sheep and shepherds but he was referring to the fact how important it is for the people in the roman catholic church, the priests, the people that minister to people some understand how people live. it's an important admonition for politicians too. i think if more of my colleagues would get out of washington and would smell like the flock as pope francis said, meet people trying to make a go of it on a minimum wage, put food on their table to support their families, to put a little aside maybe for retirement someday, all of those are so important. and when we're seeing people working harder and harder and frankly getting paid less and less money for it because of the decline of the buying power of the minimum wage, we know it's time for change. i ask my colleagues to support the fair minimum wage act. it will pull millions of people out of poverty. it will help our economy because it will put money in peoples pockets that they will immediately spend generating other economic activity and

creating jobs. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i thank the presiding officer. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i understand that s. 2262 introduced earlier today by senator shaheen, portman and others is tefrbg. i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 2262. mr. brown: i ask for a second reading and object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for a second time on the next legislative day.

mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes bits it adjourn until tuesday, april 29, 2014. the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the leaders to be reserved for their use later in the day. that following leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half, the republicans controlling the second half, and at 11:00 a.m. the senate proceed to executive session under the previous order. further, that following the votes the senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. finally the majority control the time from 2:15 until 3:30, republicans control the time from 3:30 until 4:45. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: there will be six roll call votes, mr. president, at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow.

if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

an entire process of reforms this year. the agency should be more transparent, we think. they should focus on what they are doing with licensing which

is there core mission. we don't want them getting off into a net neutrality and trying to death help governments with the internet. we don't want them up in privacy in data security issues. so it is time to narrow their focus and get them back to their core mission. >> the telecommunications issues members of congress are considering this session tonight on the communicator's at 8:00 eastern on teewun -- c-span to. >> a staff writer for cq roll-call with news about new york congressman michael grimm indicted on federal counts. what are some of the main charges against them? >> his ownership and operation of a health food store. he was the honor prior to his run for congress in 2010. it was called health alicia's, the upper east side of manhattan the charges against him relate

to accusations that he withheld roughly a billion dollars for the federal government over three or four years, was not filing proper tax returns, was paying his employees under the table and with cash. he was hiring undocumented immigrants. he was having a -- he was maintaining a second set of payroll records in order to hide the actual payroll situation that he had set up. he also is being accused of lying under oath in january of 2010 there was a lawsuit brought against him by two former employees saying that they were not paid overtime or minimum wage. michael grimm allegedly said that he did not use of personal e-mail accounts, which a grand jury said that he did. they also said that he did not talk about or deny that he had

paid employees in cash, which they also said they have evidence to suggest the contrary >> now, you have been writing about this. what has been his response and your latest article? >> he has not responded to the charges directly. he held a press conference after his arraignment outside a courthouse in new york a little after 1:00 p.m. today. he said that he was innocent, that his legal team would handle the charges and they would fight tooth and nail to exonerate him. in the meantime he said he would continue to stay in office, and he would be seeking reelection in the fall. >> and a witch hunt he is calling it. a former u.s. marine and has even worked on white-collar crime before. >> that's right. he is a former u.s. marine and then he went into the fbi as an undercover agents nothing out white-collar crime on wall street actually. so the legal procedures here should not be new to him. he did call this a witch hunt. he said this is character

assassination. he, again, is not speaking directly about any of the charges, but he is saying he is innocent. he called himself in his press conference the man of honor and integrity. >> a sitting member of congress to has been indicted, what rules in the house apply that the effective here? >> there is nothing that could, you know, force him to step aside or step down. the response determining what comes next and whether there is any pressure to step down, so far this speaker, the leader cantor and others have not weighed in. people are still coming back into town. the speaker should say something to marline his weekly press conference, if not before. in the meantime we have historical precedent for members of congress being indicted and dealing with political scandals and still serving. you know, ted stevens was indicted and went to trial and was found guilty at the time and

