Record in the Supreme Court

Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:08:40 -0400

In his July 23, 2013 USA Today Op-Ed entitled, "What Supreme Court Shutouts Reveal," George Mason law professor Ilya Somin reminds us of the alarming number of cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against the Obama White House. The professor correctly concludes that when a “president pursues policies that require such expansive federal power that he can’t get a single justice to agree, something is probably amiss.”

However, Professor Somin misses the mark when he equates the record of President George W. Bush with the current administration with respect to pushing the limits of federal executive power. Having participated in more discussions than I can count on terrorism-related issues with some of the brightest lawyers in America, I can attest that the legal issues we confronted after the September 11, 2001 attacks were difficult and unique. I concede we did not always accurately anticipate where the Supreme Court would draw the balance between security and liberty. However, I derive some professional satisfaction knowing that, unlike with the 9-0 court shutouts the professor highlights, the justices struggled with the issues presented in the four major terrorism cases decided during my tenure in government: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Rasul v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Boumediene v. Bush.

Collectively these four cases produced 17 opinions, not one of which was able to attract more than five votes. In the Hamdan case alone, six of the eight participating justices felt compelled to author an opinion, thus showing the difficulty of the issues presented.

Professor Somin alludes that President Bush is an example of a president who routinely pushes the limits based on dubious theories of federal power. However, in the four cases above, 11 of the 12 judges in the federal circuit courts below agreed with the government’s assertion of power based on precedent.

While it is true that in the Hamdi case the Court held that due process required that a U.S. citizen being held as an enemy combatant had to be given meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis of his detention, a clear majority of the Court also recognized that a court’s review of the Executive’s actions in wartime should be deferential. Furthermore, the Court recognized the legitimate application of the laws of armed conflict. Finally, in her plurality opinion, Justice O’Connor confirmed that the President could detain an enemy combatant without charges for the duration of hostilities, even if the enemy combatant is an American citizen.

The Obama era cases identified in Professor Somin’s writing deal primarily with issues in the domestic arena. At least in those cases in which President Bush has been accused by pundits and political critics of governing as an imperial president, he acted in response to national security threats. These decisions rested in part upon his Commander-in-Chief powers under the Constitution - a power at its apex during a time of conflict or when acting in self-defense to an attack such as 9/11.

I believe strongly in the exercise of executive power to protect our citizens. I believe even more that those actions must be constrained by the limits of the Constitution. The Bush Administration took extraordinary actions in response to an extraordinary threat. However, many people worked hard to ensure that the exercise of presidential power was within appropriate constitutional limits. We did so, not because we feared a unanimous loss at the Supreme Court, but because that is what President Bush directed and what the Constitution demands.

Alberto Gonzales: Voting Rights For All Americans

Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:07:28 -0400

Over a week ago, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”) which includes the formula used to determine which states and localities must obtain preclearance before making a change in law that affects voting rights. Various groups immediately denounced the decision as a disastrous return to days of intimidation and discrimination against minority voters. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg referred to the majority decision as an act of “hubris” for ignoring the bipartisan congressional reauthorization of the VRA just seven years earlier.

The Supreme Court hinted strongly in the 2005 case of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, of serious doubts about the constitutionality of certain portions of the VRA, saying the law “imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.” For this reason, when the reauthorization of the VRA was being discussed in 2006, the Justice Department raised questions about provisions such as Section 4. However, it soon became apparent that many Republicans had little appetite to amend the VRA for fear of alienating a growing and influential block of minority voters.

While I condemn actions to intimidate and discriminate against minority voters, and salute the work of the career professionals in the Civil Rights Division during my tenure as Attorney General, I agree with the Court’s decision in Shelby. Section 5 of the VRA requires covered jurisdictions to obtain federal clearance from either the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice or a panel of federal judges on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Section 5 preclearance requirements were meant to address disenfranchisement of African Americans in Southern states. However, its application is based on a formula in Section 4 of the VRA that the Court in Shelby found was woefully outdated, not reflective of today’s society and oblivious to progress made since 1965 in the levels of voting participation by minorities. The Court’s decision to strike down Section 4 in essence renders the Section 5 requirements inapplicable.

Lost in much of the media criticism of the decision is any acknowledgment that the Court left intact Section 2 of the VRA, the substantive law protecting the voting rights of Americans. Following this decision, the U.S. Attorney General warned jurisdictions that the Civil Rights Division will be closely monitoring their actions to ensure the protection of voting rights under Section 2. If, over time, those efforts prove inadequate, Congress can pass legislation and revise the Section 4 formula to reflect the realities of modern America.

Some states have already announced they are moving forward on certain measures affecting voting such as requiring a photo ID to vote. Whether the Court’s decision in Shelby will, over time, adversely impact minority voting rights remains to be seen. If so, the American people should demand that Congress do its job and pass legislation that imposes burdens that are justified by current needs so that no American –irrespective of race– is denied the right to vote.

Alberto Gonzales: Protecting America and the Constitution

Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:30:00 -0400

One of the painful lessons of the 9/11 attacks was the realization that our government was not only unable to connect the dots of information that might have allowed it to prevent the attacks — we were unable to collect the dots. The collection of intelligence information thus became a priority, and the Bush Administration took measures to protect America against extraordinary and evolving threats.

As has been widely reported, former presidential candidate Obama and then-Senator Biden were critical of the terrorism policies of the Bush Administration. However, the Obama Administration has continued to use many of the same extraordinary measures to detect and prevent further attacks. The recent revelation that the government obtained customer telephone records from Verizon, and collected certain email communications has raised concerns our government has gone too far in the name of security.

At the outset, it is important to remember that the public still does not know, and may never know, all the details of the government’s classified activities. So it is difficult to assess fully its legality and effectiveness. We do know that telephone records were obtained under the constraints of a court order from a federal judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court; select members of Congress had either been previously briefed or were given an opportunity to be briefed on the government’s actions; and these activities were done pursuant to authority granted by Congress.

Civil libertarians assert that our constitutional rights have been violated. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the acquisition of personal information like telephone numbers already in the possession of third parties like Verizon, does not implicate the Fourth Amendment because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in such information under our Constitution.

