and we all know how the republicans feel about obamacare and their claim essentially is the food in this restaurant is terrible, and the portions are too small. so, what -- do they have a point that -- you know, the law says, here's the date.

the president changed it unilaterally. how can he do that? >> look, i mean, i have the flipside of the reaction. it's difficult for the house to get standing but if they mapping to get standing on the aca claims they most likely would win if the court wants to consider them on the merit to take that example, the statute says this has to come into effect, shall come into effect, afternoon 1, 2014. the president says, i won't do that. that's usually unlawful, and types of doing things of that nature usually get set aside by supreme court all the time. two months ago the supreme court slapped down the epa over the statute that says you shall regulate if the polluter issues more than, say, 100 tons per

annum. now, the industry say that's unreasonable, it's higher. the court says, you can't do that. if congress says you have to do it on these terms. on your point about whether this i terrible food and we want more of it, the people should be entitled to experience the losses of the country as passed by the representatives, and if that caused untoward effects or people don't like them, this is why we have congress. then we can go and say we'll change them. but you can't simply say that you pass something and then improve -- improve dent rushing and fix it on the fly disregarding what they statute says. >> question have had debates in congress as long as there has been congress, and it seems to

me that as much as we think this is a troubling time, it's no different than all the other issues we have had to deal with. we have to deal with the bill of rights, the whole idea of protection for women, and i think this president is trying to do what others have tried to do, is to move the ball forward and say that i'm going to do some things to make a big difference. and of the things he proposed are good for america even though people are opposing, i think because of his politics, because he is a democrat. no question. i think he is going to continue to put the pedal to the metal and make sure things change and happen and make a big difference. and he is going to wait for the court, if they will, if they're going to overrule what he is doing, and let's think about the affordable care act. this is not new. every time we have come up again, this has been important, and i remember when president clinton was running, remember 1993, the hillary care act?

she was criticized for it? >> whatever happened to her. >> she is running for president and she will be ironically the first woman ever elected president of the united states, even though more than 50% of our population is women. makes no sense at all that it has taken so long, right? >> i figured that wouldn't make any sense. >> but i think that it's no question that people are enthusiastic, supportive, and i think there's going to be great. my colleague and friend, senator elizabeth warren, is also a great democrat. has been very much concerned about middle class families. she is not going to run against clinton in 2016, but some day she will be president, and my secret presidential candidate is the great, smart, brilliant person that i had the honor of teaching, michelle obama. she will be a great president if she is ever decides to hundred.

that's what i hope will happen. >> you heard it here first. >> can i just -- what about the business of -- there's a law that says you have to do this on such and such a date and they're delaying -- and he is delaying the law. is that okay? >> yes. >> why? >> because he has the power of executive office to do what needs to be done. he has been doing a lot of things in the executive power, and people call the it obamacare. i call it obama cares, with an s. my point of view. it's something that will help the american people, and a lot of people are against it, and that makes good reason, but i think that the reality is that even though people who are poor, people who are rich, they have a lot of problems with this president. the reality is he has tried to do a lot of stuff internationally, globally, nationally, and locally, and hopefully a lot of that will

happen. >> let's talk about recess appointments. dish. >> look, i don't mind going to a pep rally for the president. but the fact is -- any recently? >> no. i'm a little more choosey than that. >> i thought so. >> but the fact is, if there were a private person who were employed by an employer who was excused by the president from providing the mandate, say i work for somebody who, but for the postponement, would be entitled to coverage, who currently does not have it. that person clearly can sue, and that person can come into court to say, the president has delayed the obligation of my employer to give me a tangible benefit i want now. that person has standing, and that person has a bangup claim on the merits. you really can't say, as the answer to everything, the president has executive power.

yes, he does, and one of his executive powers is to take care the laws being faithfully executed. when congress says this has to be done on a certain term and he signs the act or vetoes that and congress passes it again, he no less than any other citizen has to comply with that. >> isn't there a doctrine of law that says -- as the supreme court said two years orange surprising many-especially me, that the affordable care act was constitutional as a tax, not as an exercise of the commerce clause. the internal revenue service has the constitutional authority or statutory authority to delay the imposition of taxes in their discretion, and isn't the delay in the obamacare employer mandate just an exercise of that? >> two answers. no on the first general point. the power to tax is with the house of representatives. article one of the constitution. there is a statute that gives some leeway in the administration of the tax laws

to the treasury department, and the administration has invoked that here, and whether or not that statute covers the situation is an interesting issue. what the statute actually says is that the treasury has the power to issue needful regulations for the enforcement of the affordable care act. now, the question is whether this is really needed if it's basically a disagreement with the date of congress, or whether it's actually the enforcement of the act. and i would think neither of those things is really true. >> okay. let's talk about recess appointments. this is a -- wonderful relic of a different time in american life. the recess appointment, we can all agree, came in, in the constitution, when in the horse and buggy era, congress was out of session, they couldn't come back with any --

>> gone for eight months at a time. >> and the president had to too certain things, including fill vacancies, and congress gave him this power. why would a president be using a recess appointment now? >> because the resistance from republicans to anything he is trying to do, because it's something that the people of the country really want. the majority of the people want some affordable care in one sense or another, and even because the polls of people -- people watch jimmy kimmel every now and then, right? i watch him and also i watch fox news. get a lot of information from fox news. i really do. very helpful. and the thing about it, he did a survey, informal surveys, how many poo week he affordable care act. everybody was against it. only people for it? how many people for obamacare?

no way, no way. the president dade poor job of explain what the affordable care act was covering, when it's going to be implemented. i agree on those basis. but it's something we have been trying to get for this country for a very long time. a very costly and complicated thing but a necessary thing to make sure that people can find somewhere to get medical care for their family, they can gate chance for people who are under 26 to make sure they can get covered. i think that is a salute to this person who is trying to do something against the strain of people who are saying, politically, you can't do it. >> let's talk about recess appointments for a minute. miguel. miguel argued -- the case was called canning, and i have -- miguel and i are law school classmates. this is one of the great arguments i have ever heard by miguel in the supreme court. almost as great as his socks.

and talk about the -- what was the issue? >> let us back up. the constitution has for this -- for these purposes two rules for how you go about naming federal officers. the general rule -- this is what you do pretty much all of the time -- it says you cannot appoint somebody who -- to be an officer of the united states or a judge or high-ranking government job, unless, unless, you get the advice and concept of the senate. now, -- advice and consent of the senate. they can be difficult, i can tell you, since i was nominated and filibustered seven times, but that's the system we have. and if you do not get the senate to agree, you don't have an appointment. the information one says, when the senate is in recess you can

appoint temporarily until the next session of the congress. and so that is the exception. it is unusual to say that you get to involve the break glass in case of emergency part of the constitution when your reason for doing it is not because the senate is actually aware but they will not confirm your nominees because under the general rule, they're entitled to do that. you don't get them to agree, you don't have an appointee. this may be viewed by obstruction but this is what the constitution says. you have to get the senate to agree. now, in this case the president got really frustrated because he could not get -- keep the nlrb, the national laborrelations act, fully satisfied and it's true mean his appointees were not timely confirmed to that board. that wasn't really the case with

the people that he -- recess appointed, who he recess appointed a nanosecond after he was named. they didn't even have their questionnaires into the senate. at the time the senate was coming in for what the senate called a session every three days and what happened at the session was the senator who was in charge of the chamber that day, a member of the president's party, would gavel the senate senate into session and then 40 seconds later ungolf -- ungavel them out. the president says you're in reassess, you're not confirming my nominee, and named people to the nlrb. he was charmed baconning company, and -- charged by a canning company -- steve said i represented people who were also challenging who happened to be -- i forget the exact