2,000 -- 2010, i believe. and he went on to be defeated by his challenger. there was a situation and -- a few years earlier, just sentenced to prison. >> and besides rep. grimm, what about the house ethics committee? how could they be involved? >> the house ethics committee probably has no jurisdiction to get involved. there is another investigation ongoing for michael grimm involving campaign finance fraud and allegations of misconduct leading up to his election in 2010. however, the ethics committee has sort of held off on that in deference to the department of justice investigation and especially with jurisdiction over, you know, -- they are

supposed to investigate potential misconduct while members are, you know, sort of that members were responsible for when they were elected as members of congress. you know, they would say the campaign finance allegations and the allegations happened after he -- before he was elected rather, so they would say it is now within their jurisdiction. i should also say, stevens was defeated in 2010, it was actually 2008. >> emma dumain, latest article on the indictment of congressman michael grimm. thanks for the insight. >> the queue. >> joining me now is frank buckley, a professor of law at george mason university and the author of the book the once and future king. thank you for joining us. >> guest: thank you for having me. is the one first of all, what made you decide to write this

book? >> guest: i came here from canada and expected to find a country that was different than my former country. instead, i found one that had a fair bit of monarchies built into it, very curiously it was a country which was founded very smart, eminent, lies people, and what they wanted most of all was a country that would not be ruled by one man alone. increasingly that is what we are moving to. >> host: i will read a quote from the book and have you break it down for us. did you write, the president has slipped off many of the constraints of the separation of powers. he makes and unmakes loss without the consent of congress, spins trillions of government dollars, and the greatest of decisions, whether to commit his country to work is made by him alone. his ability a cedes anything seen in the past, and all of this is irreversible. what i d's george bush or obama. this is not really a

speech you notice what i it said was the american president, not george bush or president obama. this is not a partisan point. p. when americans think of their constitution, i think what they primarily think of is separation of powers between equal branches . but i don't think they are equal anymore. i think most of the power resides in the white house and i don't think that is going to be changed. when people look at the country 40 years from now or 100 years from now, they will see this time as a point of reflection of where things have changed, and where the separation of powers, instead of something which prevents the acumen nation of power in one party, in the president, it instead immunizes the president from criticism. host: why do you think we have drifted further away from the separation of powers that the founders set up? guest: well, what the founders didn't want was for one person or body to have all the power. that is more basic than separation of powers.

they came up with a scheme that was, frankly, a little messy. they had power diffused allover the place. what they didn't expect is that we would end up with a president who can't make laws by the cat, make e who can -- who can laws by dictat. it is not about bush or obama committees about the modern presidency. i don't think it is going to change. i think what we will see is a gradual realization that the can pretty much do what he wants. if there is a gridlock problem, he can cut through it as he seeks to do in the present. we look increasingly to him as a person who will solve the country's problems. that, i think, can be dangerous. wrote in your book that presidential systems are "bad for liberty." guest: united states has had a

pretty good run and no one would say that this is anything but a free country, but the american residential system did not export well. what did export well is the reddish system, the mess -- the british system, the westminster system. if you compare presidential regimes with parliamentary regimes, presidential regimes in other countries are not conducive to political liberty. america is a free country in spite of its constitution and not because of it. host: our guest is frank buckley, a professor of law at george mason university. to join our conversation this morning host: i want to ask you about more details in the book. you say that separatn of pos not thbest

you have written that separation of powers is not the best idea. >> guest: well, it was not the primary idea behind what the framers wanted. and they ended up with a government where they thought in most cases congress would be appointing the president 95 percent of the time. and when i say congress, then in the house of representatives vary by state. imagine what that would be like, imagine the 2012 election with the election from to the house of representatives. a different president. they thought the president would be more accountable to congress, and they did not expect the rise of the great federal state. they did not seek a greater regulatory state. they thought the executive would be charged with defending the country if invaded, but not a lot more than that. the government has changed and the institutions, the presidency has changed with it. is nancy is

angeles on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. guest: hello, nancy. caller: hi, how are you? guest: good. caller: i think the congress has ceded power to the president. what do you think? guest: i think you are absolutely right. amongst conservatives there is some criticism of members of congress. i think they are acting to the voters. john boehner does not want to take on president obama could he is reading probably correctly what the voters want of him. host: let's go to a tweet now. host: do you agree? guest: not really. they certainly went after nixon posteryou want to pick a child for the imperial presidency, nixon is a pretty good place to start. it has continued since then and has accelerated in recent years. host: another quotation from the book.