Nor, as some have suggested, is a warrantless search necessarily illegal. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In the criminal context, the Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirement usually requires a showing of probable cause and a warrant. However, the Supreme Court repeatedly has held that in situations involving “special needs” that go beyond a routine interest in law enforcement, the warrant requirement is inapplicable. Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of a conflict in which the enemy has already attacked the United States, fits within the area of special needs where the Fourth Amendment’s touchstone of reasonableness can be satisfied without resort to a warrant.

Nevertheless, the government is exercising extraordinary power here; and in the hands of the wrong person or persons, the misuse and abuse of such power is a threat to our liberty. Our government should continue to utilize the latest and most advanced technology, as well as other available tools, to obtain information about our enemies, provided there are sufficient checks and balances against potential abuses. Congress must be vigorous in its oversight, a responsibility that is impossible, however, without accurate and complete information about our intelligence efforts. The Executive Branch should provide to Congress a clear accounting of how these authorities are used, as well as continue to implement effective minimization procedures to guard against the inadvertent collection of information of innocent Americans. Finally, the NSA General Counsel and Inspector General should continue to be especially sensitive to the potential for abuse, and provide heightened guidance and scrutiny to protect against mistakes and misuses.

The serious threats against our country justify extraordinary collection efforts. However, those efforts must be constrained by the checks and balances necessary to safeguard our constitutional liberties.

Alberto Gonzales: The President’s Need to Know

Fri, 24 May 2013 11:59:11 -0400

The recent revelation that the IRS targeted conservative groups has raised questions about the timing and extent of the President’s knowledge of the scandal. While the President is ultimately responsible for the actions of his Administration, no person has the capacity or time to direct all of the decisions that occur daily within the Executive Branch. Consequently, one of the primary responsibilities of the President’s Chief of Staff and the Counsel to the President is to determine what information should be provided to the President. This is a job that requires judgment and discretion; it is a determination based partly upon White House precedent, and partly on an informal understanding made in advance about such matters between the President, the Chief of Staff and the White House Counsel.

As a matter of prudence and political self-preservation, the Chief of Staff and the Counsel should be concerned about the information provided directly to the President - particularly information about ongoing investigations. Once a President has actual knowledge of an investigation, it is harder for White House staff to distance the President from a related scandal, and it becomes easier for critics to suggest that the political machinery at the White House is secretly directing the investigation in order to minimize the scandal. Even worse, with such knowledge comes the temptation to actually steer an investigation in a direction politically beneficial to the President. Furthermore, every time facts relating to an ongoing investigation are shared beyond the investigating team, it increases the risk that a leak will occur, and that the investigation will be compromised. For these reasons, details about investigations are rarely, if ever, shared with the President.

However, based on my experience, it is wrong to suggest that the President should never be told of the existence of a pending investigation. As a matter of good governance and common sense, such a claim is in reality nothing more than an excuse to avoid accountability. For example, suppose the Attorney General were to inform the White House Counsel that the President’s National Security Advisor was suspected of leaking classified information. Suppose further that the Justice Department did not want the National Security Advisor to know about the investigation. As a former Counsel, under these circumstances I cannot imagine not informing the President of the pending investigation so that steps can be taken to protect against additional leaks of classified information, while still protecting the integrity of the investigation.

Under existing protocols the Counsel is often informed of investigations affecting Executive Branch personnel. There would be no justification for the protocols if in the appropriate case the Counsel does not inform the Chief of Staff or the President of possible Executive Branch wrongdoing. After all, it is not wrong for the President to know about a problem in his Administration. Many Americans would argue that as head of the Executive Branch it is the President’s job to be accountable for what his subordinates are doing and to stop any known wrongdoing, provided it does not disrupt or interfere in any way the course of an investigation.

Reportedly, in this case the Treasury Department informed the Counsel of an ongoing Treasury Inspector General investigation into IRS activities. The Counsel, not surprisingly, informed the Chief of Staff. The White House currently insists the President was not told of the investigation in advance of media reports. Whether this is true, and whether this White House made the correct calculation as to the President’s need to know, will depend on facts yet unknown.

Alberto Gonzales: Balancing the Rights of the Press Under the First Amendment

Wed, 15 May 2013 11:37:06 -0400

Standing on the shoulders of the First Amendment, our press has performed several important functions throughout our history, including educating and informing the public about government actions and important issues of the day, and serving as a check against government abuse, waste and wrongdoing. A strong and vibrant press is essential in maintaining the marketplace of ideas central to our way of life.

Occasionally the interests of the press and our criminal justice system collide, as in the recent revelation that the Department of Justice collected communications records of reporters and bureaus of The Associated Press in order to discover information about an unlawful leak of classified information. Reportedly, the leak in 2012 involved details about a foiled bomb plot targeting an American aircraft.

When such interests are in conflict, significant policy objectives have to be balanced. On the one hand is a significant First Amendment interest in maximizing information to the public about an important national security operation that saved lives. On the other hand is the criminal justice system’s interest in protecting classified national security information by the prosecution of a criminal leak, thus reinforcing our commitment to the rule of law.

Some believe that because of the press’s historical role in our society, it should enjoy special protections and privileges not available to other citizens, groups and organizations. However, while some lower federal courts have recognized a qualified media privilege in certain circumstances, the U.S. Supreme Court has thus far declined to afford special treatment to the press other than requiring government investigations to be narrowly focused.

Nevertheless, respectful of the role of the press, the Attorney General has issued clear guidance to investigators and prosecutors when investigations involve the press. Generally, this guidance limits government action unless it is approved at the highest level of the Department; there is a compelling interest of the government in obtaining the information; there is no alternate source for the information; and the scope of the collection is no broader than necessary.

The broad sweep of the collection activities in question here have raised serious and legitimate concerns about the Department’s avowed commitment to a free and robust press. However, rather than rushing to judgment, we should await the disclosure of additional facts and be mindful of the Attorney General’s publicly stated assessment that the leak being investigated here is one of the most serious he has ever seen. Hopefully, the Department has reached an appropriate balance, thus protecting our national security as well as respecting the promise of the First Amendment.