number -- i think 44 randomly selected members of the senate, and -- >> he is joking, all the republicans. >> yes. and we won in the d.c. circuit on a very broad ground. the dick circuit said that the recess aopinionments were unlawful because under the original understanding of the constitution, you could only appoint somebody if the vacancy had arizzen in that re -- arizzen in that recess and the only recess that counted was between formal sessions of congress. i didn't make those arguments. i only made a very narrow argue. which is the senate was not in recess, which ultimately is what the court -- the supreme court said. the court was unanimous,

unanimous, 9-0, 9-zip, there was nobody who believed the president had this power. the two people he appointed didn't vote for him. who said, this is an unlawful appointment, but disagree with the d.c. circuit, saying that it was not necessary that they enter session, recess be kept necessary that the last person to occupy the office had less to do in that same recess. that actually in many ways, is huge victory for executive power. it was a loss for this incompetent occupant of the executive branch, but it is a huge victory for executive power. >> so, if the d.c. circuit view had prevailed, i think it's safe to say that the recess appointment power as a practical matter would have disappeared,

wouldn't you say? >> correct. >> so, it is not gone that presidents can use it, but they have to glutt narrower circumstances than president obama used it. >> right. what the court said was that the senate has the keys to this power. they can choose to go, and if they choose to stay by coming in every three days and having a 40-second session, that is goodi enough, and the court's ruling is defendant gets to decide whether it is in recess. and if they think they're not in recess, then the president does not have this power. this is a question, by the way, that may vary depending on whether the president's party is in control of the senate. if the republicans win control of the senate he will never have a recess. >> no doubt. >> if the democrats keep control of the chamber, as they did

during these sessions, they in theory could force a recess. this is probably more than unique to know about the obscure parts of the constitution that most lawyers haven't ever heard of. but if the senate has to come in every three days because it cannot be away for more than three days without the consent of the house of representatives. neither house can go air for more than three days without the consent of the other. if the senate wants to have a recess and the house does not agree, then the senate can vote for the recess and the president gets to adjourn houses of congress under article 2, section 3 of the constitution, which has never happened. >> but it can happen. i think what is clear is that a lot of people haven't read the full constitution and what it says evident. the whole idea was the balance of power, the executive has powers and legislative power and the supreme court to decide those issues when there's a conflict, and very few cases

actually make their way to the supreme court, thank god, and i think that they are trying to figure out what to do based on what is right for the people, what needs to be done and what the constitution authorizes, and all these little clauses are what any president has to look at and understand, and that is going to be very near terms of what a recess appointment can be. recess appointments are okay but the question is what type can you do and what what hoops do you have to jump through and this president is prepared to jump through them jurick miguel -- through them. >> miguel made a reference to something which is the heart of the story, the filibuster. there are various ways of counting but it does seem clear that the filibuster rule in the united states senate is you need 60 boats to break a fill buzzer. there are democrats now. 60 in the first two years. is the fill buzzer constitutional?

>> -- filibuster constitutional? >> i think it is. you make bad law when you saw, let me change the number now, because it's in some sense damaging to my side of the aisle. that's not a way to decide law. we'll be changing the constitution every day, every month, and the majority can control. we can't do that. >> but the filibuster is not in the constitution -- >> but has been practiced over and over. like miguel told you. >> we can cut to the chase. the filibuster absolutely is constitutional. >> necessary. >> i don't know about that. >> i think it's necessary for this reason, because it makes clear that the senate can discuss and debate and agree and disagree and they can decide who should be appointed and who should not. not just judicial appointments. >> article 1, section 8 of the constitution says each house of congress shall be the judgeful

its own procedures. that the source for constitutional authority to run the business, they can have quorum rules that are insane. a case in the supreme court where the quorum rule that applied was if there were not enough people in the chamber, the presiding officer could send the sergeant at arms and do a nose count of anybody who happened to be on the ground, and the supreme court said they get to do that. that's a quorum according to the house of representatives. and that's a case cited in saying that even if the senate is coming in for 40 seconds, if that's a session, they get to say that. >> i think it's clear that both of you agree that the filibuster is both constitutional and necessary at some level. has it been abused by the republican minority? the current -- in president obama's term and is that one reason why these fights have

arisen? has there been abuse of the filibuster? is that why the president has made recess a point. s and other actions that are controversial. >> the answer to your first question is, yes, it has been abused. no question. i don't think you can get rid of it. wouldn't make sense at all and would be contrary to what we believe is a very productive government. and even senator harry reid, who reduced the number for confirmations from 60 to less than that, that was part of the -- he could use as a united states senator. it's going to be very interesting to see what happens in 2016. please vote, people. because i think that's going to have a big determination on what is going to happen in the future of our country. not just for us, but for those who would think about running for office, locally, nationally, and i think that it's going to make a big difference, particularly make sure we count the vote -- make sure that women are given equal vote.

>> miguel -- >> has the full bester been abused? >> i take issue with the question. doesn't make sense to talk about a procedural rule that is intended to force consensus. i of you accept that a rule of the senate says that things cannot happen unless you have 60 votes, the obvious point of the rule is no not have things happen unless you have the consent of 60 people. so it's almost anticommonsensical to say a rule designed to say you cannot do something unless you have some consensus, has been abused when people who don't agree with the outcome say you don't have consensus. maybe it's just basic literacy. >> so, you don't think it's -- do you agree with miguel, it's not been abused? just because -- >> do i think it's been abused? no. >> no? >> no. >> okay. moving right along, then.

a related question is whether the president has to defend laws that have been passed by congress. we have the united states justice department, which, as a matter of course, says we defend the laws that are on the books. in a highly celebrated case, regarding the defense of marriage act, a law passed with overwhelming support in the house and senate, signed by president clinton in the mid-'90s, in his -- >> in his defending marriage state at the time. >> yes, miguel. the c-span audience will love that. >> i'm sorry. a little late. >> is it appropriate for the justice department, as it did in this case, to say, we are not going to defend the defense of marriage act. we think it's unconstitutional?

>> the answer is,ey, and it's not this is a snap decision. eric holder has been in my view, very effective attorney general, the same way that robert kennedy was when he was attorney general, and others as well, because his point is that i need to enforce the law and i need get opinions from people who are smart and he has a whole inherited staff of lawyers, and tell me what i should do, and doma is one of the acts that didn't -- make any sense from his point of view and that why he got rid of it. and that's what we expect an attorney general to do. i think he has been much pore powerful, talking about the idea that people with nonviolent crimes, drug offenses, should be reduced in their sentences. people who have been sentences, back to slavery, should be able to vote. should not take away the right to vote from people if they're over parole and doing well.