host: kind of a fun one. guest: just for fun. i think it would be nice if we could somehow, though we can't emulate the british system where we could toss out up prime -- by simpleivil vote of the majority of house of representatives or house of commons, there is one other ht hing, too. in america, the head of government is the head of state, whereas in britain, you have the queen who is head of state and the president as head of government. that is dangerous. it is not just dangerous, it is not even really healthy. so much emotion is wrapped up in , whereas in a parliamentary system, politicians are figures of fun, they are buffoons. let's laugh at them. host: if someone were to take that suggestion and play it out

practically, do worry about a president on the world stage dealing with other nations? guest: not really. i think america, though forceful of the moment with respect to russia, is not been especially forceful in recent years. i don't know that i would worry terribly about it. there are people both on the left and on the right who are great fans of strong presidential government. on the right, for example, john yoo's name comes to mind. these are national greatness people who worry like you about protecting american might around the world could i don't know if who you would be worse off if we projected less american might around the world. host: keith is on the line for republicans. caller: how are you doing, ma'am? i like theou and conversation. i think the media matters.

the media belongs to one side versus another site is the critical balance that our founders even overlooked, you know what i'm saying? whoever controls the media -- same with when bush was going to war and they were dogging him so doggedly on everything he done cap him in check. the same can't be said about obama, when he does things -- can you imagine the president doing as many blunders as he has done and nobody attacks? he gets away with a lot of things that other presidents don't get away with. when the powers of government are uneven in that way and one president has the media on his side, that gives an unfair advantage to him. guest: keith, i think you are making 2 really good points. the modern media has a lot to do with the rise of presidential power and a lot to do with the rise of executive power generally. you see the same phenomenon in a parliamentary government where the prime minister is the most important figure. the other point you make is

about the partisan nature of the press, which somehow doesn't have much of a parallel and other countries. the press is sharply divided between people who support, well, a large number of media outlets that support the president, roughly, and a smaller group that doesn't. the ideaisan bias, that you have to take sides in defend your own if you are in the media, that is really dangerous. ted in new hampshire on the line for independents. caller: yes, hello. guest: hi, ted. ifler: i have a question -- you could explain -- like in a n-type in-type -- algonqui government? guest: i'm sorry, i missed that. algonquin? guest: that is probably the word, i just don't know it. is beingust the way it

run as change from the usual way we do things. i have heard it used on c-span before. but i'm not sure the exact explanation of it. guest: well, i tell you, if you're describing the rise of presidential power, i couldn't agree more with you. one, forve you instance. amongst the democrats there is a concern that too much money is flowing into the coffers for hillary's campaign in 2016 and congressionalshe this november. but think about it for a moment -- the power is all on the other end of the building avenue then all that really matters is who will occupy the white house, not congress. imagine if republicans take the senate. ifld that change things? you're a donor, the rise of presidential government changes your strategy with respect to whom you support and we're seeing that now. line forllis is on our

democrats. caller: hello. my question has almost been answered. do you think there's any chance congress being able to work together enough to balance the presidential power in the future? with: well, i do come up one suggestion, and by the way, a lot of people are right about the proposed constitutional amendments. i think that is just nonsense and with all due respect to these fellows, and they are great scholars come it is so difficult to amend the constitution i just don't see that happening. what i did suggest, however, is this -- if you wanted to strengthen congress, there are a couple of things to do. first, clean up its act. is an unequal contest because on the one hand you have the president, on the other hand you have 435 fracturous people lead in the

house by a speaker from some place in ohio which was never heard of unless you are from ohio -- which you have never heard of unless you are from ohio. it is no contest. if we had a national referendum on some issue like the budget, that might strengthen congress' hand to propose a change in contrast to whatever the president wants. host: ask you another question is moaning about a quotation from the book. guest: that's right. well, again, if you look at presidential regimes in other countries, they didn't fare so well. the countries that have fared better typically have parliamentary regimes, and the reason is that there is more accountability in a parliamentary regime. that is really important.