Alberto Gonzales: Miranda Warnings and Terrorism

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:26:13 -0400

Is everyone detained in custody by U.S. law enforcement entitled to Miranda warnings to remain silent and have a lawyer present prior to questioning?

This is the question being asked following media reports that law enforcement have questioned (or intend to question) the Boston Marathon suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, without reading him his rights, relying on a “public safety exception” to Miranda.

The public safety exception recognized by our courts permits law enforcement to question a suspect before giving Miranda warnings based upon a reasonable concern of an immediate threat to the safety of the public or law enforcement. The limited interrogation of the suspect must be directed at eliminating the emergency threat.

Generally, whether the public safety exception is justified in a given case will depend on a host of factors. The concern for public safety must be reasonable under the circumstances. The questioning by law enforcement must be limited, focused on eliminating or neutralizing the emergency. Finally, the suspect may not be coerced to provide an answer; responses to the limited questioning must be voluntary.

Courts may be willing to provide law enforcement additional latitude in questioning suspects in the national security context because of the potential of grave harm to the public. However, courts will not allow the public safety exception to be used by law enforcement as an end run around Miranda.

Boston authorities have already announced that a state of emergency no longer exists. Consequentially, whether it is reasonable for law enforcement to believe there is a continuing and immediate threat to the public from this suspect or from accomplices is an open question. Nevertheless, this suspect has already shown the intent and capability to harm the public. Thus, a court might allow greater discretion by the government here such as asking whether there are additional bombs or accomplices.

If authorities have any reasonable basis to believe that an immediate threat to life exists, then questioning related to neutralizing that threat might be appropriate.

Of course, all this presupposes that the suspect is sufficiently coherent and stable, aware of his surroundings, and is able to understand questions and voluntarily provide answers. Some courts have found voluntariness even when a suspect has taken pain medication. Whether the suspect here is capable of voluntarily providing information when asked questions is a judgment call for investigators; a judgment that will likely be challenged in trial.

In a national security investigation, an important objective is to collect information that may prevent another attack and save additional lives. So, even if information is collected in violation of the public safety exception, and thus cannot be used in prosecuting this suspect, the information may nevertheless be useful and, on balance, worth the risk.

This is particularly true here, where it appears, based on the public record, that authorities already have sufficient evidence to take this case to trial.

The Miranda warnings exist to protect the rights of the accused from coercion. The public safety exception exists to protect the public and law enforcement in the face of an immediate threat. Both are necessary, and both must be accommodated in our attempt to balance security and liberty in America.

Alberto Gonzales: Justice and the Rule of Law, Trying Bin Laden's Son-in-Law

Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:50:38 -0400

Recently, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law and reported longtime member of al-Qaida, pleaded not guilty in a New York federal court to the charge of conspiracy to kill Americans. The decision by the Obama administration to try Abu Ghaith in federal court has reignited a debate over the proper venue to bring high-profile terrorists to justice.

In 2010, President Obama attempted to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in criminal court, but reconsidered under pressure from members of Congress and New York City officials.

Government lawyers advised President Bush to adopt a law of war framework immediately following the 9/11 attack. Because of that decision we were able to provide the commander in chief with multiple options to deal with captured enemy combatants.

Depending on the circumstances, the U.S. has the option to try them in a military commission or in federal court. The U.S. also has the option to return enemy combatants to their home country for further detention or trial, or simply detain them under the laws of war, without charges, for the duration of hostilities.

The Obama administration has not disclosed how it made the decision to bring Abu Ghaith into the United States. In the Bush administration, participants in the National Security Council interagency process worked to reach a consensus recommendation for the president. At times the interagency struggle to control the disposition of an enemy combatant was fierce. The views of the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency carried significant weight obviously.

Whether they did so in this case is unclear. It is possible President Obama made this decision during a period of uncertainty at each agency. Both Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and CIA Director John Brennan recently survived tough confirmation battles. The possible absence of the judgments of senior leaders at the Department of Defense and CIA may have contributed to the president’s decision.

I have always believed that circumstances and timing should dictate the appropriate disposition of high-profile detainees. Having said that, I recognize that there are challenges to a criminal trial of someone like Abu Ghaith. For example, because he was captured overseas our government may have problems introducing certain physical evidence and incriminating statements in court.

Under our Constitution, Abu Ghaith is entitled to confront witnesses. He is likely to try to force the U.S. government to make tough choices by subpoenaing senior military and intelligence officers away from their duties on the front lines, and demanding access to detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Security for a criminal trial will be extensive and costly for New York City and the federal government.

Finally, a trial near Ground Zero affords this defendant a unique stage and ironic opportunity to put the United States on trial. He may allege war crimes on the basis of enhanced interrogation techniques and drone killings in order to incite hatred against the United States, embarrass our government and recruit more jihadists. These are principally the same reasons President Obama was forced to reconsider his plans to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a criminal court.

The U.S. has successfully tried hundreds of terrorism related cases in our criminal courts, but an overwhelming majority of these cases were prosecuted prior to 9/11, well before we were at war. In an ongoing conflict, military necessity and national security concerns limit options and discretion for prosecutors.

The conviction of other terrorists, such as Zacarias Moussaoui, demonstrates the ability of our federal government to use our criminal courts to bring a high-profile detainee to justice. However, Moussaoui in essence represented himself and pled guilty. Yet it still took our government several years, at the cost of millions of dollars, to send him to prison.

Obtaining a guilty verdict here will be significantly more difficult if Abu Ghaith is represented by a high-profile legal team and decides to fight his conviction at trial.

The military commission for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is proceeding at Guantanamo Bay, but at times it appears that some members of the Obama administration believe that only criminal trials will show the world our commitment to the rule of law.

I do not know what I do not know about the government’s case against Abu Ghaith, and whether a criminal trial is the best course for our country to bring him to justice, or even whether now is the best time to do so.

I do know that trying him by military commission under procedures approved by Congress would also be consistent with the rule of law. I also know detaining him for the duration of hostilities would likewise be consistent with the rule of law.