doing things that robert kennedy and other attorney generals did before them because they're saying the court is not acting, the people are not acting, and these decisions have to be corrected. >> your said the job of the justice department is to enforce the law. doma was the law. how does he get to pick and choose. >> what the law should be and correctly. >> he gets to decide weather the law is? >> he decided doma was not an appropriate expression of the law, the defense of marriage act. think about where we are. if we were to ask this -- not this audience but ask people 40 years ago, can we have gay marriages people would have said, are you crazy? no. and can blacks vote 60 years ago? no. all these things were very much clear sense of what you could and could not do, and at some point the attorney general has to decide what is correct in the law and what is not correct, and i think that he has been, i think, one of -- i don't know

how many attorney generals -- that the legislative body held him in contempt. whatever that means. but i think the reality is he is trying to enforce the law as best he can, given what he -- the circumstances he has to use, and i think he is also understanding that america is changing, a dispopulation than it was 50, 60, 70, 100 years ago. so very different forum and very different interest we have and he is trying to enforce it. >> miguel, what about that? the justice department saying we're not going to dvd the defense of marriage act. >> well, let's deal with the general question first. the constitution in article 2 sets forth the oath that the president has to take, and the oath that the president hases to take is to support and defend the constitution of the united states. if a president, whether this president or any other president, honestly believes that a law is not constitutional, he has to comply

with his oath and not defend that law. there's a federal statute that says, that when the president comes to that conclusion, he has to notify congress so they can step in and defend the statute. now, whether that construct works in this specific context is a little bit -- it's at bit of a harder question and this is why. most presidents take very seriously the notion they're relying on their open independent conclusion of the constitutionality of a law when they choose to defend it and, therefore, the justice department, for decades, has taken the view that even if an incumbent executive does not agree with the statute, they will defend it so lodge as the justice -- so long as the justice department can think of arguments that may be accepted by the court that would support it. one of the famous examples,

which probably -- well, maybe not a famous here -- is the first president bush did not like the cable act of 1992 when it forced the cable companies to carry networks. it was thought to be a violation of the first amendment. ultimately that law was defended in the supreme court of the united states, and upheld 5-4. and there are many cases in which a president comes to the conclusion that he has doubt as to whether something is constitutional, and he has policy differences with the statute, but even in those cases the rule has been that you defend it if you can think of arguments that a court would accept because you owe that to the legislative branch. doma is unusual in that it would

be difficult to say at the time that the administration could think of no arguments that would be accepted by the supreme court that would result in the statute being upheld. it's an irrelevant question now because whether or not because the administration declined to defend it or because the president was right all along -- we don't know -- the supreme court ultimately held the statute wasn't constitutional by a vote of 5-4. that could be because the president declined to defend it, or because he was right on the merits. difficult to no. ...

as president and more aggressive and the use of executive power than other recent presidents, or is this merely the span of his political adversaries? >> it is clearly not spin. the reality is that this president has had to face a congress that would not support things that he thought were of interest to a lot of people, a majority of the people. he has used that more than he, i think my should have. think the president has to do something. you can be a president that sits there in on your head. you have to do something.

people need jobs, education, housing, public safety, all these things. they need a president that will do things that the legislature is decided not to. think he's been good about doing those things even know if you ask that the tour areas where i think he has crossed the line. i said that about any president. >> which areas? >> not collected so you in front of this television audience. >> okay. >> where is obama's staff in the hierarchy of use of presidential power? >> i think the truth is that all presidents try to be very muscular about the use of executive power. this is why talking about issues of executive power in the abstract is best done by extrapolating from the incumbent which may or may not like all of the people that are simply saying today the incumbent

document of the white house. up in arms. the imperial presidency. did he go back in history, fdr had to do lindleys which was obviously waffle because it could knock it around congress. presidents have always tried to expand their executive power. and the question for us as a society is not whether we like the incumbent or the policies that flow from that but whether we would like to preserve the structural protections of the constitution the say that the executive wherever he happens to be whether you like camera did not vote for him really have the power to do certain things. but all think he has unusual. a think he is as other presidents have been moderate about picking cars because he seems to pick those that are most likely to get shutout by the courts.

that , if you appoint somebody when the senate is saying, the senate controlled by his own party as anywhere in session and so he is doing what presidents always do. he is doing it somewhat less adroitly. >> who has a question? right there in the middle. army during microphones? and pick someone right in the middle to make it most difficult. could you just pass the microphone? >> do you have a question? >> rick going to touch this. why. >> any way. actually, we would get to this gentleman next. keep the microphone. this gentleman here first.

it. >> one thing you said about the justice department and eric holder that you felt he had been effective. and i just wanted to ask mr. mr. estrada, in the case of fast and furious about that was one of the first times that i saw a president obama's check that he had heard about it just from watching television. and then i would like to -- >> what is the question? >> fast and furious. >> what about a? >> i wanted to know why the justice department did not investigate that. >> what is your next question? >> the next question is about the internal revenue service and los liner and the justice department investigating that. >> appear. fox? >> people are all caught of to

speed. tustin furious is one of those wonderful things i could only happen in the government or somebody thinks that they can, you know, really make inroads into the drug trafficking by giving guns to the dark traffickers in mexico paid by government does tom things all the time. whoever happens to be running a government. this is what the framers of the constitution wanted very little of this. you know, the president came to be aware of this. it was a question as to whether the attorney general himself had been aware of this. some in the congress viewed his answers to that question as not being adequately responsive. and as having bought adequately explain himself as to what he knew about these things which is white cathouse held him in contempt. you know, it is -- i don't want to single out the attorney general because, again, when the

house of congress is controlled by the other party there's always a lot of decision into the fact. i personally think this one was so remarkably down that it actually did deserve real investigation. but other people here may disagree. >> end of the question involves the use of the irs against political enemies. does the accusation. >> well, it always happens and is never good. it's a serious problem of all of us as taxpayers face when you are investigated that because you've done the crime bill because they have accessed your information. in terms of fast and furious when that was a decision.

i understand why he did it. there was a great idea that went terribly bad. it's almost as bad as the first thing he said. he said that americans when it comes to issues of race. tell say anything without giving me to approve it he will not and say i agree, but he will still say what he thinks he learned and what he thinks this to be done. i think that a lot of interesting things have happened, but people focus on the bad things he has done. i think the attorney general as tunnel lot for this country. if east is a little longer he will go down in history as somebody who pushed the envelope to make sure that justice apply to every single person in america, and not justice or wealthy.

the poor people in the community as will. >> is it on? >> yap. >> my question with and go to the filibuster cloture. a less of mistaken, it requires 66 votes we know that the majority is very important. in your opinion would it be helpful if the senate would drop from 6055 and still have the majority, the power to stop the things in my speed things up. >> well, harry reid, the majority leader, to drop the cultural rules, the rule from six to 54 lower court judges and for president's executive

appointments. and that has led to a lot of confirmations in dallas several months, including several very important courts of appeals. the so-called nuclear option. >> well, these questions are up to the senate. this is how they think they can do business as a body. i don't think that one is necessarily better than the other. i think, you know, as a practical matter the senate cannot do business on consensus. trying to force change without a released the help or the acquiescence of the minorities is probably a bad idea. but if they can come to a consensus as to what actually works i think that's perfectly fine. >> a tough l.a. has to be fifth you're more. i get worried about the

reduction. and was a little worried about the requirement of 60. it think it will change when different people are in the senate. well, we get the votes. >> we returned to the affordable care act and the ability of the house to sue and whether there will be successful. i just want to ask you guys a question about two supreme court decisions relating to this. the supreme court decided 37 years ago the administration's ability to write regulations and rules basically says unless it to iraq violates the words of the statute as long as it is reasonable, that's fine. two years ago the supreme court decided a tax case basically

giving the administration has the ability to write whenever rules they want to write. a less ethically violence the specific words of the statute. the affordable care act as language giving the administration the ability arrive rules to properly interpret the provision. the question becomes whether or not based on the authority given to the ministration to right guidance and interpretation, and less attractive violence it, anywhere in the house could when that suits? >> this actually goes to the merits. i think that the incident is yes. i think the key to understanding why the answer is yes is you have a little big of advocacy in the description.

with the case actually says is we do a two-step analysis. we first asked whether the statute actually speaks to this question. if the answer is yes and the agency has no further role because the agency, just like the courts to have to give effect to the words of congress. there's ambiguity in the agencies can exercise this question to fill the gaps. and as, you know there. it is the stock in trade of federal agencies to claim that there is always ambiguity. you know, federal agencies will find a ambiguity in a no-smoking sign. but the fact is, that is not how the courts go about doing it.

i do think that if they go to the chevron issue on the merits by first examining some of the questions such as is this a real date, is there an impecunious of the choice. it is more likely of the of an assertion could when that. it is true that there are other parts of the tax law that gives discretion to the minister issue with respect to the enforcement of the tax-loss. one can quibble weather declining to enforce the tax loss is actually the enforcement of a tax-loss. >> secretary. >> can you hear me? so one of the justification is that you sometimes here from the administration on some of these controversies particularly true in the immigration area, people who will not be deported.

one of the arguments as, look where the president is staff to enforcement priorities so we can decide how he once to allocate enforcement and really want to ask you this hypothetical. let's assume when 2017 year of a conservative public and president. the looks of the economy and says this is really bad. he goes to congress. and like unit cut the 39 to 10%. congress has no. meters a filibuster. says the president have the right to use his enforcement power to say, i don't want you to collect anything more than 10 percent of the amount of money owed by people when they file their tax returns. would that be a legitimate argument? look, and tried to save the economy. congress is not corporate.