there are presidents for life. there are no prime minister's for life. host: frank buckley is a george mason university law professor and the author of "the once and future king." massachusetts. linda is on the line for independents. caller: good morning. guest: hi, linda. caller: i had a comment and then a question. i find it extremely deplorable sit thereny democrats and cheer on and encourage this president to continuously write executive orders. i just can't even get my hand around it -- head around it. that's my comment. my question is at what point do they stop this? i understand that they are gridlocked, i understand there is a problem. isn't it true that the the-and-take think -- if president has to give them

,omething, they give something sort of a mutual agreement saying, and that is how these things get done? thank you. guest: well, those are good questions. i think if you are the average voter there would be more cooperation. but if there isn't cooperation right now, it is because you are not the typical voter, and i think most voters are happy with the direction the country is going with obama and his executive orders. i'm not blaming obama in any way. what i see him doing is working at the logic of presidential government as we have seen in other countries, and i don't think with the new president we will ever go back to the way it was. host: a question from twitter ash a statement, rather -- a statement, rather. guest: well, it's more than a suggestion.

correct, oraller is the tweet is correct, then i think you have to look to the institutions themselves. here is an example. the tarp bailout of $900 billion was meant for "financial institutions." but both bush and obama wanted to direct money to the car manufacturers. $80 billion of that. that was not authorized by congress. nothing is more basic to the constitution that you cannot send money unless it is authorized by congress. this wasn't. it was an $80 billion oversight. i don't know if you remember the protests about that, because i can't remember. in short, congress went along with it. if you want to blame the system, blame everybody in it. republicans,e for

in water flat, michigan. caller: yes, can you hear me? host: we can. caller: i'm so glad to hear this whole conversation because i'm just horrified of this oversight that is going on in the white house right now. i wish congress would be strong and take the power of the purse. i would love to read your book because i think it would be something that would be helpful for me to campaign and spread the word to everybody that we all have to take part and say this has got to stop, this tyranny. guest: now, there is a caller i like. [laughter] i couldn't agree more with the caller. it requires a change, not just the institution, but a recognition that realization amongst the voters that things have changed and we don't necessarily like where they are heading. host: sacramento, california.

robert is on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i have a question for you guest regarding -- does he agree that all politics are local? secondly, the gerrymandering that is taking place last few years -- does he think that affects the way the separation of governments are the way they are today regarding the presidential executive? guest: welcome i think politics are local when you get to congress. they aren't local when you go to the presidency, for obvious reasons. but i also couldn't agree more about gerrymandering. it is really destructive of the workings of congress and of ordinary civility because it tends to produce people who are hard-core on one side or the other, and these are exactly the people who don't cut deals. now, cutting a deal may not be

what you want, but at the same time, i think we would have a much more civil conversation if one had to talk to people on the other side. you are more likely to do that when voters aren't concentrated. the will ofs congress changed and what could congressional lawmakers do to compete with the executive power that you say has expanded? guest: well, you need a united .ront of one party or the other as it happens right now it is the republicans in congress, but imagine a republican president and the situation reversed. what you would need would be something like a newt gingrich figure who could unite whoever is the party in congress and that particular point. one platform that everybody runs on. and where you are. voters -- where you appeal to the voters. the previous gentleman was right.

local so you are not running on a national platform, you are only running on bringing the bacon to your district. that is a big part of the problem. host: our line for republicans. caller: good morning -- is it mr. buckley? guest: yeah, good morning. caller: i'm a college student and i'm taking an american government and politics course at our local community college. we finished up with the american presidency, so this is a great topic. i wanted to bring up -- a professor has told the class that there is supposed to be gridlock, that the constitution provides for those 3, equal branch -- those 3 coequal branches so that one does not abuse its power. there needs to be separation of powers because you don't want one branch of government to have to much power over the other, so you can have accountability.