Perhaps this decision was made after a careful and full vetting in the interagency process; perhaps Abu Ghaith has low intelligence and symbolic value, and the timing and circumstances require a criminal trial; and although the White House apparently no longer has the funds to give White House tours, perhaps the costs of an expensive criminal trial are no longer an overriding concern.

It is my hope that all this is true, and that the administration has elected to pursue this present course because it is the best way to bring Abu Ghaith to justice consistent with our national security. If so, this is how we best honor the rule of law.

Alberto Gonzales: Drones and The Power to Kill

Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:12:53 -0500

I support the authority of the president, relying upon his commander in chief powers, to kill enemy combatants according to the laws of war — even those who are American citizens. Few people could credibly question the authority of American forces to kill an armed member of al-Qaida confronted on the battlefield.

Most Americans would also agree that if that same al-Qaida member is an American citizen, our military forces are not required to call “time out” before using force, nor required to provide a battlefield mini-hearing to satisfy some notion of due process.

Under either scenario, members of al-Qaida constitute the enemy; they are combatants on the battlefield and may be killed or detained according to the laws of war.

Long distance killings via unmanned aerial drones, however, present a more difficult legal question, and raise concerns over the scope of presidential power to kill American citizens without due process. The use of unmanned drones makes sense given the improving technology and the evolving threats to U.S. interests.

The question is not their effectiveness but whether their current use is lawful. The Obama administration asserts it employs a careful review process prior to each drone killing to ensure that only enemy combatants are targeted. Our government also claims that its procedures satisfy constitutional requirements of due process given the necessities and circumstances of an ongoing conflict.

This may be true; however, the Supreme Court has said that the authority of the president in dealing with an American citizen is not absolute.

The most notorious killing by drone involved American Anwar al-Aulaqi. Based on the public reporting (which in turn is based virtually entirely on executive branch sources), it appears al-Aulaqi was a member of al-Qaida, advocated violence against the United States and became involved at an operational level.

It appears highly doubtful from the facts presented by the administration that, even if given an opportunity, al-Aulaqi could have presented a credible defense that he was not an enemy combatant. Consequently, the government’s actions are arguably justified in his case. The circumstances, however, for the next American target may not be so obvious.

There are two decision points the government must maneuver in the killing of American citizens by unmanned aerial drones. The first is the government’s determination that an American is an enemy combatant.

The second involves the timing and manner of executing the kill order against an enemy combatant according to the laws of war. It is the first decision point that implicates concerns over due process and which may, in time, arouse the interest of the courts.

As to the second, once a target has been lawfully designated as an enemy combatant, then the commander in chief must be able to take action against this target at the moment of his choosing, consistent with national security and the laws of war. To require otherwise, would be an infringement on the president’s constitutional powers, and place the safety of Americans at risk.

While someone like al-Aulaqi may not be entitled to judicial process, he, like other Americans, is entitled to due process under the circumstances. Constitutional scholars agree the president is at his strongest legal position when he acts on his own constitutional authority along with a statutory grant of authority from Congress.

Courts have been more deferential to executive actions when the two elected branches of government are in accord during a time of armed conflict. No president wants to ask Congress for authority to exercise war making powers when he believes he already has it under the Constitution; and I am not recommending that the president do so here with respect to long distance targeted killings of Americans.

I am merely observing that the president’s legal authority is stronger when coupled with congressional authorization.

President Bush was criticized in some circles for what was seen by critics as an unconstitutional assertion of power to detain and interrogate enemy combatants. Many of those same critics are silent today with respect to President Obama’s unilateral decision to kill enemy combatants.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has not been timid in reviewing executive action in the war on terror. While I have not always agreed with the degree of the Court’s involvement nor with its decisions, I respect and acknowledge its authority to interpret the Constitution in defining the limits of government power.

For this reason, unless there are changes to the current practice, I believe it likely the Court will at some point review the legality of the president’s drone program against Americans.

The passage of any legislation will be contentious, in part, because any new law will have to accommodate the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief. However, statutory authorization could provide some consistency and predictability in the designation process.

Congressional action may also ease the concerns of those who believe that concentrating the power to kill Americans into the hands of one individual is a threat to liberty and a step down the road toward tyranny.

Alberto Gonzales: A Cabinet Reflecting America

Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:21:12 -0500

When then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush announced my appointment to the Texas Supreme Court, a reporter asked if the fact that I was Hispanic was a factor in my appointment. The governor responded he wanted to appoint someone who had the qualifications, integrity, and temperament to serve effectively as a justice. He went on to add that he believed also in the importance of diversity in our government.

Critics of President Barack Obama question him for (i) nominating individuals to his Cabinet who are too loyal and supportive of his policies and (ii) failing to nominate a Cabinet that reflects the diversity of America. I happen to agree that a president is entitled to choose his team of advisors; the group of individuals who will promote and defend his policies. The concern about lack of Cabinet diversity, on the other hand, is legitimate. Diversity of life experiences, culture, and education produces advisors with different judgments and viewpoints helpful to a president in identifying the reasons for our nation's problems and developing solutions.

As the leader of a country with a large Hispanic population, the president would be wise to appoint a number of Hispanics to his Cabinet. Having served as Counsel to the President, I know that some well-qualified Hispanics may have no interest in making the sacrifices required to serve in government. Still others may be unavailable because of a background issue that may be embarrassing or a barrier to confirmation. However, a large and growing number of Hispanics now hold leadership positions in companies, organizations, and governments. They are able and ready to serve if given an opportunity.

Cabinet officials shape policy and help the President chart a course for our country. They also serve as role models. Still today, as I speak at events across the country, people tell me stories of their parents and grandparents watching with pride and tears, my confirmation as Attorney General of the United States. These appointments are not just about assembling a team of advisors to execute policy, they are symbolic of the promise of America.

President Obama deserves credit for his appointment of secretaries Ken Salazar and Hilda Solis and his nomination of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Hispanic Americans rewarded him with over 70 percent of their vote in the president's re-election. Based on the projected population growth, the future of the country lies in large part in the hands of Hispanics; and to some degree, so does the president's legacy.

