customers, i've been longing to myself. i have an appointment to meet on monday, he continued, referring to a family lawyer and i'm probably going to jail term if he broke down than really solving. andrew rose from the ottoman across the room and awkward we drifted in his honor of his father for a few seconds. at that he started to cry, too. he got up and returned to the ottoman. through his years he said but there was all this money. where did it go? the money is gone. i've got 50 billion in my life of devotees. his voice trailed off. andrew stopped. 50 million? 50 billion. you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. next, jay wexler examines the constitution scattered among the better known amendments throughout the 8,000 word document. this is about 40 minutes.

>> good evening and thank you for coming to support your local independence. my name is evin and i'm the yvette director here at the brookline book smith. i hope he will pick up on a hour calendars. we have great reading signed up with john and larry baliles next week. and michael owls well as the night of staff recommendations leader in the month. also, you may have noticed we are filming tonight. so if you could please make sure to turn off all sell phones and things like that, any machines you may have. you can follow all of our defense through the web site, brooklinebooksmith.com or you can purchase bugle editions. as we move into the presidential year you can be sure to hear a lot of butter were founding fathers, but they believed, but they said, what they meant to say, and certain parts of the constitution will doubtlessly be quoted again and again. tonight is not about any of that

nonsense. it's about the other nonsense. because tonight we have the pleasure of welcoming back jay wexler, professor of law at boston university. in his first book, holy helabalouse he discovered the humorous road trip. in his new book the odd clauses he examines the foundation of the government, the u.s. constitution permits strange and rarely provisions from the states control of intoxicating liquids to the government ability to allow private citizens to fight pirates for personal gain. in seeking out the antiquated but strangely specific and the just plain odd coming he shares new light on the constitution and all its glory and he is damned funny, too. please join me in giving a big welcome to professor jay wexler. [applause]

>> thank you every body. thanks for coming out in the rain to this terrific bookstore and for hosting me here again. book tv is here filming. so when you heckle me if you could keep your swearing to a minimum that would be great. [laughter] i was on book tv one other time with my holy helabalouse book and was an even in mexico which i thought went pretty well. and then add a couple of weeks later but even was on tv, so i tune in and was pretty nervous because i was not in a sustained way. i was really concerned and i turned on and about five minutes into what i realized every other sentence i say "uhhh" like an idiot. some hiding under the blankets. so i got up and i looked at my

e-mail and i got this e-mail from somebody in hawaii and said i want very much to hear when you had to say however your habit of interjecting "uhhh" repeatedly is so distracting even your humor and pleasant voice did not help. [laughter] thinks a lot. there was a nightmare. what a man to do is explain my book and most of my time i think explaining why i wrote the book and why it's important to know about the old walls of the constitution. not that much in the questions and answers i can sign books if you're interested. the articles is a sneaky fantastic stocking stuffer providing that it is on the larger side and the same time that won't fit. so, what the book is about is

about ten lesser known clauses of the constitution. i'm going to read the first two paragraphs to give you a sense of what i was up to. the constitution of the united states contained some of the most powerful and well known little provisions of the history of the world. the first amendment comfort example, gives us the right to speak our mind without government interference. the equal protection clause of the amendment stops the state from discriminating against because of our race and gender. and the fourth amendment and they continually remind us prevent them from surging our homes without a warrant. i would bet in the past 20 years of 000 books have been written but these important clauses and for good reason. this book however is not one of them. instead this book will shine a light on the constitution's lesser-known carless and the unsung heroes it's crazy uncles. to put another way of the constitution were a zoo and the first and 14th amendment or a giraffe and panda bear

respectably than this book is about the constitution's wombats and that your foxes and believe me if you never laid off is on a fox before you are in for a treat. so there you go. i wrote about the temples is it was down to about 24 to 5,000i have to think about why i wanted to include certain clauses and which i wanted to include and i decided on the ten to discuss that promote or illustrate the key points about our government or democratic functions in very specific ways and in ways that i thought were interesting to write about and read about so i'm going to tell you what those are pretty quickly before i turn to why i decided to read the books of this incompatibility to walls and that is the one that says if you're a member of congress you can also be an executive officer and which may very well disqualify scott brown from the national guard but it is a separate issue. second is the weights and measures calls that has the power to set the lead in the