guest: well, that's a good question, and let me answer. you are right, the idea of separation of powers and gridlock in good -- gridlock being good is that you squeeze --, you eliminate that l and limited b -- you eliminate bad laws. but what happens if you have a bad law enacted and you want to get rid of it? now you have a reversibility problem. a parliamentary system is one where you can erase your mistakes are easily. it is more important to go back and get it right the first time, because foresight is always harder than hindsight. host: north carolina, our line for independents. caller: good morning, frank, how are you? guest: good. caller: i'm an independent so i try to look at both sites and --d out things else out for

how things balance out for the good of all people and not just a particular party. when i look at president obama, who has received more negative attention than any president in history that we have ever elected, and when i realize that congress and the united states senate control what the president does, and when a president decides to exercise powers under executive order, all of a sudden the whole country has fallen apart. i want to note if this something ifng contribute it -- know this is something being contributed by the democrats or republicans, it making bad remarks about our leader and not having respect for our leadership, and i would also like to know as well, frank, do you see this changing anytime soon for the next person that is in office? because these people are symbolic -- not only are president, but our cars and our senate -- our congress and our

senate are reflections of us all around the globe. i want to know what we can do to not point fingers at people, but to find better resolutions at being able to come together as a country. thank you. guest: why, thank you. and i agree with you, i don't point the finger at a particular president, i point the finger of the institution. we have seen this kind of expansion with george w. bush, who, by the way, created the department of homeland security by executive order. and we have seen it with obama, and i think obama has taken it further, frankly. again, what i see them doing is not so much of using the office but it -- abusing the office but abusing the powers and what the logic of the system is. if you don't like it, don't blame him, blame the system, or think of the ways in which one could pull back a little bit. host: another question from twitter. guest: yeah.

as the is free constitution produced that -- i argued not and i do so after having looked at presidential regimes and parliamentary regimes across the world. i did some number crunching and i just compare them and threw in a bunch of variables could guess what? presidential regimes are back for liberty. they have a system that works very well for us -- we have a system that works very well for us. he just didn't get exported very well. if we succeeded another presidential regimes have failed, the conclusion teams to me is that there is something special about america, not so much the presidential system. from st. helena island, south carolina. james, go ahead and turn down your tv so that you can talk to frank buckley. caller: yes. guest: hi, james.

caller: how you doing, sir? i was sitting there listening and hearing the different comments and statements, and naturally, i'm supporter of the president, but i wonder how you come to your conclusion. and i have a question concerning -- how does the president function when you have people like mitch mcconnell.com -- let mitch mcconnell that come out a few days after he is elected president and say they will do everything in a power to defeat him? guest: well, i don't have any particular problem with politicians doing politics. that is what it sounds like to me. i suspect that the president would want to do the same to mitch mcconnell and that is fine. host: tennessee, our line for democrats. caller: yes, good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i was wondering -- i

haven't heard you mention so far -- i haven't heard the word "corporations" mentioned at all. it seems to me that what is happening in this nation and the world is the direct result of operations -- of corporations trying to retain power and not let it slip back into the hands of we the people. whenou were talking about .he imperial presidency started i believe it started with abraham lincoln. he had a lot of quotes about the negative effects of corporations upon this nation. it has just been getting worse since then. i would like to end this -- my name is arnold joseph white. i have a website where you can read for free a book that i wrote. the book is entitled "divine 9/11 intervention," and the website is godislove.org. guest: thank you very much,

arnold. well, lincoln is one of my heroes. quite apart from the civil war, i think he will be membered as the most consequential president of the 19th century because of the internal improvements he espoused -- land-grant colleges, transcontinental railway, relaxed policies as to immigration. this went a long way towards making us our country we have today. no am i didn't talk about corporations. that is a subject for another time. host: john on the line for republicans. caller: yes, hello. guest: hello. caller: i believe that presidential powers -- i don't know how it has gotten out of hand. i particularly i believe it has started from the intelligence communities. the cia, the nsa, the intelligence committee of the senate. the president has to get correct