Nothing requires the president to appoint a diverse Cabinet, but in doing so, he makes America stronger and adds to his place in history.

Army Strong: The 1 Percent in Uniform that Protect Us

Sun, 13 Jan 2013 13:19:46 -0500

This past weekend, I attended some of the activities in connection with the U.S. Army All-American Bowl in San Antonio, Texas. Listening to the speeches about leadership, service, and education reminded me of the opportunities available in the military for every young American . . . especially for minorities without the resources to build a foundation for a successful future.

When I graduated from high school, I enlisted in the Air Force. After serving a one-year remote tour at Fort Yukon, Alaska, I received an appointment to the U.S. Air Force Academy. This began a journey that would take this carpenter's son through the State House in Austin, Texas; the White House in D.C.; and ultimately the halls of the Justice Department. None of this would have been possible if I had not joined the military.

Our country currently faces unsustainable deficits and our federal leaders have to make difficult budget cuts in the near future, including to our military. Obviously, we must eliminate waste and spending for outdated technologies and strategies. However, speaking as someone who worked in the White House during the September 11th attacks, I know the dangers that confront the United States. If Americans are to enjoy our cherished freedoms, then we must continue to have the strongest military in the world.

Several of this weekend's speakers spoke of the importance of a military force that is representative of the American population. It appears that may become more difficult to sustain. Less than 23% of the American population, age 17-24, is qualified to serve in the Army by virtue of lack of education, inability to satisfy the physical fitness requirements, or some type of background issue or problem. The challenge is more acute with respect to Hispanic youth.

Demographers agree that Hispanics represent the fastest growing minority group, and that by 2050 we will constitute 29 percent of the American population. However, there are still a significant number of Hispanics dropping out of high school. They are uneducated and unemployable. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether the Army can sustain its goal of a representative military force.

Today, 100 percent of Americans enjoy freedom because of the sacrifices of 1 percent of the American population in uniform. These men and women are special. They volunteer to stand in harm's way and to give their life if necessary. It is a commitment not everyone is able or willing to make. The special 1 percent of Americans who can, are entitled to our gratitude, and those who are soldiers rightly deserve to be called Army Strong.

Alberto Gonzales: On Immigration, Better to Be Political Opportunist Than Stubborn Fool

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 10:06:47 -0500

Republican lawmakers have recently introduced bills to provide permanent resident legal status to qualified immigrant children brought here illegally by their parents, and to increase the number of visas for foreign-born graduates with advanced high-tech degrees. Coming just weeks after the poor showing by Republicans among Hispanic voters in the November 2012 elections, critics have characterized these efforts as nothing more than a desperate attempt at political survival. This may indeed be true.

However, better to be known as a political opportunist rather than as a stubborn fool who ignores the reality of a growing demographic political tidal wave in America.

As a starting point, I support providing some form of legal status to qualified children of immigrants who go to college or serve in the military. The proposed legislation, however, provides only permanent resident status, with no pathway to citizenship. The current posture of our government favors that lawful permanent residents seek citizenship once eligible. The reason given to deny these immigrant children the same opportunity is so their parents are not rewarded for their unlawful actions. I defer to Congress on this policy.

However, the children who qualify for this program will be persons who are college educated or have served in the military. These are precisely the type of individuals we should all want as fellow citizens. If we do not provide a pathway to citizenship now, we will likely be revisiting the question of their citizenship in the near future.

If Congress is concerned about fairness to the children of parents who followed the law, then legislators could still provide a pathway to citizenship to the children of parents who did not, but require an extended wait and a higher fee for eligibility if they later wish to become citizens.

Additionally, Congress could prohibit these lawful permanent residents from filing a petition for legal status for any family member, other than a subsequently acquired spouse and minor children. This would address concerns that by providing legal status to these immigrant children, we do not provide a pathway to legal status for the parents who came into this country unlawfully.

I also support increasing the number of high-tech visas in order to encourage more highly skilled workers to enter the U.S. workforce. Opponents of this bill object to converting visa slots in the diversity-visa lottery category and making them available for high-tech graduates. I disagree. Our country is well beyond using our immigration system to achieve diversity for the sake of diversity.

In a post-911 world when so many countries bear the burden of high unemployment and crushing debt, we can no longer afford to award visas outside the normal visa rules without regard to family relationship or employment skills.

Due to the complexity of our immigration challenges, there will undoubtedly be other bills introduced to strengthen our border security, to enhance workplace enforcement, to restructure our visa process, to modernize our temporary worker program and to deal with the millions of adult immigrants already here. I welcome these reform efforts, however, I disagree with the strategy of dealing with these challenges through separate bills.

I, and many others, have long advocated for a comprehensive solution. Passing a bill that focuses on just one aspect of immigration relieves pressure on our federal leaders to deal with other complexities. With so many varied interests at stake, a comprehensive plan is the best hope for a coordinated outcome that supports our national security and economy, and reaffirms our belief in the rule of law and in the sanctity of family.

The negotiation between Congress and the President will have tremendous political ramifications. Some Republicans continue to fight reform under the belief that if immigrants become citizens many will support the Democratic Party. The answer is not to try to stop the inevitable change within the American electorate. Instead, Republicans should embrace policies that appeal to a majority of these new citizens. Respect for the rule of law, tougher border security and enhanced workplace enforcement should resonate with them, provided those policies are fair and compassionate.

They say the difference between a politician and a statesman is that the politician is concerned only about the next election, while the statesman is concerned about the next generation. Regrettably, many Americans view Washington officials as politicians. Let us hope that in the coming discussions on immigration, Americans will be introduced to a new generation of statesmen.

Alberto Gonzales: Time to Lead

Fri, 09 Nov 2012 10:14:26 -0500

Next January, Barack Obama will take the oath as President of the United States for the second time. I congratulate the President for running an effective campaign that attracted broad-based support, including from within the Hispanic community. In spite of the fact that President Obama failed on his 2008 promise to deliver immigration reform, over 70 percent of Hispanics voted for his reelection. The Des Moines Register recently reported that, when discussing second term objectives, President Obama said, “The second thing I’m confident we’ll get done next year is immigration reform.” By their votes, the Hispanic community has granted the President a second opportunity to prove he can be a man of his word.