united states, so if you were ever madd we don't have the metric system you should blame congress. the recess appointments clause is that says the president can use the recess of the senate to appoint somebody without the senate confirmation. and one of the interesting questions is what counts as a recent visit the break in between the two sessions of the congress or is it like any time they do offer a cigarette. the original jurisdiction calls provides when one state assumes another state to go for the supreme court of the united states which could but never does hold the trial and it has done a few times the for example in misery through illinois because illinois changed the direction of the chicago river setting tuberculosis on to st. louis it had sued for ackle in the supreme court. the national bourn citizen calls is the fifth topic in my book. among the very few prerequisites for the office spelled out in the constitution this is the proverbial trade in the punch

bowl. [laughter] it says you can't be president unless you are a natural born in citizen and you heard about that in the news and it is really stupid calls. section two of the 21st amendment, you may not know, the 21st amendment is the one that ended prohibition. that is section 1. section two makes it unconstitutional to bring liquor across the state lines in violation of law and it's one of the only two places in the constitution which where an individual can break the constitution where it was the direct peter of individuals the rest is about the government. so there are two things you can do if you want to violate the constitution. you can either engage in slavery or you can bring a be year across the state line violation. the letters of the clause authorizes the converse, tells congress it can authorize the private ships to fight privates to beat the pirates. the title of the vv calls says the government cannot meet you a duke and the government officials of the united states can't accept the dukeship and

the third amendment says that the soldiers or the army cannot quarter their soldiers in private houses without consent, a practice that in the 18th century led directly to the tea party, the realty party coming of our two-party. i got the idea from this book, i got the idea for this book about ten years ago. i was working at the office of legal counsel which is a small office in the justice department, which gives constitutional advice to the executive branch. it's the office which made the news when long, long run after i left for the torture amendment. and even though in will school i learned a lot about the constitution and new study about the constitution and the law school you only study certain parts of it. yesterday the first amendment,

that panda bear it cetera, but it's the legal counsel and studied i had a deal with lots of these little odd couples is that nobody really knows anything about or i certainly didn't know anything about. one day my friend ruby was running around wondering whether president clinton could accept some sort of ball or something from an african village or whether that violated the titles and nobody calls and i said the titles of the mobility clause, interesting. what is the title of the noble lit equals? i've never heard the title of nobility calls. i don't know what happened in that case but i decided that day i would write a book about these clauses which is something i wanted to do and waited until after i got the tenure to do. [laughter] now, let me talk a little bit about why i think it's important to write or rather to read, why i wanted to write and it's important for people to read about the odd clauses.

i was originally -- i have to admit motivated by the kind of mad cap trivia aspect of the clauses like a state sues another state in the supreme court and they are wacky but my editors, published house which is a fabulous press, they are wonderful people, very earnest and they said we are not publishing a trivia book. okay? so think about why it's important to study these all the clauses. so i thought a lot about that issue and i gave workshops at the law school and such and professors came up with theories of the oddness and said well, they suggest blah blah blah -- they didn't actually say that, but in any event i came up with some thoughts about why we ought to study these clauses through these discussions with people who had some great ideas about

what is important about these things and so here's one. i think you get a much better understanding of what the framers are up to in writing the constitution by reading the whole thing instead of just little pieces. to get a lot of insight into the purpose is and what they were afraid of and what they wanted to do and what they were scared of. my colleague, bling and colleague made me realize this a while ago. if you read the constitution you get a sense for how paranoid the framers of the constitution were about the concentration of power, how worried they were and how people would be corrupt and the checks and balances that they put into the constitution to stop that kind of thing. for example there is article 1 sections six that says members of congress cannot be arrested going to and from the congress, to and from their work. what a weird thing to put in the constitution, right? a fundamental law of the

government and your choice is to put something in about how the president for example cannot arrest a member of congress going to and from work. how paranoid must they have been in order to think that if they had to specifically prohibit that and so i think if you read the whole constitution you get a sense of what else well as a lot of the things. second point is that a lot of them and do very important work even if the average person or lawyer has never heard of them or the media never talks about them when it never, it never makes it to any court of third amendment is one example when the army asked to order some soldiers in your condo. but i want to give another taste that's more important and it's a little complicated but the payoff is worth that. there's something called the an eligible because. television is a visual media and so i brought this.

