it definitely applies to offices under the united states and the question is the presidency in office under the united states it's a very complicated argument and i believe it would disqualify somebody from the presidency but there's an argument that it does not and we would have to have a debate too. >> professor brian law professor with michigan state university were expecting the house to come in any second is expected to be a shortpe legislative session before they gobble out subject to the call off the chair we wil see how long, we will talk to viewers "after words" as expected short session, professor brian, the author of unable, the law of politics and limits of section four of the 20th amendment, law professor at michigan state university, we appreciate your time this morning. and we will talk to you down the road about the 20 for the moment. >> it was my pleasure. thank you. >> james joins us for discussion on what a 50/50 senate divide

means for the incoming biden administration but i know you expect earlier year you live on capitol hill, what are your thoughts on the events of last wednesday? >> i think like many millions of other americans i was shocked and i'm still unpacking it into see a sacred space filed in that way was truly shocking to me and it really was a sad and tragic day for all americans. >> one topic that you study the rules in the senate were getting a warp speed lesson on rules of the senate when it comes to an impeachment trial in a very short window, what is your read if the house and democrats say they will impeach the president this week, can a senate trial be

held in the timeframe before president trump leaves office? >> the first thing i learned after working in the senate for a decade anything's possible and the senate it's important to acknowledge that it's very difficult, right now the senate procedural posture will bar it from starting an impeachment trial if the house passes articles of impeachment prior to january 20 at 1:00 p.m., that is one hour after president-elect joe biden is sworn into office in president trump leaves office, the present several publications, the senate can agree to t waive the procedural posture by unanimous consent but that would take the agreement of 100 senators and there's been discussion of having a trial after president trump leaves office, that would be relatively unprecedented it's only happened twice before and work in history the first impeachment trial of north carolina senator trial and impeachment trial of the secretary in the president's cabinet. i would point out both of the

instances there was no conviction in its unprecedented for the senate to convict an official who is no longer in office, the charges in article of impeachment. >> it worked for republican senators on capitol hill, what is your read on republican senators having enough republican senators to convict on impeachment charges questioning. >> right now it is not clear and looks like it could be closer than it was earlier this time last year i should say but it's not clear that there's two thirds of the senate who are willing to vote to convict and i suspect once the president leaves office then he is no longer the president and no longer capable of being removed from office and you get into this unprecedented territory. i suspect the climate will shift a bit and i suspect you will have fewer republicans who will vote to convict the president in that instance and you also have many democrats who are

scratching their heads wondering why they're chewing up valuable for time and valuable ua agenda time during president biden's first 100 days with unified government to litigate and adjudicate the past disputes with the former president. >> unified government which starts january 20 at noon, was this the last time that it was such slim majorities in the house and senate 50/50 split in the senate only 11 seat majority in the house for democrats. >> the narrow partisan majorities of unified government are more or less the normal we do have unified government these days. with that being said the last time you had ate 50/50 split in the senate which is the narrow margins wasrg in 2001 and you hd in 2003 and 51 vote majority was very narrow but a 50/50 split doesn't happen very often and it's only the third time in american history that we have seen the 50/50 split. >> what should viewers know how the senate is run during a 50/50

split. >> the first thing the senate has to do is a has to organize itself, under the senate rules it sets up the standing committee they are historically the workforces of the congress and members to continue in those spots in new members after elections at common and they needed to be added to committees and if you have aor change in party control, the majority party presumed to have more seats onon that committee, they have to organize the chamber in organizing the chamber simply means naming the members of the committees, sitting the ratios to favor the majority party in improving higher funding for the majority party and if necessary new office space. that is the first thing you have to do and f when you have a 50/0 split it's very hard because in the senate you cannot pass anything without a simple majority in number two it can be filibustered so minority parties have filibustered the resolution in the past and it creates an

added complication for party leaders in this day and age to get an agreement that can pass in these things usually passed by voicese vote once they agree and isst locked in. >> chuck schumer will be the majority leader in the senate and it was last week before the attack on the capital when he was talking with reporters and asked several questions about the senate agenda what he will do as a leader of the chamber i want to play a minute of chuck schumer from early wednesday last week. >> are you envisioning a larger package. >> as i told you is one of the first things that we want to do the georgia senators campaigned in our caucuses strongly for we think the american people need it. >> how does this change the calendar, how does it change the way forward. >> obviously with democratic control, the ability of joe biden to move nominations forward will be easier, the