>> i would love to have than hypothetical and class. i think every student in my class would laugh and say, this person has lost his mind. in debt that the reality is a dup think it will work. i think it has a chance of working. >> i just wrote about takers at some length in the you know it -- yorker. he made a similar point. what if he says i take these epa -- the environmental rule that congress has passed his way to draconian. and going to cut unilaterally or increase the amount. what about that? >> one of the wonderful things about the hypothetical is that eds only on the surface designed to illustrate something the sounds really silly.

but that's actually what the president has done here. recall of the consequence of not complying with the deadline is here have to pay money into the treasury. what he has effectively done is say the congress passed a law that says if you such it such you have to kick money into the treasury and suspended the collection of the tax. and so is it not that different? is the slight and only a slight exaggeration. >> a couple more questions before we go. first the guy -- [laughter] >> whoever has the mike. >> a question for the constitutional lawyers.

if anyone tries to get president on the basis of abuse of power and turn decide whether there are more democrats than republicans who abuse executive power and of correlated lack of interpersonal skills to keep people to the effect that change law, as anyone done that kind of research for work? >> not to my knowledge. >> the answer is it has been done. a lot of the republicans have been criticized for their use of executive power. i thought what they were doing was very important and you think about abraham lincoln and people like that. the whole idea that i have to do this because this is : to be important for our society, think that makes sense. also want to see, and said this a thousand times. you can define the president's significance after he/she --

there have been and she's, but until 34 years after they served. yet to figure what impact it was on the public. >> i'll let the guy and a blue shirt. >> my question deals with legal or alliance. finances and/or a business and an administration chooses not to enforce a certain set loss and therefore i take actions that are in conflict with the laws of the books he leaves folks believing that it is not an issue because the administration is not enforcing that. what would be my legal exposure to a successor administration that chooses to enforce the laws on the books retroactively. >> tough question. >> it's actually not that tough

there are two flavors to this question. number one is in the civil context, when you have not paid taxes the weather was what it paid because the incumbent administration says you shouldn't. it by the time the next the minister should come senate changes that, if they are within the statute of limitations but you're done. with respect city of the type of usually if you fail to do something in reliance on official advice to but that tends to indicate the state of mind that is necessary for criminal liability. and so if you or otherwise to be prosecuted in a criminal court for failure to comply with block you would like we get an acquittal just on the theory that you lack the state of mind necessary to violate the law

because in good faith you actually said you were not doing it. that usually is not a difference . >> stabbed you are a good lawyer. it's impressive. i did like that much law and law school. somebody over here. >> even if congress were to be able to obtain a judgment against the president there would never the less not be able to enforce it because they would have to go to the executive branch for the enforcement. and then the executive branch would refuse to enforce that in which case they could get another judgment which you would refuse to enforce and therefore ultimately isn't the only real check this against a president who fails to uphold the law the impeachment power? >> to answers.

i think it is an excellent question and really highlights in a dramatic way, they're very reluctant to get into between the branches of government. that is why he would be challenging. but that they can't deal with, but it would be challenging for the speech your -- speaker to convince a court that they have standing. in new, in the belmont case you have a question of standing because the administration had not defended. this up to of the question was whether any number of people and congress could the far of dissent and the question of standing. what if they don't comply with the judgment? welcome all but happen is the houses of congress would be required to exercise the weapons

in their arsenal, give the president monday or maybe even go as high as appeasement. that tends to illustrate when there are very reluctant. he the executive does not comply than the house of congress has to resort to the weapons that they had all along. >> youtube, i think, have been somewhat surprising to me in your ruling as to consider these lawsuits. let me conclude by raising an issue that walter raised at a congressional hearing yesterday. if you agree that the house of representatives can sue the president of the united states can you envision a scenario where the president conceded the house of representatives? >> you're making reference to the hearings five that happened

yesterday you would have to learn the circumstances when the president would then sue his official capacity prejudge the merits a lawsuit and has not been piled. everyone understands -- people on my side of the aisle tend to believe the baird question easy because of the calendar perry's january 1st 2014 to is that a lot of ambiguity turned. but the fact is even people who are driven to consider a lawsuit fully understand that these cases can be challenging. >> what about the issue of to of this area.

>> the president can't. i think it would be unwise. we would be in a very terrible state as a country to have the president suing congress. as a good reason for it, but it means that we have lost all sense of justice when it comes to treat people equally. i can tell you this. there is no doubt in my mind that the president would find great lawyers. >> and speaking of that -- >> it would be pro bono. >> it depends on in the client is. >> please join me in thanking the some of them.

[inaudible conversations] >> sunday on book tv. former republican congressman from texas and president of kent it ron paul has written more than a dozen books on politics and history with his latest fiscal revolution of america's education system. join the conversation as he takes calls to a e-mails command tweed's live for three hours sunday at any state. watch more book tv next week while congress is in recess. book tv in prime time.in j

this is 45 minutes. >> and now joining us from california, author and columnist

. his most recent book the people courses barack obama. the criminal case against the obama administration." do you support what the house is doing in suing the president. guest: i do. it is not the best of all available options, but it is an option in terms of curbing the president's power. the last time the house did this, the president lost 9-0 at the supreme court level. a sillyent is obviously action given the democratic control of the senate. they're left with two options, cut funding for some of the president's programs or sue the president, which is what he is doing and which is what they are doing. "the washington times," talking about the impeachment issue. he says the democrats are using as a fundraising tool. that it is not a viable option. guest: that is correct, given

democratic control of the senate. republicans were not willing to convict president clinton when he committed perjury. the idea that impeachment is going to happen is ridiculous. impeachment is ineffective over the course of u.s. history. we have had a total of 18 impeachment in the house and nine convictions in the senate, one every 30 years. that is not sufficient to curb the excesses of the executive branch. legislative power needs to be used. host: nancy pelosi talks about the gop and the lawsuit, i want to get your reaction to what she had to say. [video clip] >> republicans do not have time to raise the minimum wage, but they have time to sue the president of the united states. they do not have the money to feed the children, help the american people, but they have -- they want to blame -- they sue thelank check to

president. toy have lost moral standing what is happening on the border, they have standing to sue the president. that is framework for how they go forward. standing, they disagree with nancy pelosi on policy. that is what you expect nancy pelosi to say. and facileidiculous comment by nancy pelosi. she is good at manipulating. the idea that republicans have a choice between agreeing with nancy pelosi and suing the president, that is a false dichotomy. they could do both. when the president overstepped his boundaries, who is going to stop him? this is a troubling indictment of what is going on in congress. the fact is that there are a lot of people in the u.s., who see

m to have fallen into the trap of believing that just because they do not like what congress is doing, they can let the president act on his own. that is the beginning of tyranny. i do not remember the exact revision of the constitution where it says if congress does not do with the president wants, the president gets to do whatever he wants. that would be tyranny. my impression is that the constitution is not fond of that and we actually fought a resolution to stop that sort of behavior. host: we were talking earlier about the fact that the >> host: mr. shapiro we were talking to reviewers about the house to potentially work on the border bill. what you think about that? and. >> guest: they should stay in session and also take into account with the grassroots and what you see is the grass roots with the establishment and break apart news has been pushing pretty hard and with good

reason that the bill is insufficient does not curb the president's executive authority to give amnesty to millions of people so this is a debate but what is so funny and as they agree figure out what to do with the people here with the idea all legislation is comprehensive it made no sense and never understood by the 800 page bill is better than the two page bill and that is the best solution. breitbart law and colut truthrevolt.com. a radio talkshow host and the author of six books. most recently, "the people versus barack obama." mike, maryland, independent caller.