this is the ineligible equals i wish i had a mirror and over here this by the way is the fox mascot. the indelibly clause basically says i don't know if you'll be able to see it any way if you are a member of congress and exceed position office is created while you are in congress or if the salary in that position is increased while you are in congress and you can't take that position you can't be appointed to that position. it's to stop the self dealing. you vote to raise the salary by $100,000 that sounds like. the framers of the was a very bad ideas of it is inevitable because of the constitution.

now it's come up several times over history and there is a little move that the government had used to sort of get around this. was called the saxby fix because it was in connection with the attorney named william saxby. if the person who is in congress and takes the executive office whose salary has been raised but before he or she takes the office congress passes a bill reducing the salary of original amount then there is no violation. the idea is they didn't actually get any increase in salaries of there is no problem. ..

reagan appointed board. work was defeated. ginsberg was defeated in that mixture for various reasons. anthony kennedy was appointed anthony kennedy of course makes the loss of the whole country by himself now, including 1918 when he was deciding vote and planned parenthood which appalled river since they.

so you see how the interpretation of this cause really exact change history in a way that i don't think anybody really knows about except for the attack she discovered it, who i took it from. and now do. there's a similar issue with hillary clinton, who violates the cause of secretary of state. want to find out why it's okay for her to be there in that office coming off to read the book. okay, that's recently met one other in about the odd causes this because the classes are not logically hot potatoes. if there have potatoes you would know about them. and because there is no long line of cases go out with them, they are easy to understand. it is easier to understand issues about how to interpret the comp to teach men if you are thinking about the first amendment or 14% of their more complicated cause. this is an example. i think if you look at this and i really don't know how well this is working, but i think there's a very strong argument

that the text of this provision pretty much means that the reagan justice department was right in that you can't take a position of the salary was raised while you were in office, even if congress passes the latte the latte factor but it rich in ideas. there's arguments on the other side. but it says no senator or representative shall be appointed to any civil office if the volumes have been raised. on the other hand, the purpose -- the purpose of the provision is to prevent self-dealing. and this follows the path of our good day. so if you believe that we should have a purpose of this interpretation of the constitution, you might think it's okay for someone to take an executive position at the salary is rolled back to its original amount. do you think about these provisions allegedly take textual interpretation or

whether we want to be strict constructionist or pragmatic interpreters. it's a lot easier to do with these little causes that it is the first amendment and 14th amendment. finally, sometimes these classes to make front page news for if not front-page news, you know, page seven years. we are done with this set up at the mascot of. nevermind. i mounted log called the odd causes watch blog, which i'm in connection with spoke in order to keep tabs on the out clause activity out there. it turns out in a few months i've been running that law, a lot of questions have come up in the news about your causes, not necessarily once i've written about. but for example, a while back

president obama filed the extension to the patriot act within autocad. he was in france. the law had to be signed. he wasn't around, so he directed someone to sign it within autocad. does that count as signing under article i, section seven cause? some people thought no. there are reasons to think that maybe ray. remember the debt ceiling debate? there is a question that was debated -- the secretary of treasury raised the possibility to not be the government itself. president obama can you know i really saved the debt ceiling using the authority of section four of the 14th amendment, which says the public that the united states shall not be questioned. [laughter] you know, advice to constitution writers to passive voice is not really a good tool for constitutional draft and i don't

think. i looked into that some and i think there is no way president obama could use that provision to base the date unilaterally. but it was that there is a possibility. recently there has been talk in the blogosphere about whether the occupied wall street movement as a sort of constitutional basement. he cause they think the article for coming which guarantees the state of the reform of government. ec causes come up a lot in the news if you're looking for them. thanks for causes in the book, of course some of them have also made the news lately. the cause of legislative punishment came up when congress thought about the funding plan. if the question was that would be legislative punishment of planned parenthood to take away money or not. there's a natural born citizen clause, which of course is given rise to the argument that

president obama of course is not a natural born citizen. i don't really want to talk about that, but it's out there. there's emotional interesting question, which is whether john mccain is a natural born citizen. that's actually hard question because he was born in the panama canal zone. it's not clear whether that's nonetheless a natural born citizen. the arguments in favor are better than him not. it's not crystal clear. finally, there's the pirates in the letters of marks. i'm going to close in about two pages from the book did not take questions. the letters of market reprisal clause. the congress shall have power to grant letters of market reprisal. article i, section eight. americans adore pirates. we dress up like pirates on halloween and bellow or maybe

our friends and feed imaginary treats to the invisible parrots perched on her shoulders. we send every september 19 elaborating international talk like a pirate day indication which interface the language settings to pirate mode. but despite the curiously romantic appeal, pirates actually. they did back in 17th and 18th centuries in a low 6600 ships with canada's fourth and they continue today as they use their high-tech gps equipment not a magic weapons to recount it among the horn of africa and elsewhere. in april 2009 a huge unarmed american cargo ship carrying food for international relief organizations was on its way to kenya when for pirates attacked the tennessee's richard philip the alabama captain and demand length of dollars in ransom. naval officers on the uss bainbridge a destroyer in the indian ocean at the time of the attack negotiated for days but to no avail.