The challenge is daunting because of the political stalemate in Washington. No President can be successful without help from Congress. Today, many believe Congress is dysfunctional, that it is an institution as divided as our country. Our framers established a system of checks and balances to guard against tyranny. Although it was never intended that our government function as efficiently as private enterprise, today very little is accomplished because of partisanship.

Effective policy on difficult issues like immigration requires accommodation by both Democrats and Republicans. We all must understand that no one will get everything they want. Even a conservative like Ronald Reagan understood the importance of compromise on immigration policy.

During the campaign, Governor Mitt Romney described President Obama as the most partisan President in history. Close to as many Americans voted against the President as for him. I do not agree with many of the President’s policies. However, I know many of the challenges faced by my community cannot be met without the leadership of the President. Although I do not believe the federal government is the answer to many of our problems, I do believe in the power of the presidency to inspire, to lead, and to help create an environment where children can succeed and achieve the American dream.

In the weeks and months to come, Republicans will engage in some serious soul searching. I hope more Republicans open their eyes and acknowledge finally the reality of the changing demographics. President George W. Bush received 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Governor Romney received just 27 percent. Thousands upon thousands of Hispanics each year turn 18. If Republicans cannot attract more Hispanic voters, then the Republican Party is doomed to more elections like 2012. In the meantime, there is much work to do. President Obama is our President, and he will need a partner to do the people’s work. A true partnership requires communication and compromise.

For the sake of our country, I hope we can find common ground. The people have spoken and it is time for our President to lead.

Alberto Gonzales: Time To Vote

Fri, 02 Nov 2012 08:57:49 -0400

As I travel the country, I sense an unease about our future. I sense dissatisfaction and a desire for a new way forward. The vote we cast in a few days for President is a tangible act for change. The poor single mom sweeping the floors at the local diner votes to be able to take her sick child to the doctor. The unemployed father on the street corner votes to get his job back at the factory. The veteran living next door votes to protect his buddies fighting overseas. The student at the community college votes for her future.

We place our hopes into the hands of a President when we cast our ballot. We look to him for reassurance in a dangerous and complex world. Although we want to believe the President is listening to our concerns, we also want a leader who will do what he believes is right for the country. Finally, we are a great nation and we want to believe in a leader who believes in us.

I was raised during a time when racial minorities had limited political power. Fortunately, we have made progress in America, and the opportunities are better today. However, more work needs to be done. In this closely contested Presidential election, Hispanics, once again, have the opportunity to shape their future; to choose the person they believe will be their champion. The vision offered by President Obama and Governor Romney could not be more different.

Much has been written about the potential influence of the Hispanic vote based on the growing Hispanic population. Unfortunately, Hispanic voter registration and voting has lagged behind other voting groups. I know some Hispanics feel they cannot afford to take time off from work to vote, or that their vote will not make a difference. As a member of a community that values self-responsibility and accountability, such thinking is surprising and disappointing. Every vote is important, of course, and the inconvenience of voting is a price I gladly pay to enjoy the rights and privileges of being a citizen.

Although I am the son of migrant farm workers who did not go to school beyond the sixth grade, I have lived the American dream. I will cast my vote for the person I believe can best help me secure that dream for my children. I will vote for prosperity and security. I will vote for values consistent with my faith. I will vote for America.

The time for candidate speeches and campaigns is at an end. It is time now for us to speak.

Alberto Gonzales: Justice For Those in America's Service

Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:47:16 -0400

The recent death of Christopher Stevens, the American Ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans at our consulate in Libya was a tragic loss of life and a sobering reminder of the challenges for American foreign policy. A week ago Sunday, our U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice, announced that the violence that led to these deaths was fueled by anger to “Innocence of Muslims,” a video parody of the prophet Muhammad.

However, at the same time of Ambassador Rice's statements, Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif claimed the attacks were premeditated, likely in response to the killing of a senior al-Qaeda leader in Libya earlier this year.

I no longer hold a security clearance, nor am I present at sensitive discussions in the Oval Office or the Situation Room with the President of the United States about top-secret national security matters. So, like virtually everyone else offering an opinion on this matter with even less national security experience, I do not know what I do not know.

However, I do know that a narrative that suggests the killings at the consulate were premeditated would raise serious questions for the U.S. government. For one, a successful premeditated attack would raise the question of why this Administration did not detect and prevent the threat. It might suggest an intelligence failure in collection and/or analysis. Were there warnings, and if so, were they ignored?

A premeditated attack might also indicate our national security policy to hunt down al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists has not had a deterrent effect. Additionally, it might be an indication that our foreign policy strategy to persuade other countries to deny sanctuary to these extremists is not succeeding.

Finally, if the killings were premeditated, then our government must decide how to respond in order to deter future attacks on American embassies and citizens overseas. The American people are understandably weary of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Consequently, our government may be reluctant to take action beyond predator strikes for fear of a miscalculation that leaves the United States in a Middle East quagmire.

The Administration has recently conceded the attacks in Libya were likely premeditated. Early reporting of these types of violent events overseas are often incomplete and inaccurate. I leave it to others to question why the Administration's initial assessment was wrong. I am more concerned about finding the guilty and bringing them to justice.

This week President Obama addresses the United Nations where he undoubtedly will again condemn the video. The President should also be clear that he will deal forcefully with anyone or any group who attacks American citizens or our embassies. The American people and those who died in America’s service deserve no less.

Alberto Gonzales: Texas Voter ID Misstep

Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:03:07 -0400

As widely reported, last week a federal court rejected a Texas law that would require voters to present photo identification to election officials before being allowed to vote. This decision comes on the heels of another federal court decision that found the Republican-controlled Texas legislature had intentionally discriminated against Hispanics in drawing new legislative districts.