caller: good morning. allomment, i feel like with about, with obama and now they are going to stay in session, they are not going to add anything. it is going to be the same thing as it was with the health care bill. it will be the same with the borders. the wholeis like thing is just a game. it is just going to keep destroying the sovereignty of america. aimingt is what we are for. we can sit here every day and people are calling and everybody is talking about what is going on here and there was stuff. nobody is dealing with obama. he should be, he should have been gone by now. we do not have any problem with nixon, but now all of a sudden we're going to play this game. it is disgusting. it is like every morning

listening to this, the colonies did not have any problems standing up against tyranny that was going on, there was more of a christian-based back then. is where we are really at. we do not have -- spiritual malady has been the story in america. in theed that sits capital and all the people crapg laws don't give a about the people. host: we get your point. guest: we are watching an administration that does not want to follow laws on the books. the bush administration was not good on the border either. the idea that new laws are going to fix everything, the administration does not want to pass laws as they stand. we do not have the power to close the border, of course we do. it would cost about 25 billion

dollars to build a border fence, sort of like israel's border fence. something like 15,000 national guard troops to secure the border. yet we are not doing any of that. the fact that we're not doing any of that space to the fact that we do not want to support a lot of the folks coming in. my position on immigration is that i am for open immigration in the absence of a welfare state. you cannot have both. you have both parties arguing for the continuation of an open for different purposes. democrats think it is going to get them more voters. and a lot of republicans want an open border because they want cheap labor. the people who are coming here who want to be part of the american dream, the american dream has to exist in order for them to be part of it. it is predicated on the notion that hard work allows you to get ahead and that the welfare state is not going to allow people to mooch off the system.

if people are coming here with no education and no marketable job skills, if we have a welfare state in place, they are going to be a net burden on the system. host: a tweet for you. schapiro, we all know that going after the president will sell a lot of books. can you admit that the house is dysfunctional or incompetent?" guest: i certainly think congress is incompetent. i don't think there is anything new about that. congress has the power to use its legislative power to check the president. the fact that obama is overstepping his boundaries. there is nothing new about this particular house. host: any difference now with kevin mccarthy as majority leader? guest: major i have not seen any

difference thus far. he may be slightly more in touch with the grassroots than eric cantor was. debbie, indiana, republican line. theer: all i want to tell american people is that we are the boss of the senate, the congress, the president. we voted all those people in, and if we were doing a job like they are doing right now, we as bosses would walk in and say you are all fired. dorefore, what they need to is sit down and decide, when it is time to reelect people, are we really going to go back to this chaos or do we want to straighten out this problem and get new ideas in there? get rid of nancy pelosi, john boehner, all of them. if they cannot work for the american people, fine. guest: the kind of throw them all out mentality -- again, i think there is a lot of justification to it, but the reality is -- it cannot be we

are just going to elect new people every two years or every quarter years or every 60's and then we just forget about it and there left to their own devices. the american people need to constantly be putting pressure on their congress people. we are seeing that right now. i think the level of dysfunction in washington is not the worst thing in the world. i am exiting more concert in washington is fully functional and everybody agrees. i would rather have congress do nothing than congress do something that is the wrong thing. host: i want to get your reaction to john boehner talking about impeachment. [video clip] talk about impeachment is coming from the president's own staff and from democrats on the hill because they are trying to rally the people and to get money for this year's election. we have no plans to impeach the president. listen, it is all a scam asserted by democrats at the white house. host: ben shapiro?

guest: i think there is some truth to that. the fact that the white house wants to talk about impeachment all the time is good evidence that they are interested is using it for political gain. is guilty of impeachable offenses. nancy pelosi had the right response to this question when she was asked in 2000 six. she said, yes, bush is guilty of impeachable offenses, but we cannot impeach him. that is the right answer and destroy for president obama. even though the president may have committed impeachable are politicale realities to deal with. here is the truth -- i know people think on the right for some reason that moving president obama out of office would be some sort of political put nancy a. it would not be. joe biden would take over. you would have an executive branches 3 million people strong. changing who occupies the oval office is not going to change any of that. it will take a long and

determined effort to minimize ensuring the size and scope of government so it is not as heard in some as it is in your life right now. that does not change just by getting rid of one guy in the oval office. how do you sell that message to the majority of americans? i think it is being sold to the american public. what we're watching right now is that every day government is encouraging more and more upon the personal space of americans, and you're seeing resistance at the state level from various governors, including cancer. utilizing various forms of resistance of the individual level for individuals are refusing to provide you with a believe that the incompetent federal regulations. i think the government is doing a pretty good of of convincing people it is really bad at a lot of stuff. host: a call from south carolina on our democrat line. wonderings, i'm still

whothey do not recognize god is. god is president in office. these that he would leave one term. i think they are? just really affected the whole process. thiskeep coming up with because he is black. host: we hear that often hear from callers on the "washington journal" that republicans are attacking the president because he is african-american and no other president has faced this kind of harshness before? guest: it is ridiculous. george w. bush had documentaries about why he should be assassinated. obama isn to barack not unique. and to say it is based on race is also ridiculous. promisedt said what he he would be -- he has completely transformed the health-care

system. he has flipped the united states of border policy. border policy has been a ground shift. it has been an acceleration of what we have seen over the last 20 years from both parties. resistance, and i have to say the idolatrous worship of this president and some precincts of the united states is more frightening than anything the president himself is doing. when david horwitz introduced you the other night before your book talk, he said that the president was a lifelong communist. do you agree with that? o, i mean, i think the president is a political nihilist at this point. he studied martial. i think the president has a lot toward a marxist point of view. as far as the id he wants to nationalize all industry, it depends on your definition of

communism. i think people think soviet union, but i do not think to be the soviet union is barack obama's role. a leveling of economic outcomes is his goal. could be marxist without being a communist, if that makes sense. host: frank, pennsylvania, independent line. caller: i want to ask if he thinks this is a big act of both sides, democrats and republicans? they both have things to gain. democrats think they are going to gain themselves blue states out of red states. and republicans controlled by the industry, then the big-money businesses in this country want a third world workforce in this country. i would like to hear his comments on that. immigration issue, i think there is truth to the idea that both parties are in favor of immigration policy that is not good for the united states. i think a lot of politicians are beholden to big business in the republican party and believe

that by importing a chief labor force they are somehow helping the situation. i think a lot of democrats who want to keep that border opened for a lot of reasons, first, that these people will eventually vote, and second, the thing hispanics currently in the united states will vote for them. and the third reason is because they understand we will have to pay for a lot of the folks crossing the border and there is this sort of nihilistic streak within the current democratic party that suggests terror and dumb people that are more wealthy is more important than building up people who are more poor. it is a requirement now for rich people to pay more taxes. rich schapiro -- mr. shapiro, this is an op-ed from this morning with the headline -- "leaving u.s. allies adrift as chaos rises."