in the lifeboat to paris for a under excepted to offer to tell them assuredly behind the american warship. in the meantime a crack team of snipers have been flown to the area where they parachuted in to see them were brought up with the bainbridge. tensions have been high for days where they repeatedly took the cats on a thoughtless fire tear gas and april 12th, president monica to go ahead the snipers to start sniping. the navy marksman.night vision glasses only for the right moment when two of the pirates got their heads out of the race goes patch and let there be many pirate became visible, the three seals fire. rescuers from the poor and rich xml pirates dead. captain phillips was rescued unharmed and amazingly the seals had fired only three bullets in the crisis. in the wake of the affair there is a core celebrating heroism of captain phillips and the navy

seals. this was the company debates about what to do over the increasing problem of somali pirates. the naval operation entity other than the crisis had allegedly caused tens of millions of dollars. might there be some better and cheaper way to fight these pesky pirates? among recommendations can a curious one from the controversial libertarian leaning republican congressman from texas on a ron paul. representative paul suggested the government could authorize private vessels to fight paris in return for bounty money. that with the u.s. government could use the market rather than its own firepower to solve the piracy problem. as one supporter of proposal observed a free 100 american rambus patrolling the seas see his probably a good way of getting the job done. that way, with a solution to constitutional? can the u.s. government contract at its key naval functions? representative paul certainly thought so. when pols propose that the government would use its power under article i to grant underserved market reprisal to

private vessels. these letters out there is out there is a private shift by pirates on the government's behalf. this seems a kind of an integrated solution to you, what would it be at the united states has not issued to market reprisal in almost 200 years. that's it. so that's all i have. i'm happy to take questions that people have them. so the floor is open for questions now. and remember this is on national tv, so this could be your chance to have your voice on national tv. actually come to reality shoes and producers of reality shows monitor closely the tv to get future contestants. that is how smokey got on for the 2004 meeting of the country. [laughter] yes. [inaudible] >> a couple months ago about scott brown been ineligible. i am wondering coming to think

think it's unconstitutional for him to be in the national guard and saving the senate? and secondly, do you have any thoughts on why it is only unconstitutional to be an executive branch and the legislative branch at the same time? john marshall as secretary of state and chief justice at the same time. >> well, so first of all, thank you for that blog post. what's the blog? well, already. so apparently you actually asked him face to face. current shoe in violation of the incompatibility clause click >> the national guard if he got elected. >> immediately get that. >> he blew me off. >> he blew you off. i haven't an independent research on the national guard question. i've been doing other things and so, my feeling is probably it is unconstitutional. but i haven't done the work so i

feel confident saying that on my own behalf. i did in the block ask this guy, his name is seth tillman who teaches in ireland and miss everything about every clause of the constitution. i said what you think because he's a person in the sum is everything. he says is probably unconstitutional under various different theories that have been floated about what the incapacity quizzes about. my guess is that it is unconstitutional. think about the reason why we don't want to inflict that. i don't know anything about what scott brown is thinking, but the reason why we don't want to have someone who's in the army come in the military at the same time are not discern the military at the same time there in congress is because coming in outcome is that the person the military doesn't want to go to war personally, so that might alter their vote to not go to war. but maybe they want to go to war because it will make him a hero. so they vote for the war or push for the war. those are the kinds of conflicts

of interest the framers were really worried about. now, the judicial branch was not powerful i think maybe the answer and 18th century. i don't really know the answer as to why there's no compatibility between congress and judicial branch. the specific in the framers were thinking about what to pack this decaying authoring members of parliament key executive offices. that is the corruption that they saw and that they knew about and were really worried about. i don't think they were really thinking about judicial branch is anything powerful or anything people want positions in the judicial branch, which i think is the case. some people rejected them. they didn't even want to be chief justice. no thanks kind of thing. so that might be the answer. other questions? yes. >> world when you read the book if we haven't already, so we are going to know that 10 causes you selected. could you give us a sampling of