calendar i have not began to look at yet. >> last one. >> can you tell us a little bit when you found out you would be the majority leader and progressives are really pushing you to use the legislative filibuster, can you make that promise right now? >> we senate democrats know we face one of the greatest crises americans have, were united in wanting change and we will sit down as a caucus and discuss the best way to get that done. >> on those comments from chuck schumer last week on several fronts from the stimulus to nuking the legislative filibuster. >> there is so much in these comments that illuminate how the senate is going to operate and why i think the senate will continue to operate like this and has operated in the past, you heard the last thing that the more nordic leader chuck

schumer said we will sit down as a caucus, that underscores the fact that the senate floor is no longer an arena where these decisions are adjudicated and made there made in the party lunches, there made by the party members themselves meeting in the caucus in together and then they make a decision where they come out of those and then they go forward and they line up and they try to get their agreement through. i don't expect that to change, another thing that is very interesting with the nomination, if you look at the nomination record over the last four years and certainly over the last two years, the book of the nominee and the judicial nominees have been confirmed on a bipartisan basis.co nominations are confirmed and scheduled for the floor in consultation with the minority and the majority leader and in this case chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell in september prior to the november elections, senate republicans spent the bulk of their time on processing judicial nominees that were supported by democrats

overwhelmingly and had a majority of republicans opposed to them. the rhetoric surrounding the judicial nominations process simply does not match uphehe wih reality, expected that process to continue to be fairly agreeable, now you have high blood and controversial supreme court nominee seatsia potentialy and maybe an appellate circuit seat every now and then but for the overwhelming majority like a most 80% of the judicial nominations i expected continue cooperation and with regards to the filibuster in the nuclear option chuck schumer is in a difficult spot because if you look att. the rhetoric that was surrounding the georgia election on both sides the idea that the majority controlled the senate will mean the difference between lightness and dark between the republic falling into the ocean and the simple fact that is not the case and now the expectations are because the democrats have the majority, they can do a whole lot of stuff and they quite frankly are going to be able to because they don't

agree. with regard to the nuclear option you have to have as a minimum you have to have 50 democrats who want to support and pass underlying issue and you have to 50 republicans who are opposed to the underlying issue and the vice president who ultimately will cast the deciding vote in this instance. i'm not sure when you look at these issues and details what those issues are, i'm not sure they could happen and i expect that they might actually happen but right now it's not clear what those issues are. >> senior governor and fellow, with us at the bottom of the hour this morning, if you questions how the senate runs on a 50/50 split now would be a great time to call, democrats (202)748-8000, independence (202)748-8002. as they continued to call in, can you talk a little bit about vice president kamala harris role in the 50/50 split senate?

>> the vice president is an extraordinarily important figure in the senate, is the reason why the senate is not the house of representatives the c senate cat pick and speaker, the vice president can sit in the chair whenever he and she wants, in this case vice president kamala harris has under the constitution the authority and the option of casting tie-breaking votes, that's extremely important, whenever the senate deadlocks on issue, the issue dies, is defeated, you have to have a majority to support something for to proactively pass. when kamala harris sitting in the chair that is possible fory democrats and that is why they are considered to be in the majority party in the new congress. this is important to the congressional review act in republicans uses mechanism to a great degree and the last to readministration the first term and session in the first year of the last demonstration of trump's administration and if you have the 50/50 split in the

scenario, you cannot vice president kamala harris cast the tie-breaking vote to overturn these regulations that were put in place by president trump in his administration. >> this is linda and mississippi, democrat, good morning. >> it doesn't make much distance when the judge were nominated. mitch mcconnell had the majority, he let no one go through unless he wanted them to go through. during the obama years he did not allow any obama judges to go forward including merrick garland, the democrats can do more than they could do in

confirming bidens pick if mcconnell had been the leader. >> thank you for being the traditional nomination. a great points thank you for making it, there will always be differences andnd when i say they will continue, i mean in theon broad outline of house and senateel will function with regard to mitch mcconnell and merrick garland, mitch mcconnell does not have the power of majority leader or minority leader or the senator from kentucky or the senator named mitch mcconnell to block judges. he does not. the only way thats you can blok a judge from being debated in the senate is for senators onom the committee to refuse to report that judge and mitch mcconnell does not serve on the judiciary committee so we has no say in that instance, he can urge them to and influence and try to convince them to donv so but he ultimately has no power to do so. even in that regard i would point out democrats can move the discharge judges from committee, that's an important