guest: clearly, he is right. it is a dramatic understatement. the president has actually reversed sides on the war on terror. we are now allying ourselves with the muslim brotherhood and hamas. we have been spending $400 million a year on the palestinian unity government that includes hamas. we have been brokering deals thaniran that are less worthless. we have put israel in the position of having to strike

policy ifs.' stated israel wishes to defend herself. what we're watching is either a manifestation of jew hatred on the part of the obama administration and a specific dislike of israel or a more generalized dislike of american allies, which is also a possibility. america has abandoned allies. we're watching a shrinking of the american influence on the world scene, and president obama seems to be very much in favor of that. host: chris, gaithersburg, maryland, republican. taking myank you for call and thank you for c-span. do you believe that the republicans are sitting back and just letting this guy do as much damage, meaning the president, trying to keep his reins in a little bit? second of all, do you think he will go down in history as one ,f the bottom five presidents even with the rewriting of

history books which i am sure will be done? i always feel like the democrats, their last argument is always racism. i will take my comment off the air. guest: i think there are a couple different questions there. as far as president obama's place in history, i think that will be decided by whichever historians are writing. was a wonderful president but a lot of americans think he was a terrible president. i am not a big fan of the "judgments of history." i do not think there is unified stream in the judgment of history. i do not think it is the unified stream. there are many different perspectives, most of them wrong. there is that. as far as whether the republicans have been enabling the president, that i very much doubt. i do not think the republican congress is unable the president. since 2010 emma the president''s major initiatives have failed at every major legislative level, which is why he is resorting to

executive authority overreaches. executive requirement is not a last resort, it is a first resort for those on the left. the first resort of the left is to start shouting about how it is racism as opposed to possible extremism of the people in power. host: ben shapiro, working people hear your radio show? guest: the first one is a group radio show, me, a liberal guy, 0nother conservative, klra 87 in los angeles. i have a second show on ktth 770 in seattle. host: are those on the internet? websitess, they have for the shows. governor christie stumps in new hampshire -- the headline in the "wall street journal." what is your take on the

republican field? open field. a very they will see establishment consolidated around someone. chris christie seems to have lost some of his luster for a lot of the establishment folks. there is a lot of talk about jeb bush, which i think is unfortunate. i do not think a bush-clinton election will go well for republicans. it did not last time. i do not think we have seen the spotlight yet full stop a think bobby jindal will do some damage. someone from indiana will run and will be some damage before this is done. the truth is, the field is so open at this point and for some reason the american people -- there really is a possibility that an outsider, some of the we have never really considered, will jump into the race and really shake things up. it is still very early. i know that is a copout, but unfortunately, it is really early, and some and has to sort of copout on that one. host: greg, indianapolis, good morning.

so funny listening to you because the funny thing is, i can guarantee you probably in the next 20 years -- maybe i will still be around here, there will be a latino president, just like there is an african-american president. i think that you white folks are just adding scared and you are panicking, so that is why you go against obama for everything that he says and everything that he does. because the white folks are losing their power. thank you. host: ben shapiro? guest: there is this thing called yarmulke, this idea that all white folk are the same and we all have the same belief him and the idea that white folk are simply afraid of losing the power -- first of all, i'm not sure when my folks on the jewish people, became white people, i guess when we became successful in the united states. but the idea that white folks are afraid of using their

suppose it's a privacy in american society is asinine, resulting -- insulting, ridiculous, and every other derogatory word i can think of. people are upset in this country of every race about what is happening in the country. if you are not upset, you are not looking closely enough. host: david is in lawton, oklahoma. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to comment on obama's leadership. the previous caller that brought up race and him being african-american and just disrespecting the guest and calling him white, categorizing him -- i am native american. very, very upset with what obama is doing with this country. he is taking this country into a country without a border, and if you do not have a border, then you are not even a country. so i do feel like he should be

impeached. me being native american, if i was president, you better believe you guys would impeach me in a heartbeat for what obama is doing. i just do not see the race givingally put up and him a pass just because he is african-american or whatever. we do not even know who his real father is. they say barack obama is from africa. i saw a documentary about this guy davis being his father. so who is the guy who is in the white house in the first place? terrible leadership. he should be impeached. i wish the american people would wake up and realize that he is destroying our country. i think we got, the point. ben shapiro? clouding the obama administration with conspiracy theories about his heritage is

not only a mistake, but it is silly. we know who his father is and we know where he was born. the rest is nonsense. as far as the notion he has a certain luster because of his race, in the eyes of the media, that is certainly true. if we had seen another president performed the weight obama has performed, i think the media would have turned a little bit on him a long time ago. we're watching certain segments of the population have a worship for this president, the likes of which i have not seen in my lifetime. the fact that his approval rating, despite his performance, his never drop below 40% shows there is a certain level of loyalty to him that cannot be explained by his political success. host: your radio show comes on and about 40 five minutes from now. what is your lead? guest: we will be talking about the immigration issue and that debate. we will be talking about israel and the continuing fallout in the gaza strip. i hope we will be talking about the california water drought which continues to be ridiculous

given that the governor of our state is about to start fining is on an individual level essentially while we just blew 20 million gallons of water in a water main break at ucla. you could see people swimming around like it was the pool over at poly. host: tell me about the water shortage. guest: there is a water shortage. this happens when a government subsidizes water rights. they are fining people for water use of water, but they keep the water it's so low that people have an incentive to keep using the water at these rates. plus, the reality is that the government of california is losing 10% of its water in leaks, and they are not fixing those. instead, their fining individuals. teresa, carnegie, pennsylvania, republican line. 82 and haveo, i am been a voter all my life. i am so disgusted with our

government, the way that it is being run. they're like high school, kindergarten kids. i am going to take my marbles and go home. they cannot settle anything. for gode veterans, sakes, that have protected them while they are snuggled up in the bed with their families, and their crucifying them without the and if it's -- without their benefits. shame, shame. they want to get to the borders, that is fine. they have cut the unemployment rates on people that are in their 50's. they cannot get another job. yet, they want billions to the borders to allow criminals to walk in here? shame, shame. we need to do something. i cannot just blame obama. i am a registered democrat, but did not vote this time around. this country is downsizing fast,

and it is a shame. of my family that were in all three wars, and they were proud to do it for their country. you would not find kids today that want to enlist. they are sick of it. thank you very much. you get theay that government accountability is by dramatically cutting the executive branch. you can change or congressperson, but you cannot change any of the folks at the regulatory agencies. congress has an interest in pushing authority to those regulatory agencies, specifically so they can keep being reelected. if you want an answerable government, the executive branch must be shrunk. if you do not like your congressman, you can get rid of your concert -- congressman and there will be consequences. right now, we are not getting rid of our congresspeople, and even if we do, there is no major change in how the country is administered. we should all be for a smaller and more controlled government, one under our control, not one

that is under the control of one man in the executive branch. and it should not be under the control that the fuel -- people that were elected ages ago. host: do you consider yourself a tea party guy? guest: absolutely. i think the tea party has been dramatically mystified by the media. i do not understand why 100% of americans are not "tea partiers." they are looking for smaller government and lower taxes. host: anthony, stockton, california, democrat line. caller: thank you for taking my call. first of all, i want to say, ben california,is from as well, represents california. but i want to make the comment .bout jerry brown bottom line on that is that we had a republican governor, and he destroyed -- [indiscernible]