10 or 15 that she deselected? >> settle in. well, let's see which one did i reject? there's one class called the property cause, which i think it's very interesting. it is because that gives gives congress the power to regulate the property of the united states. and it's why the government can regulate national park for national forests and stuff like that. i worked on that issue -- the cause quite a bit when i said the justice department. the question came up about whether the president of the monuments in the middle of the ocean. mr. nonissues about the property cause. that is something i thought about. but it is disabused of the idea that aside pretty quickly. another cause that is interesting is the pardon caused. that is something -- there's lots of weird interesting issues. for example, can the president

pardon himself? but that is an odd issue about a knockout cause better than rejecting them. i thought about the expo site will close for a while, which is the cause that prohibits retroactive punishment so you can punish somebody for something that was an illegal the time they did it. but the workshop at the university had, someone in the audience that i can imagine a list of a causes that have both amendments in the expect the cause. i thought that was very commiserate to go. i'm trying to think. those are the three to come to mind. we can talk and go over this for a couple hours later. go through it. >> one thing that surprised me while i was going through the book and reading was that quite often these do actually seem to come up in relatively pressing issues. for example, president bush did make an appointment while

congress was out of session and just sort of claimed one of the causes you cite. so do you think these types of clauses should be expunged? or do you think they serve an important role -- do you think it's important for him to be out to do something? >> so that's a great question. it's hard to answer in general. most of the causes i talk about in the book i think are very important and i think most of them play very important role, usually quietly, like the original jurisdiction clause because of one state wants to sue another state, where they're going to to do that? they are not going to sue in their own quarter. that's not going to go over well with the other states. so go to the supreme court. that makes perfect sense. that's true for a number of causes. as a natural born citizen class, which should be expunged.

but that is unique in the buckeye egg. the recess appointment causes an interesting case because that was a cause that had originally made a lot of sense back in the day where you couldn't just sit overbeck the capital and there isn't enough to get you back in case somebody died in the to be an appointment. it could take a long time for somebody to get the senate back together to do an appointment for much appointment for much of a confirmation. so it was very important in those days for the president to be able to appoint somebody during the recess. now i am not so sure how important it is and now of course the e. recess appointments are made, they are made not because he can't get the senate back on, but because this is the only way to appoint somebody without getting confirmation. that is arguably a problem that both parties do. and so, that is something interesting about the recess appointment causes and finish you can look at and how they should be interpreted because whatever you think the rule

should be for the democrats is going to be same for republicans. there is no political gene either way. you have to decide what you think it really means and what you think the point is and how we should interpret it the respect it about politics. other curries? >> thank you first of all for having a sense of humor about all of this. i think sometimes it gets lost at these things are dynamic and make it talk touch about entire race and then we think they are dead when in fact they are there underneath everything we do every day. so i like the way bring it to life and i'm hoping sometime to read a children's book we take these animals and bring everything to life in a funny way. >> i thought about writing a children's book about dinosaurs and food, like ftse radix and the butter is soros.

>> there you go. last night i sent idea, actually. he couldn't be here tonight because he is at a hockey game, but never mind. >> more seriously, have you bring the constitution to life in a way where people are talking about it in context? it seems like people cherry pick different parts of the constitution. because of that we should do this. it seems a lot of times the conversation started on the wrong foot, on the wrong floor, maybe in the runs on. maybe not even on this planet. and that is not partisan. it just seems like were not good at going back to original intent and context. >> okay, i would not -- an outcome he lost a little use in intent or context. that's a controversial view. do you want to do it according to its original view? what is the name? that's a hard issue in one you disagree about that. the question asked about why do we collect the rails and what we

do about it? the answer is because people want to just buy whatever policy positions they have a use in the constitution and see source for what they believe. if you start with a policy conclusion and then argue the constitution supports you, that's a very good fruitful way to go about institution. much better to understand the station before you start thinking about specific political problems, which is hard of course in one reason why we think about what causes make sense. another is it's hard to think about the equal protection clause and affirmative action without thinking about your policy preferences for the due process cause an abortion. it is hard to abstract is really difficult issues the way. so i can get is worth talking about the constitution by itself and faster in the conversation come which is one thing is that you do the constitution as it stands before we start thinking