power when the democrats did not use with regard to merrick garland, they can forcece the issue. i suspect they force issue early on in that debate then they would've won that debate but quite frankly the majority of republican senators did not agree with the strategy aten the time to prevent a votepr on merrick garland. it's an important point to make, i would also add in 2001 with the last 50/50 split there is a power-sharing agreement between democrats and republicans and one of the things they put in the agreement if the committee deadlocks in the disagreement and all committees will be split evenly between republicans and democrats and if the agreement if the committee deadlocked on a bill or incidentally on nominee then that nominee could be discharged and it would be put on the floor and it would have a vote, up or down whether or not to debated after four hours of debate, you cannot filibuster. i think that's an important thing because it makes the easier to discharge nominees and

when you combine that with the nuclear option for a judicial nominee and executive branch nominee that republicans and democrats have used in recent years, it creates an interesting scenario and i'll be very curious to see if that provision makes an in to the new agreement between mcconnell and schumer. >> nothing that we like better than digging through the c-span archives you mentioned after the 2000 election the 50/50 split here is majority leader then tot sherry news about their power-sharing agreement in early 2001. >> on several occasions we said this really comes down to two words, good faith. i hope not only by our actions today but buyer actions over the course of the next two years we can demonstrate without equivocation that the good faith was warranted we face many, many challenges and days and weeks ahead, we face many

uncertainties but as we face those challenges and those uncertainties, it is my hope that we can look back upon those moments and say were not the fact that we demonstrated good faith today, we cannot continue to demonstrate good faith when those challenges and uncertainties arrive. >> instead of us being in a filibuster next week with us arguing with senator -- would've authored or conversely the 21st of filibuster for days or weeks with the democrats filibuster we said we will not start off that way. were going to give it a chance to work, were going to be fair and have a good faith effort. i have enjoyed working with him he's very generous in his remarks is never easy for either one of us we have very diverse conferences. i assure you and i know some of his people are not delighted with the details and i think it's an important part with the point that he made.

we will find we will find some impact of what we did or what we didn't think about other rule that we may be should've a dress. as we go along will have to work together to deal with those problems when they come up. but i think we had a good discussion it's beenn friendly always and i think this is another step in a positive direction of how we will get our work done with the balance of this congress. >> on the power-sharing agreement, do you think will see a similar press conference was chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell? >> i don't know about a press conference per se but i believe they will t try to adhere to tht as much as possible. there's a lot of similarities between 2001 in now, yup to party leaders who are in negotiations right now in a divided conference that are going to be too happy with what they come up with and you have a

belief that they need an agreement to ultimately make the senate work andke incidentally it's a backdrop of a contentious and there's a lot of similarities between that moment moand now in one interesting detail which is very interesting with regards to 50 senate0 splits, unlike then there virtually not working, they are dnot doing much they don't do a lot of legislative business, if you recall the beginning of our conversation when i was organizing revolution, organizing the senate chamber means by and large populating this committee and that scene is important because the committees are important places were things happen in the committee leadership with the leadership staff behind closed doors to negotiate compromise agreements at the very lastoo minute then the floor all

senators republican and democrat are prevented from offering amendment and represented with the state complete. that is that. i'm not sure why a power-sharing agreement in that scenario is as important as it was in 2001. this is denise out of new york city,, democrat, good morning. >> good morning, everyone. i have a question, i don't believe that impeachment is a waste of time because i understand from what i'm hearing that nancy pelosi says she does have the vote if he is impeached when that mean he cannot come back in four years and we wouldn't have this problem of dealing with him with his criminal behavior and another four years. >> it says the senate can convict in impeachment trial with the results of the conviction is removal from

office and if they so choose in addition they can borrow that official from holding future office. to bar someone a private citizen from holding future office who is not currently in office would be unprecedented, if the senate has had to impeachment trials where the officials are no longer in office at the time of the trial but in both of those instances those officials were not convicted in article two of the constitution is very specific on who is subject to a conviction via an those are federal officials. it would be extraordinary unprecedented and i believe unconstitutional for the senate to bar a private citizen who is not able to be removed from office for running for future office. your point about a waste of time i don't believe anything the congress does is a waste of time these are important issues in them issue that americans feel deeply about him passionately about them and they want to see