no one said anything. jerry brown gets in there and we are in the black instead of being in the red. he has been doing a wonderful job. they need to give reddit where credit is due. talking about the president, you know, this immigration, everybody here is an immigrant. it is typical for them and the republican parties to sit up there and talk about these children coming over the border or whatever. if you want to keep it real and be real about it, leave the country and give it back to the native americans, the indians, who it rightfully belonged to. thistired of hearing all talk about immigrants, emigrants, they are taking our country. guess what, america, it is a new america. host: thank you, sir. arnold schwarzenegger was

a for a show of a governor in california. jerry brown has multiplied the budget. is in thes -- that he black is asinine. he is not in the black. he raised taxes on the people in california, and we have budget deficits. we have over one trillion dollars of structural debt here in the state of california. so the idea that jerry brown has healed our wounds is a fiction created by the "l.a. times." i am for pretty much an open border if we get rid of the welfare state. the problem is you cannot have a welfare state and an open border. it is like having a donut shop and giving away free donuts to everybody who walks in. if you do that, you will soon be out of donuts. that is what is happening in the united states. what bothers me is the coupon at that the democratic party plays on, the ethnic and racial solidarity opponent, the idea that it is just all these white folks that want to shut down these like folks and hispanic folks that are coming across into the country. a lot of black folks and

hispanic folks are not happy with the border situation. being to understand how in favor of a rationally regulated border and understanding who comes in the country is in any way debt or mental to the united states, and i fail to understand how taking the position that anybody who wants to be part of the american dream should be part of the american dream so long as they are not on american benefits. betweenase-fire clash -- collapses between israel and hamas. the truce broke down when clashes began and militants fired rockets into israel. any comment? guest: shocker, huge shocker. turns out that hamas, which has been murdering every jew in the region, it does not want a cease-fire. there is a huge shock. the administration saying israel should have a humanitarian cease-fire and should stop going after people who want to murder them in their beds, it

demonstrates the blindness of the administration and the moral incapacity of the world to understand true evil. what we're watching in hamas and israel is clearly a case of good versus evil. -- ben shapiro was on the "in-depth" program on booktv last year. you can watch that on booktv.org. you can find out more about his book also. a couple tweets -- this one says i will have a little more spring in my conservative step this morning things to the no holds barred attitude of ben shapiro. see theone -- we can president for over 30 his authority, why not sue congress for not doing their job? guest: i think the proper remedy for congress is just not to of everym, their teacher years, so they can do

that. we need to get away from this idea, unfortunately it has become common, that compromising is the job of congress. the job of congress is to protect your rights. if they compromise on your rights, you do not want to be a part of that. what we wanted to economist at his answer will to us, and we want an executive haughty head of answerable to us. what is a gradual slide into a executive dictatorship because we have a group of people in america we do not watch closely and yell for compromise. problem,there is a something must be done. at the congress does not do it, then the president should. in the constitution of the united states, the job of the president is specifically defined, and nowhere does it say "do good stuff." he has two watch his constitutional boundaries. >> laura, independent line. caller: i have one question and

one comment. mr. shapiro mentioned that while obama could have an impeachable offenses, that they would not impeach him. if we're not going to enforce our laws on the border, you know, and let illegals overrun us there and say, no biggie, we will just keep them, and then if you do not impeach the president for wrongdoing, you know, what kind of message are we sending? don't we need accountability somewhere? more than a slap on the wrist, saying, we are sorry that you are doing this, but go right ahead and do it because we will not take any action against you, you know? i personally think he should be impeached. as far as the gentleman who called in and was ranting and raving as a number of callers yes, weut immigrants, are a nation of immigrants, but the point is it is legal

immigration. they came through ellis island and had medical checks and were quarantined if they had a disease or something. they had paperwork. they did not just walked across the border as they chose. and then, you know, said, ok, stay here. we have people doing it legally. but you're breaking the law coming across our borders, and we will just bump you to the head of the line because you are cheap labor or whatever the thing is. i would like to hear his thoughts on those things. host: thank you. guest: as far as the immigration issue and when people's ancestors came over, my great-grandfather came here in 1921 and the system was very different. they screened for disease and criminality. that is from any country. you had to screen for disease and criminality and things that could affect the general public.

the difference was that there was no welfare state upon which for my great-grandfather to rely. the idea with the would come here -- he came with no money, did not speak the linkage, he made something of himself, started the business, and made money. that is what the american dream was. he did not come here and rely on public benefits. even if you come here and do what my grandfather did, you withbe stuck in the group public benefits. as long as the people who want to come across the border or people who actually want to work and not rely on public benefits and we change the system so that they have to work and cannot rely on public benefits, that is true of people here, as well. as far as impeachment, i'm for anything that stops executive overreach. impeachment will not stop that. the senate is not going to vote for the impeachment or the conviction of the president for high crimes and misdemeanors. even if it did, it would not stop the executive overreach.

the executive branch is too big and burdensome. by only way to stop this is electing a congress that slices the size and scope of executive authority. a tweet -- what is your opinion on gay marriage and abortion? opinion on gaymy marriage, with regard to gay marriage, i am a traditional marriage guy. however, it is time for the state to get out of the business of marriage entirely. i think it is a mistake for the state to be involved in marriage. marriage is a relationship between two people. i have my agreement with the state, which i do not care about. then i have my religious agreement with my wife, and that is the when i actually care about. that is the way i believe it should be for most americans. the idea that the government would give tax benefits to married couples, it obviously did not work, and now you can get a tax credit for being married. i highly doubt people are getting married for that reason. the answer for religious people,

and i am a religious person that believes in traditional marriage, here is the danger, if the state is in charge of marriage, you will get the steak green lighting gay marriage and then using gay marriage as a club against every religious organization in your state. theires will lose nonprofit status for not performing gay marriage is. sector ande llc corporate sector, and they will be shut down if they refuse to perform gay marriages. religious exclusions mean nothing. that is the end goal. the only way to stop it is to get government out of the business of marriage. as far as abortion, and my belief it is the taking of human life him and not just my believe but the believe of science. it is the taking of a potential or current human life. the only fashion of government is to protect life, liberty, or property. that is protecting life, whether it exists inside or outside of a woman's uterus.

host: a call from california, democrat. caller: ok, this young man here is exactly the very picture of two-party isrn like. the problem it -- the modern tea party is like. the problem is they want the government to shrink, yet, on the other hand, they also want the government to get into peoples's lives and tell them that they cannot do this and .hey cannot do that the thing is, the government has shrunk pretty far. that is the problem. when you do not have one single entity for everyone to gather around and make their agreements about, which is what our representatives and senators are supposed to do, then we are not supposed to vote them in to argue with everybody about every little thing they have going.

we are voting them in now on who can hate who the worst, and that is absolutely awful. hate with every word you say. don't you know that? host: mr. shapiro? guest: i am not aware of anything i have said that has remotely applied teacher to anybody. i have disagreed with policies on the other side. i may hate their policies, but i do not hate them. as far as the notion the government is not meant for conflict, interest is supposed to counterbalance interest. that is the entire goal of the federal government, to have interest in all its interest. as for the notion that i want to get into peoples lives, i am unaware of any area of american life where i am suggesting that the government get more involved in peoples lives. i am for decriminalization of marijuana, for example. i do not think the government should be involved in the business of marriage.