information, not information thatis not really true, or conflicts with their advancement in their job. and i believe that the president long,en misled for so especially 30 years, that includes ailing out private industry -- and bailing out-industry -- 4 times in my lifetime. who gave him that right? guest: well, you are right, although ironically, i think your point is one which as opposedpresidents to congress. in terms of the flow of information, whether it be great information or not so great information, he's a symbol got a lot more of it van congress does -- simply got a lot more of it than congress does. that gives the president the

upper hand, particularly in foreign policy. host: jerry on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, everyone. guest: good morning. caller: mr. buckley, being a canadian, i believe i heard you say, what will be your response to a question about just eliminating the democratic republic in party and putting all our purpose and it is on the same team? wouldn't that be something you could give an opinion on? sure, i can,- oh, although i don't know if you are describing canada in any way. i should mention one thing -- i became an american citizen on tuesday the week before last, and i don't know if you are counting, but that was april 15. it's like, welcome to america, here's the bill. inre are politics all over first world countries. thank heavens. host: one more quote from your book.

guest: that's right. well, here's the point.. the supreme court is enamored of the idea of separation of powers, and it has applied it in a neutral kind of way without regard to the fact that all the parts are stacked in the hands of the president at this point. they will provide -- they will restrict the power of congress on occasion when compared toxic we, it is congress that is especially weak in their contest it isn, paradoxically, comes that is especially weak in their contest with the president. the framers were practical, wise, wonderful people, for the most part, and they were people who look over all of the structure and not at the

fine-tuning machinery. i think the supreme court has concentrated too much on consoles which were meant to be -- principles which were meant to be means to prevent the examination of powers, and they haven't looked at the realtor relation -- real documentation in the presidency. host: what should the role of the supreme court be? guest: there are things that the easily.court can do they reined in to president bush when it came to enhanced interrogation, although interestingly, they gave him a couple years to do it before they reined him in. they can't really take charge of the regulatory state. it is just not in the purview of the courts to find just the exercise of presidential discretion about -- to fine-tune the exercise of presidential discretion about those matters could what congress has done is legislate in very broad terms that brings -- gives the discretion of the president to write the revelations the president wants -- regulations

the president wants. host: lebanon, new jersey. caller: frank, i want to commend you on your book. i plan to read it thoroughly. guest: another fellow i love. caller: excuse me? guest: another caller i love. caller: your timeliness is tremendous. we do not have a democracy. , or as an aristocracy the gentleman perhaps was trying to verbalize, and oligarchy. these campaigns to get people elected to congress, or the president, so they do exactly what they want. they want the president to do what he does -- they do comply with what they want. the congress is merely there to stay out of the way so that the aristocracy works. the foreign affairs of this country, financial, even in

ukraine, all based on financial interests of the upper 1%, the only ones who have the money to invest overseas. the middle-class should wake up and understand it unaffordable health care, unaffordable education, all those tax dollars have been brought to the campaign funding of the upper 1%. they run the country and they want the president to have no confrontation from the other portion, the congress. that is all that is going on. so you are saying the rise? absolutely. this is the way it is going to be until the american people step in and throw these guys out of office in congress so that they can put in people who will actually do the job of the constitution. guest: well, i agree with a lot .f that, probably most of that again, it is a subject for another time, but there is a kind of new aristocracy that is emerging, and it is not just the 1%. it is the professional class,

sometimes 1%, sometimes 5%, whatever the number is. and that should be worrying. you know what should be the most worrying thing right now? the decline of mobility. promise, the promise of america was a country where everybody could get ahead. you know what, that is denmark. that is not america. we're about his class structured in terms of mobility us we're about as class structured in terms of mobility as written is -- as britain is. host: one more comment from twitter. guest: well, talking to a member of the media. [laughter] oh, no, not at all. it is extraordinarily powerful in every first world country. if i folded the media before, with the honorable -- if i faulted the media before, with