them adjudicated, that is why we have a congress, house and the senate for them to adjudicate those issues. i again don't think anything is a waste of time but i think we must step back andrs ask oursels what are the consequences of these decisions if they go in one direction versus another. >> to be clear it takes three votes to bar a president for future office, the house impeachment vote that the simple majority vote and two thirds conviction in, the senate and then a vote "after words" on barring him or her from holding future office? >> correct the simple majority, this is an important point to make and it should be t emphasized, the senate does nt have the authority to bar someone for future office that at first does not convict via two thirds vote to remove from office. i have to ask yourself can you remove someone from office wuhan is not currently an office. they don't have the option of going down a menu and saying we

want to impeach his person in the house, and richard nixon, he still president but we will not kick him out of office, we will say he cannot run for office in the future. that does not make a lot of sense in the way the constitution is written and makes explicit it's an option to bar impeach individuals who have been removed from office for running from office in the future but that is in a lower threshold in a simple majority vote. >> james republican line. >> good morning call. >> as a conservative and a libertarian i should get an objective non-squishy interview, why do elected republicans not push the fact, that they did nothing wrong from his speech c-span in the mainstream media

seems to think the peaceful part of his speech, i don't know why they do that but to the house members who objected to the electives from the troubled state even when those states are selected their ultimate electors, but every time there interviewed i heard some other people, they moderate instead of standing tall and with a spying and pointing onto the american people exactly what they did was on a constitutional level i don't understand that maybe you 'have an answer center from a conservative libertarian think tank. >> the first thing i would say all the members of congress, liberal, conservative, democrat and republican there are good people trying to do the best they can. sometimes they do things that would personally disagree with on a policy level. but with regard to this terrible tragic event from last week, i

think my own view, you are absolutely right to the degree using procedures that are authorized under a law that is over 120 plus years old create violence is when people ought to do violent things that create violence following the constitution does not create violence. and too much political conflict does not spill over into violence when it gets too intense it's when people make a concerted and conscious decision to resolve the disagreement in a different way within debate via violence, that's when you see violence. if you look at president trump speech is very similar to speeches that aoc has given in the past, the senators have given in the past it's how people change the status quo when the system on thehe inside does not agree with them. you try to bring outside pressure. without being said i think if you look at the third talladega that is happening, the case against president trump right now is the totality of denying the election results, it's the totality of how we talked about

that and how his rhetoric has been delivered over four years in office. again not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing but i see how members can look at that in the heat of the moment and to be quite honest try to put yourself in their shoes, it's gotta be slightly terrifying if not incredibly terrifying to have that happen regardless if your mike lee or susan collins. or ted cruz or anybody else. but to remember these are humans and their trying the best they can in theren looking at the situation and reacting in the moment and in 20 years we will have to look back on this and see what is happened and see if we were closer to the mark than not that's very important to not take rash action and set new dangerous like the congress convicting the private officials say they cannot run for office, and that can be used in the future of other people.

and they could use in this to silence political opponents in debate in this country going back to the very beginning of the founding. >> brooklyn, new york, this is alan, good morning. >> thank you very much, i'm calling not just as a questioner but a resident who was are simply men in the early '80s before he took over the sea in the congress and i used to help with forms in the congregation of the local democratic club before he became a senator. i don't want to add to the burden, the question that might put the focus on some areas but we all know he has a left wing of his party that is trying to press in one direction and obviously very contentious right wing of the country that is trying to unite within the senate, we've seen the evidence of right wing influence in this insurrection where the confederate flag was brought into the rotunda for the first time in history. and it puts a finer point on the

fact that trump took office a weapon dazing the mathematical advantage t of white, low population states of minority low population states of many people of his flank to do something about the electoral college the first time in history. more of a democratic country in the eyes of ourselves in the eyes of the lust of the world, we've been very embarrassed inlv their eyes. they don't really view us as a real democracy anymore and aside from the violence, the main reason and these kinda complex and also creates inequities. many people black communities in large populations have less than a three fifths vote that they were supposedly counted for in the three fifths compromise when they were allowed to vote yet especially relative to states like wyoming and montana. my question is, how much of that

all while he's trying to buildla working relationship with mcconnell and republicans across the aisle. >> we take you back to live coverage of the house rules committee as p they consider a resolution to impeach president trump for inciting insurrection against the u.s. government following last week's attack on the capital. the committee went into recess so members can head to the house were to vote on a resolution urging vice president pence to invoke the 25th amendment to gethe constitution to immediatey remove president trump from office. this is live coverage on c-span2. >> good for you with regards of discussions throughout history and the timeframe involved in which this is being brought to the rules committee and subsequently to the floor, i think you i share your concern about setting a