government smaller in every area of life except for the protection of life, liberty, and property. i do not believe laws with her guard to abortion have anything to do with filing should the liberty. i do not believe you have the liberty to murder another human being or the potential of another human being. host: republican call from california. caller: i have a couple questions. is -- whens to you you talk about government, the and whatovernment, senators and representatives are supposed to do, you do not have what the rolesf of what a senator is supposed to do or what a president is supposed to do. in terms of what their duties are and the roles are, -- i am a republican, and the president does have executive duties he is supposed to carry out. when it comes to immigration, issue that bush

signed. president barack obama has to act upon that. if he does not, he is violating the constitution. so if republicans do not give him the authority to carry it out, then he is violating it. so you cannot call him on one thing and then call them on the other. you cannot have it both ways. host: all right, i think we got the point. 2008 law, ir as the believe the republicans have called for changing the law. originally president obama called for changing that law, too, until he reversed himself and decided he liked the law because it kept a lot of these illegal immigrants here longer. the idea that the president has unlimited authority under the constitution is ridiculous. what the presidents of 30

extends as far as the constitution the constitution it grants, and it does not grant the president to choose which laws to enforce, and that is what we have seen from this president. the executive branch might imply that it is for executing the it, not choosing which laws feels like executing today or executing tomorrow. host: ben shapiro, editor at large at breitbart, radio , author of six , "the peopleecent versus barack

>> she was so beautiful and smart and witty she was just irresistible so even with a i think that the washington columnist was that the party and said heavens i have never met the 18 year-old before. she had this very seductive quality

[inaudible conversations] >> i don't want to interrupt you but i would like to get started if we could we have a lot of ground to cover. i am with the alliance for

health reform and will come on behalf of senator rockefeller and our board of directors. with the health of people in prison in the the health care they need and the health care they received that may be the same and may not be the same. talk about proper care and how those behind bars have access to care should be important to you if you care about the budgets, you need to care about prison health. the state spent $8 billion on correctional health care in 2011 which was about $1 added six at of the entire

correctional budget. that level of spending should that be surprising this is not a healthy population that includes those with conditions conditions, mental illness, a patient disorders , and it is getting more as the population ages. so with the whole range of different strategies to get lincoln -- correctional health spending with the liberal health care having more services on site to take a vintage of new health coverage opportunities for the inmates we will look at how will those strategies are working and how that is helpful with the value that this population receives and

we are pleased to have as a that contracts to provide medicaid coverage in later you will hear from a physician from ed tennessee joint-venture that provides health care of which he is a partner in that we do some housekeeping. if you want to tweet #prison health. credentials are on the screen make use of them. there is good mckee it -- material in your packets in

there is a one-page materials list and additional material you can't go to for further information. all of that is on our web site. you can click and don't have to worry about copying the url. there is a video recording available of this briefing in a couple of days on our web site followed by a transcript or a day or two after that. you can follow along with the slides the speakers will be using today on that website. if you are watching on c-span you can find this

material and the slides on our web site and follow obama if that is what you would like to do. word about questions that the appropriate time you can ask three ways. a green card you can fill out, microphones eddy their side of the room to asking your own voice and to we will also monitor that. it as we go forward fellow of the evaluation form so we can improve the program as we go and those speakers that are of the most interest to you. our format is a little different.

you can ask questions after each one. first we get an overview then turn to a view from those who understand from firsthand experience. then the second panel will address concerns about health care and the correctional system from the standpoint with those hatter charged with delivering back here. starting with the first panel i will introduce them all to keep the continuity of the conversation going. we have mr. rosenberg from community oriented correctional health services. if you go to watch the redskins you know, a coach

is important. >> with those vulnerable populations with that technical assistance to the end. and ms. rowe is returning citizens united here with 20 plus years of experience supporting it deprecating for those re-entering fryer recourse is -- incarceration. and a supervisor at a domestic violence say that out -- safe house the first paralegal ohio urged by the law school and before she turned her life around as she phrases it spent more than 20 years in prison herself. we're looking forward to

hearing from these folks civic thank you for joining us. to have the opportunity to talk about public health because they're so closely tied. in the goal is to break down the barriers and before proceeding of quick distinction to make sure everyone knows what we talk about. jails or county or city based where folks are held prior to trial with of misdemeanor the prisons are operated by state or federal government where they go for a longer sentence. what you have been for interview shows who is in jail and who is in prison but i would like to turn your attention to the data

below that those that circulates to the nation's jail they're there for very brief time only 4% end up in state prison 96% to release directly from jail back into the community's sole what we see ordinations marginalized fox. largely pour suffering from diseases in proportion to the rest of the population so west -- money give you some data these other rates of hepatitis compared to non justice involved and as we get older down the specter of this is the data on hiv compared to the non

individuals and this is the data on substance used to look at the instance and would it down between 60 and 80% depending on the a jurisdiction that had the illegal drug in their body at the time of arrest but we can see it is inherently a public-health challenge and it has been amended and the correctional system. those with serious mental illness, look at that data at the population compared to the local population and with women in particular it is a much greater challenge more than 30 percent of women who have incarceration who have a serious mental illness.

obviously this is a challenging population that what i want to show you is prior to january 1st, a 2014, 90 percent of individuals were uninsured so we make that investment to stabilize their health care because we are required as the supreme court ruling which said the public jurisdiction has a responsibility under the eighth amendment not to be deliberately indifferent to the citizens under their charge so we stabilize them than a minute they leave the st. then be used that investment but it should be a point of concern that a study shows of the individuals incarcerated with a chronic disease disease, 80 percent did not receive treatment in the year prior to their arrest. if you have the and treated

disorder your nice receiving treatment then it becomes very high with three no if we treat the disorder? washington state had the system to organize the data to have the claims data and mental health utilization data. those general funds to treat as they saw fit in to the results were startling. this is exposure but not treatment but the arrest rate went down by 33 percent by exposing coaxed but for

every dollar spent on treating with substance used disorder is save $1.16 in the cost of victims are included the savings is $2.87 for every dollar saved. that is on the justice side. now looking at the health care side. looking at those with high morbidity the health care costs were increasing at a rate of 5.5% annually. with that disorder treatment all of a sudden the costs dropped at 2.2% annually. here in washington d.c. people are talking about ending the cost curve but in front of you is a perfect example a cost curve binge by providing access to substance abuse disorder treatment. been tway attache. [laughter]

so that leaves us with recommendations as policy makers going forward and allow it to give you four things to consider. they are not mothers with kids who will bang on the door of the welfare system to say give me a medicaid card. in 2009 massachusetts shows 3% of individuals 22 percent of individuals show the publicly funded substance abuse treatment programs with the demographic parallel is just as the individuals that are female female, a largely poor and the and insurance rates of 22%. the very first thing to understand is that targeted a reach for enrollment is necessary. that is a complex and difficult population to enroll and use of the administrative program by

public safety entities to facilitate their involvement. nothing about the opportunity to enable them to enroll the challenging population and as you saw that is what everyone funds. we need to understand the relationship between substance use disorders in the criminal-justice system and how health care providers in the community can work together to increase public unity. the third take on his wanting to talk about how it is important to understand we have on our books for the thing called the people who are patients in the institution of mental disease cannot receive medicaid. the purpose goes back when

medicaid was started to not have the state hospital suddenly become financed by the federal government. but our science and vocabulary have been financed now we understand traumatic brain injury, and these are not vocabulary words we have added 1965. so to give careful consideration festive jury words better 50 years old better not relevant today that we don't fail to meet the juncture of public health and safety because we're trapped in regulatory link wage to figure out how to change in the world to facilitate the opportunity. my last recommendation is to pay attention with the criminal justice silo and a

community health silo over there they are not very good to talk with one another. . . everything that we can to bridge those gaps and to make sure that folks understand that public health and public safety are incredibly intertwined. with that, ed, i'll go to the folks to your right. >> terrific. thanks very much, steve. could i just ask you one question? >> sure. >> you were talking about new terms. i'll tell you one new term i would appreciate your defining. that is criminogenic. >> sure. what we now know is we now have identified the causes of behavior that result in people gaving in a criminal justice manner, the people becoming justice involved. those come under the general heading of criminogenic. that means the characteristics that have way more to do with mental health, housing, lifestyle, anger management, they have to do with peer