the honorable exception of c-span, it is the media that sees its role as taking sides. one of my favorite movies, "liberty valance," where the newspaperman is asked to take sides and he says, "no, i'm a newspaperman. i should care these people up -- tear these people up." whatever party. host: greg on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, mr. buckley. guest: morning, greg. caller: currently the judicial branch -- 10 they only serve in a reactive role? guest: that is correct. caller: what would it take for the judicial branch to become more proactive and take a more active role in all this? guest: i don't know that you want them to.\ the judges, the federal bench wisely abstains from political decisions. you wouldn't want them to take charge.

the battle between congress and the presidency -- it would be ias inor them to have a b favor of congress, but when it comes to actual policies, what we prefer would be neutrality. the desire to see that the rules are observed and nothing more than that. host: virginia. mary an outline for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning. i feel that the is the threat to our democracy is a partisan supreme court that is now ruling in favor of corporations, money for the rich people to give unlimited amounts. that is what you should be writing about. and i would like to ask you -- i keep hearing about obama being the king and overreaching. how many -- i would like you to know this, given that you are a comedyon this -- executive orders and signing statements did bush have an how

many did obama have right now? thank you very much. guest: sure. the answer is there were more executive orders under bush than under obama. i don't know if that is just counting up the raw numbers tells the whole story. most constitutional scholars will say that obama took it to the next level. and as for your other point about the role of money in politics, again, a subject for another conversation. host: last caller for this segment is gina in tennessee on our line for independents. caller: yes, mr. buckley. can't wait to get my teeth into your book. however, what i want to discuss theo you believe that anti-colonist of you -- the anti-colonist view is more where obama is leaning? is that the reason you would suspect that maybe -- congress

got the power of the purse. we've got harry reid that blocks every single bill. i'm not really -- obama is overreaching, with the executive orders and everything, but i there he has got a camp that is hell-bent on not exercising laws or letting the other branches the town will -- letting the other branches be ountable. obama is just really -- i heard a caller previously talk about everybody is just talking bad about the president and holding him back. however, i think he really kind his -- calling it upon himself by making himself look imperial. host: you know, we are a little

short on time. i will ask frank buckley to go ahead and respond. i agree with a fair bit, although i'm not talking about obamas a much as the institution. were the situation reversed and we had a republican doing what is doing, those people who are supporters of obama would -- might realize that there are dangers in this direction. thing. last i would like to see more accountability and more congressional oversight and there is an institution meant to do that, the inspectors general. russell george issued the inspector general -- the inspector general of the irs issued a report on lois lerner, and for that his integrity was questioned by democratic members of congress. and gerald walton, who was investigating a democratic donor

, was summarily fired by president obama. he was the specter general of some other branch of the government. we are so partisan that even efforts to promote integrity in government and congressional oversight are condemned by the other side. that is how much we have sunk. host: our guest is frank buckley, a law professor at george mason university and >> our guest on the next washington journal includes republican center ron johnson from wisconsin to discuss his lawsuit against the obama administration challenging the legality of federal contributions to the health care plans of members of congress and congressional staffers. he will be joined by the president and ceo of the center for global policy solutions to talk about the center's meeting this week to address the racial wealth gap in the u.s.

>> we are in utah and golden spike national historic site. i am walking you over to where that transcontinental railroad was completed. this bought right here marked by the would tie it is within inches of where the original ceremony was held on may 10th, 1869. the polls you see right next to it were actually placed when they resurveyed the exact location, establishing the side and getting ready to set things

up. and so that is marking pretty much the exact location within inches of where that original ceremony was held. this is a replica. it would have been in the 196 cease-fire, lost. all the items brought out for the ceremony would have been brought by the central pacific out of california. included on this time it is a plaque that lists many of the dignitaries from that company, including and leland stanford and the big four are all marked there. ..