voters thought about president obama's recent state of the union address and the issues they consider most important in the 14. matthew segal of the nonprofit organization ourtime will join us. ♪ ♪ host: a live view of the u.s. capitol. be meetingnt will separately with the house and senate democrats midweek. the president's national security team is back on capitol hill. last week they testified before the senate intelligence committee on tuesday. washere was also -- there also a hearing wednesday focused on the irs. .t is groundhog day we will begin with your calls and comments on the nfl and its

tax exempt status. our phone lines -- you can also join in on facebook and social media. you can also e-mail us at journal@c-span.org. let's take a look at the headlines from the super bowl cities. post" -- denver and this from "the seattle times" -- from "the richmond times dispatch" -- you login to espn.com, there is a story about the tax exempt

status for the nfl. tom coburn has proposed an amendment to the marketplace fairness act that would end the nfl's exemption from tax exemption. before you start comparing the nfl to the american red cross, it is important to know why it is a tax-exempt organization. it is classified as a trade or that is organization under the 501(c) six code. angus king spoke about why he wanted to change this. [video clip] >> this is ridiculous on the first place. it is an organization designed brand.ote a particular

i love going to games, i love watching the games. after this bill i may have to go to nfl games under the witness protection program. this isn't about the teams. they are their own entities, they pay taxes. this is about the league office, which makes $181 million per year and is a tax-exempt. ensure your listeners don't think of the girl scouts and the red cross and the cancer society as the same category of the nfl. it is a quirk of the law that ought to be fix. >> they fall under the 501(c)6 status. what type of business it is it reserved for? >> it is designed for trade

associations or manufacturers. are designed to promote and work with and coordinate the activities of a wide range of in a particular industry. they represent the nfl teams. it is a brand. it is not a general trade association. that is what i don't think it is appropriate. major league baseball dozens avail itself of this provision. -- dozens avail itself of this provision. l itself of this provision. it's just -- most people i talk you'reir reaction is, kidding i never knew that.

nonprofits payny their bosses $29 million per year? >> what would your lesson -- your legislation do? this organization like that has revenues of more than $10 million per year would not be exempt, they would be a taxpaying entity like everyone else. we would exempt the smaller true trade organizations. but we would capture people like nhl andand the particularly the nfl. that is what the bill would do. i also think it is important to raise people's consciousness of the tax codes. i think we need to look at the whole thing.

this is a good -- this is as good a place to start as i can think of. the question, should the nfl be tax-exempt? you can join in on the conversation. the phone lines are -- you can send us an e-mail or tweet at @cspanwj. will be focusing on super bowl sunday and politics. good morning. >> on today's sunday tv talk shows, the topics include reaction to the president's state of the union address, politics, and today's big football game. you can hear a rebroadcast of the program on c-span radio beginning at noon eastern with ."c's "meet the press

guests included denis mcdonough, white house chief of staff. also tim scott and julian assange of wikileaks. it is abc's "this week come to with representative paul ryan. at 2 p.m., fox news sunday with roger to dell, denver broncos executive john elway, and former nfl quarterback archie manning peter state of the union follows at three with louisiana republican governor bobby jindal. denis mcdonough, once again, and former new york city mayor rudy giuliani. as aare brought to you public service by the networks and c-span. we broadcast of the show begin at noon eastern with nbc's meet the press, 1:00 with abc's this week, at 2 p.m. fox news sunday, at 3 p.m. state of the union, and therefore clock is "face the

nation" from cbs. you can hear them all on radio across the country on xm satellite radio, find us on channel 120. you can download your free app for your smart phone or listen online at c-span.org. you --he let's hear from let's hear from you. should the nfl be tax-exempt? this story focusing on jason shave its, who propose legislation that would strip the his annualtus and revenues have soared about nine billion dollars. also the hill points out that the national basketball league and major league baseball are not tax-exempt. mlb gave up its tax exempt status in 2007 in part to keep

its salary information private. this is from one of our tweets. players should not have to pay new jersey state income taxes if they do not live in new jersey. elmer is joining us from albuquerque new mexico. caller: i can't think why the nfl, as much as i love football, are tax-exempt when there are so many other organizations that try to get tax-exempt to help other people and cannot get tax-exempt. for the life of me i cannot think of why the nfl is among those. host: what should lawmakers be looking at? i would say i would

change the tax code and do the same for tax and oil. make them pay their fair share of taxes. thank you very much. give us a call or send us a tweet. we were joined last fall on c-span's q and a program. [video clip] >> your viewers probably remember the act that bans businesses from forming unified fronts and sports leagues do that. they got an antitrust exemption from the supreme court in 1922. congress does not directly control that.