about how it applies to the very difficult divisive issues that can't solve these problems every day. so i guess that's my attempt at an answer. [inaudible] >> you're welcome. the >> i know your book is on the out clauses. and the odd causes are not the same thing as the causes. but if you're to have a chapter on the stupidest class, what would it be? >> right, the professor is referring to a book that was published a few years ago, kind of a collection of essays, which is not what i'm doing. but if i had -- i don't know, i do agree with the people who think the natural born citizen causes a cause. , whether it is i don't know. the people who say that the apportionment of two senators to every state, regardless of whether they are california or rhode island seems kind is

stupid. i do not appear people in the sand should feel powerful. i mean, they have a lot of say both msn and indian beauty pageants -- national beauty pageants. but that is kind of a stupid cause if you look at it these days. those are two good candidates for stupid causes. you know, the reason why wrote this book other than the fact that it was dirty but was i was more interested that wears the tent and not set then, thank you for your question. >> i read in an article that there's a possibility to make a trillion dollars coin. paper money is limited to how you can do that in coins or not. do you know anything about that? >> i know not if single thing about that.

the >> i think a ceo law professor who is writing about it. >> i'm sure it will happen right away. and mackey said it would never happen and i read something about it. booker right into the treasury. >> i think one of the more sensible remarks i've heard about the workings of washington d.c. was on the cabinet positions have to be confirmed, yet the chief of staff who directs assess event and his staff. would you like to comment on that? remix some people are very important members of the executive branch or close advisers to the president. the white house counsel is one, the main policy of environmental maker for the government as. lots of people in the office of management and budget. a lot of people are close to the president who don't want to be confirmed. the idea is the president should be able when we talk not about the cabinet, but the people who

are sitting down with day-to-day planning a strategy should be people he feels very, very comfortable with. i think there is one thing -- without having thought about it much before her off the top of my head, i think that is a fair arrangement personally. absolutely. and it's worth knowing about, right? these are people who are very, very important in the government as close political advisers, they don't have to be confirmed. >> the chief of staff uses that the white house for president. >> imagine if he was summoned to the president didn't like. that could be a real -- yes. >> i've lost track and all the details other than natural born citizen causes one that you covered. >> it is. it was. >> could you elaborate on why you feel that is a ridiculous

cause click >> i think it's ridiculous because i don't think that one necessarily has to be a natural born to defend to be loyal to the united states and be a superb, excellent president in all respects. you know, the fact that somebody is born -- schwarzenegger is now, i do not that's a good example now, but that was a classic example of people use. why should arnold short snake or not be able to be the president of the united states? maybe there's some reason. but then isn't that he was born in austria. so that's why. i mean, the original constitution says in fact i can't know exactly what it says, but basically there is an exception to other people who ended up being president for his however many presidents were not natural born citizens. they were all born in england. the first citizen that was martin van buren.

you know, there's that famous people were not loyal to the united states because they were born abroad? i don't think there's any necessary connection, whatever that might mean and loyalty or duty to the country. this year it seems was they would be a foreign prince would be brought in from france, napoleon's nephew or something like that is an apocryphal story. that's not quite right, but almost right. bigger is not really my forte. so, a foreign -- i don't think we need to really worry about that much. we have for example the elections that could handle that problem. so i think it's really stupid. it also sends a message that if you're not a natural born at a senate committee report numbers he is, even you're naturalized another whole life over here and even if you than the u.s. military come you're still not good not to be our president. as i was on a natural born citizen, that would be offensive to me.

show a close-up? dynamic very much -- wow under the wire. this better be good. >> i have a question about your next book. >> good. >> what about odd pieces of legislation? maybe it's cheap route, too many odd kinds of statutes running around that would not make a great book. there's some really crazy things you >> pacifico authorship of her? because if you read the book you'll find out the die-cast vehicle over here if you would read the book. you looked at me like i was crazy and walked away. not this book, but a different boat. state versus state: 10 greatest jurisdictions of all time. i've gotten comments that said it would be a good but. what's your question? [laughter] i don't know. i'm not interested in that boat. odd legislation?

in kansas it's illegal to drink shakes without a cover. or whatever. it doesn't say that exactly. >> media rate. and now i'm on television. >> you should expect a call from big are their any time. okay, thank you very much for coming. i appreciate it. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> for more information about jay wexler, visit his web type, jay? .com. ..