The Texas voter ID law was signed into law last year. However, the law has never gone into effect because Texas is a covered jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and must receive either administrative preclearance from the Department of Justice or judicial preclearance from a federal court that a proposed change in its election laws (such as a requirement to present a photo ID) will not have the effect of diminishing minority voters' rights, and was not enacted with a specific intent to discriminate against such voters.

The Justice Department earlier objected to the new Texas law concluding it would have a disparate negative impact on minority voters. The court last week reached a similar conclusion that the legislation would impose unlawful burdens on poor minority voters.

Because voter ID laws in Indiana or Georgia were found constitutional, Texas had argued its law should be upheld. The State's argument, while predictable, misses the mark. This court was not asked to decide the constitutionality of Section 5 or of the Texas voter ID law; it was asked to decide whether the Texas law met the statutory requirements of Section 5. The court concluded Texas had failed to meet its burden.

Texas elected to impose requirements that the court described as "the most stringent in the country." The State could have chosen to allow other forms of identification, or even provided relief to alleviate the financial burden and inconvenience to Texas' poorest citizens (many or whom are black or Hispanic) of obtaining a photo ID. Now the State finds its options limited primarily to an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court of the denial under Section 5, or a direct challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5.

I wrote in a previous post that I support state efforts to ensure the sanctity of every vote, including requiring photo identification. I continue to support such measures - provided they comport with law. State action that discriminates unlawfully on the basis of race is unacceptable and wrong.

Some argue that because there is relatively little voter fraud, on balance voter ID laws do more harm than good because they discourage eligible voters from voting. The irony of this decision is that many of Texas' poorest and disadvantaged citizens will not even attempt to register to vote in November.

Turnout in Texas, like in most states, is embarrassingly low. Unfortunately, a small voter turnout magnifies the harm that results from even a small number of fraudulent votes. For all these reasons, it is my hope that Texas will successfully implement a voter ID law that protects - to the greatest degree possible - the sanctity of everyone's vote, while securing the voting rights of its most disadvantaged citizens. With the issues at stake this November, Texans can ill afford another misstep.

Alberto R. Gonzales is the former United States Attorney General and the former Counsel to President George W. Bush. He is currently the Doyle Rogers Distinguished Chair of Law at Belmont University, Of Counsel at the Nashville law firm of Waller Lansden, and a regular columnist for Fox News Latino.

Alberto Gonzales: My Father's America

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:22:26 -0400

My father, Pablo Gonzales, was born in the small Texas town of Kenedy during the Depression era of the 1930s.

As the eldest of 13 children, he took on a caretaker’s role early in life, and dropped out of school in the second grade to work and help provide for his poor family.

He spent most of his adult life picking crops and working construction.

I remember, as a boy, watching him and his brothers build the small two-bedroom house that was home to me and my seven brothers and sisters.

Until the day he died in a job-related accident during my last semester in law school, my father left for work every morning at dawn because he believed he was accountable for himself and his family.

He was a man of few words, and I never heard him complain about his job or ask for help from neighbors or organizations. He did not want government assistance, nor did he think he was entitled to it. As long as he was healthy, he was working.

I learned from his quiet example of personal responsibility and accountability.

What is important to Hispanics?

During a presidential campaign, this question is easy to ask, but hard to answer because Hispanics are diverse even within our community. Mexican Americans in Texas have different histories and experiences than Cuban Americans in Florida and Puerto Rican Americans in New York.

However, there are values that unite most Hispanics I know.

We believe in opportunity, not more government. We want a job, not a handout. We want to be judged on our achievements, not our skin color. We are risk takers willing to bet on ourselves and start small businesses. We believe in God and in family. We love America, a country that gives us so much opportunity.

This is who we are and what I believe.

Today, there is a debate in America over the appropriate role of government.

According to one recent estimate, one in five Americans is completely dependant on government assistance or subsidy.

Without question, our government should help needy citizens who are sick, elderly, or disabled if help is not otherwise available from family members, churches, and local organizations.

However, there appears to be a growing number of people in our society who believe they are entitled either to certain kinds of jobs or to government benefits if those jobs are not available.

My father, a proud man who worked hard for everything we had and every meal we ate, would not understand such thinking.

"Just give me a chance to succeed,” was his prayer.

If he were living in today’s tough economy, he would find work in the fields, on the docks and in the kitchens if necessary because he believed it was his responsibility to provide for himself and his family.

That was just his way. That used to be the American way.

Alberto Gonzales: Immigration Solution Requires Compromise

Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:00:02 -0400

Last week, President Obama announced that undocumented immigrants brought to America as children and who meet certain qualifications will be eligible to apply for a two-year work permit and avoid deportation.

Whether you agree with the President’s decision or not, the order has reinvigorated the debate over immigration.

Combined with the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on the constitutionality of Arizona S. B. 1070, momentum may be building toward a serious dialogue on comprehensive immigration reform.

I agree we should help innocent, immigrant children who know America as their only home. They should not be punished for the sins of their parents.

Regrettably, however, the President's decision does not secure our borders or discourage employers from hiring undocumented immigrants, nor deal with VISA over-stayers or with the millions of undocumented immigrants who entered this country as adults.

For this reason, the President's actions fall far short of meeting our immigration challenges and instead, may complicate matters by relieving pressure to find a comprehensive solution.

By choosing now to suspend deportations through executive order, when he previously announced to a Hispanic audience he had no authority to do so, the President appears to have made a political calculation here to win Hispanic votes.

While some may argue there is never a wrong time to do the right thing, those children deported during the last three years because of the President's failure to use authority he now claims to have will undoubtedly argue that the President did indeed choose the wrong time to do the right thing.

Federal prosecutors have discretion under federal charging policy in making charging decisions, generally on a case-by-case basis, depending on circumstances and law enforcement priorities and resources.

I agree that precious law enforcement resources should be allocated first to deal with serious criminal wrongdoing. However, the President's announcement that the government will fail to enforce the law for an entire class of individuals subjects him to criticism that he is ignoring the will of Congress and violating his oath of office.

Fundamentally, our immigration challenges are much too complicated to be addressed effectively through a temporary executive action that can be reversed by the next President or Congress.