football got an antitrust exemption directly from congress as legislation in 1966. at that time there were two leagues, the old afl and the old nfl. the antitrust exemption allowed them to merge and to negotiate with television networks as one single entity. nfl was sothe successful and popular was it was exempt from the antitrust law. imagine what ample -- what apple would pay to be exempt. why does congress do that? i love the sport and i go to way too many football games. i think you can argue the antitrust exemption was good for football as a sport. it allowed the league to distribute evenly and ensure quality of competition and common draft. the games are much better games than they would be without an antitrust exemption. maybe you can rationalize it on

those grounds. congress got essentially nothing from the nfl in return. i've said congress should revoke the exemption or if you want to see what the nfl is willing to pay for. gregg easterbrook on his book, "the king of sports." our focus is the nfl status for being tax exempt. we will get more of your calls. senators and activists attack the nfl's exemption. liberal activists and one of the most conservative members of karma -- of congress found a common cause, trying to strip the nfl and several other sports organizations from their exemption from paying federal

taxes. it would bar sports legal with annual revenue of more than $10 million to claim tax-exempt status. more than 3000 people have signed on to change.org, a petition drive challenging their and -- challenging the nfl's status. church property and far lamb -- and farmland should also be taxed. good morning. morning.ood i think they should lose their exemption. the amount of money should be directed toward the national debt. next his nick from fairview, tennessee. caller: thank you for taking my call. they have the dodd frank for banking. and put ant over

obamacare concept. and just dohing up that with farmland, do that with to do since socialism is a religion it will ,e created by the government whether they be republican or democrat. the pretax is helping. we'll just all keep reverting back and will be like the soviet union in the 1930's. should the irs on them, 6:00 p.m. essay on them, six the epa -- sic the irs on them, sic the epa on them. are pushing for control

things. have a good day. says this is from jim who ash -- who says -- peter riley has this piece from forbes.com, taking a contrarian point of view, saying the flap over the nfl tax exemption seems silly. he points out, as we have been discussing, senators angus king and tom coburn cosponsoring a bill that would strip the nfl from its tax exempt status. in the finding sections, it notes the national football league, the national hockey and thethe pga tour, ladies professional golf association are all tax-exempt organizations.

that itley points out would be a big deal for an organization that handles billions of dollars to lose its exempt status. when you look at the numbers you get a different story. this is available online at forbes.com if you want to review the numbers. larry is up on the phone lines next. good morning. caller: good morning. the nfl should definitely not be tax-exempt. they should be the ones to pay the taxes. i say definitely not, they should not be tax-exempt. host: jan has this point -- is joining us from pennsylvania, welcome to the program. .emocrats line

caller: the nfl, they are evil. all most all of these equipments, the amenities these thingsl of are made in slave labor, thailand and bangladesh. come over here and they seldom for an enormous amount of money, $150 per jersey. of course they should be taxed. they want taxpayer money to build stadiums. from a virginian texan -- this essay is available online from motherjones.com. he points out --

roger goodell wants to triple the league's $225 billion by 2027. leagues dollars to $25 billion by 2027. root strikers want to put an end to the nfl's free ride. here is more from our conversation with senator angus king on roger goodell, who is the nfl commissioner who will be appearing on "fox news sunday," i can be heard on c-span radio this afternoon. -- that can be heard on c-span radio this afternoon. [video clip] salarycommissioners indicates this is not a street-based nonprofit organization such as the girl scouts or the american cancer society.

a small trade association that serves a whole industry rather than a particular brand. this is the national football league. it has a particular number of members and it does include football all across the country and other areas. think this is i something that needs fixing. >> what is the likelihood we can get it done? >> i haven't heard back. i mentioned this to my colleagues. it is astonishing this is tax-exempt. whiche some background, is exactly what talk to cockburn and i did earlier this week. coburn and i did earlier this week. a look at the "new

york times" sunday magazine, focusing on a different aspect of the big game. from cq weekly, washington on ice is the cover story. adding there is no saw -- no thought insight. -- no thaw in sight. tell us what you think about this question, should the nfl be tax-exempt? we welcome our listeners on c-span radio, heard coast-to-coast on xm channel 120. richard from maryland, good morning, independent line. caller: my comment on this issue business, all regardless of

entertainment or anything like occur --thing they they incur in the way of costs is called overhead and is passed on to the -- in the sticker price or to people who are watching it. has been known through history that labor gets erased and the business gets running. , he raisesular job his price to compensate for the raise. this thing goes back and forth and back and forth. i think they should be taxed. cost -- that money they are used to having is going to be compensated for raising ticket prices to the public. then of course the public will pay, which they always do. that is my comment. if you look at the tax