These issues require the combined wisdom of the White House and the Congress. I support a more comprehensive approach through legislation that will uphold the rule of law and complement our national security and economic policies.

How the President's announcement will influence the Hispanic vote in this fall's election will depend on Gov.Romney's response. Many Hispanics who are law-and-order believers and who favor a more secure border are sympathetic to the plight of these innocent children.

Many will applaud the President's actions to help these children because of Congress’s failure to act.

I understand the Governor's hesitation to decline to say whether, if elected President, he would overturn President Obama's order since it may appear he, too, is responding to political pressure.

If, however, in saying the presidential order will be overtaken by events, the Governor means that he supports and will fight for comprehensive immigration reform if elected, then he should say so unequivocally…and soon.

There is division in the Republican Party over these issues and this is an opportunity for the governor to exercise leadership, guiding the Party to an understanding of the need for comprehensive immigration reform.
As a conservative and a Hispanic, and like President Ronald Reagan, I have come to terms with the realization that we must all compromise.

Not everyone will get everything they want if we are to achieve an immigration policy that is effective and consistent with our values. President George W. Bush tried to find a solution. The time is right to try again to find common ground.

Alberto Gonzales: Judging the Judges

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:09:14 -0400

The U.S. Supreme Court is completing its work on several high profile cases this term, including a challenge to the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act. Recently, the President and various congressional leaders have urged the “conservative” members of the Court to defer to the elected branches and uphold the law on the basis of Congress’ power to regulate commerce, saying to do otherwise would be an act of judicial activism.

In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Court established the authority of the judiciary to review the constitutionality of executive and legislative acts. In evaluating a law passed by Congress, judges should begin with the presumption that a law is constitutional. However, the presumption of constitutionality is just that –a presumption. This is only the beginning of the judicial inquiry, not the end.

The framers of the Constitution provided federal judges with life tenure to insulate them from political pressure. For that reason, I doubt the Justices feel bullied by comments from other government officials. However, to question publicly the motives of the Justices before they render a decision on a high profile, politically charged case regrettably may give the impression to the general public that the Court is either unprincipled, incompetent, or subject to intimidation.

I could not disagree more with those who argue in advance of a decision in this case that the Court would be engaged in judicial activism if it struck down the law. Without first understanding how the Justices arrived at their decision, such criticism is premature and dangerous to the Court as an institution because its power and legitimacy is dependent upon the public’s belief in the integrity of the Justices deciding cases free from political or personal considerations.

Judges should be accountable for their decisions. History tells us they sometimes get it wrong; and when judges err they rightly should be subjected to constructive criticism based on a full understanding of the reasoning behind their decision. It is through this form of thoughtful dialogue that our courts engage in self correction. Criticism is appropriate, threats and intimidation are not.

John Roberts and Sam Alito were recommended by me and others to President George W. Bush because of their understanding of the limited role of the judiciary in our system of government. We anticipated they would exercise judicial restraint to hear only actual cases and controversies, and give appropriate deference to the elected branches on questions of policy. I believe they will be thoughtful and disciplined in reaching a decision grounded in the Constitution and respectful of the checks and balances in our system of government.

Alberto R. Gonzales is the former United States Attorney General and the former Counsel to President George W. Bush. He is currently the Doyle Rogers Distinguished Chair of Law at Belmont University, and Counsel at the Nashville law firm of Waller Lansden.

Alberto Gonzales: Counting Hispanic Votes - A Mission For Converts

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:36:10 -0400

It is no secret that Governor Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, faces a challenge attracting Hispanic support in November's presidential election. What is not so obvious is why a Republican candidate is having such a difficult time connecting with a group generally considered conservative on issues relating to faith, family, and country. After all, in part due to the policies of President Obama, Hispanic Americans suffer more than other groups from higher unemployment, falling household median income, and a rising poverty rate. Hispanics are also unhappy with the President's deportation policies and his failure to honor his campaign pledge to them to push for immigration reform.

However, in spite of these circumstances, many polls show President Obama enjoys a significant double-digit level of support from Hispanics over Governor Romney. Shared values and failed economic policies apparently are not enough to offset the inconsistent - sometimes half-hearted - attempts of the Republican Party to make Hispanics feel welcomed and supported.

Governor Romney will have to counter that perception and find a way to develop trust with the Hispanic community. Policies to stimulate the economy and create jobs, and GOP support nationwide for Hispanic Republican candidates will help. However, the Governor must connect directly with Hispanics and convince them that, like President George W. Bush, despite being born of privilege he understands their struggles, values their worth, shares their dreams, and will fight for them. We want to believe in someone who believes in us. Family and friends are important in our culture. This is personal for us and the Governor must make a personal connection in order to convert unbelievers into believers. Many Hispanics will be looking for that relationship and listening for the Governor’s vision of what is still possible in America for Hispanics who get an education, work hard, and pursue a dream.

Both political parties covet the potential votes in the growing Hispanic population, and both campaigns have stepped up their outreach. Governor Romney, already described by a few in the media as “too slick,” should resist calls to engage in a campaign to sell himself to Hispanics as if marketing a car or soft drink. What is required of him here goes well beyond commercial considerations. There is a moral imperative for our leaders to reach out to a significant population in this country and inspire them to participate in its governance. This election is a mission to win converts, and a fight for the life and soul of the Republican Party.

One of the challenges for the Governor is the Party's harsh rhetoric over immigration. Many of my Hispanic friends believe in, as I do, the rule of law and the need for a secure border, but they are dismayed at verbal assaults that sound more anti-Hispanic than anti-illegal immigration. It is good policy and good politics for Republicans to push for comprehensive immigration reform legislation that support our national security and economic policies. However, the tone of the debate surrounding those efforts should be civil and compassionate.

Governor Romney has an opportunity to show Americans whether he is a politician who is focused solely on this next election - or a statesman focused on the next generation. If he proves to be the former, his election is in doubt and the future of the Republican Party in jeopardy; if the Governor is the latter, he has the opportunity to build a strong foundation of support within the Hispanic community that will serve him well in November, and help position the GOP in 2012 and beyond.