501(c)(6)s a organization, reserved for business leagues. in 2011 it had $255.3 million in revenue. million paid by teams in 2011. at $333nses were listed million, and clipping nearly $108 million in salaries. the nfl commissioner roger just $30 million. the situation in california, the headline, the severe drought. fearing the worst. companye some

photographs from the a section of the new york times. say the punishing drought that has swept california is now threatening the state's ranking water supply with no sign of rain. 17 rural communities are providing water. that is front page of the new

york times. next is richard joining us from laurel, maryland. good morning. the question is do you think the nfl should be a tax exempt status? with angus king, an independent of maine. he says yes it should be tax-exempt. there is this story from espn.com. we are also getting your tweets. this is from gregory who says -- i will go back and read to you what the status is for the nfl. the status is reserved for business leagues and for chambers of commerce paid in

2011 the nfl had $255 million in revenue and $333 million in expenses. good morning, where are you calling from? caller: i am calling from massachusetts. i wanted to talk about the drought in california. i think god is punishing the immorality of california. host: good morning, where are you calling from? caller: i am calling from florida. they should be taxed. upset by some of the calls i have been hearing. they are a money making machine. there are a lot of organizations that are tax-exempt that should not be. there are a lot of individuals who claim to be nonprofit. of when you look at these

astronomical salaries that these -- yeah, ittting should go to the national debt. we help with corporate tax, we give people tax exemption, and the middle class gets the shaft. of i am very upset. i think they should be -- should not have tax exemption. host: another tweet -- from "the new york times" sports section, there is a look at the town in the middle between seattle washington and denver colorado. arco, id co--- it is aho. post"rom "the washington --

charles is joining us from dallas, texas on the democrat line. they should be taxed. it is ridiculous. a lot of organizations that are smaller -- [indiscernible] host: we change it once a month. a we but the democrats on -- we put the democrats on top once a month and then switch it. he further explained the connection between congress and the nfl. [video clip] >> what is the motivation to make a special case on some sports team? , i think congress is cold by alled by -- is c

football. there is so much money involved. ,he book subsidies for both tax-exempt shins, and so on. you think some populist champion would stand up and say i love football to but let's make them pay their own way. it does not happen. i think congress is culled. they also provide photo ops. members of congress love to have their pictures taken sitting in the owners box of the hometown teams. i think that is why we do not see a populist champion rise up and demand -- i want the nfl to always exist and play great games but i want them to stop using public subsidies and show more concern with safety. not just for their own players but for the example they set for high school boys. with the entire interview ray easterbrook is available on

our website. oceanside, california, independent line, good morning. caller: they are selling millions of jerseys, charging $150 per jersey. there are people here who are illegal aliens. all you people get ready for all the trials, because they're coming your way. later, after c-span's washington journal, the c-span's newsmakers program. chair ofpeak with the the senate agriculture committee as lawmakers move ahead on the billville", -- on the farm , which passed the house this week. here is more from c-span's newsmakers program. [video clip] >> we are going to be in a

situation where we are not going to be able to pay our bills. shame on us, as america, if that is going to be the case. responsible in their own family for doing that. a country.do that as to me it is very simple. constitutional requirements -- constitution requires us to do it. we can negotiate a lot of things. i have been negotiating for three years on agriculture and food policy. when it comes time to pay the bills, i think it is our responsibility to pay the bills. >> could you tolerate some upsets? >> we need to negotiate paying our bills. host: host:

henry waxman from los angeles is leaving at the end of this year and was first elected in 1974. natasha is joining us from troy, michigan on the republican line on whether the nfl should be tax-exempt. caller: absolutely not. i was just in the process of writing you a letter. last week on public radio -- i came in on the tail end of it -- someone has written a book on all the things that all these ,eam owners and stadium owners the brakes that they get on their taxes that most of them don't pay. i think it is a travesty when someone works at mcdonald's and has to pay taxes on the first

and peopleearn designate nonprofits so they don't have to pay taxes and can hide money overseas. in china, things are made and they bring them here but they don't pay taxes because they leave the money offshore. the poor people are the ones that ultimately are the ones that suffer. example, our last republican presidential candidate had money offshore and in different banks outside the country. nobody made a big deal out of it but you have some poor wealth -- some poor welfare mother who happens to make a mistake or collects money one day longer than she should have in its national travesty. host: thank you for the call.

this is what the website looks like, focusing on the nfl. it is called the end of the corruption in washington. rob is joining us next from philadelphia, good morning. caller: good morning. i want everyone to know that every time they need a new stadium, just what, people, they use your tax dollars to build the stadium. this is absolutely ridiculous. exemptt, it will be tax- on the people working in the stadium, the people slipping the burgers or selling out dogs and popcorn they should have tax- free salaries. we need to wake up and stop this building the playpen for the wealthy millionaires to play in with their tax dollars. host: thanks for the call. peg has this point --

in "the washington post" - below that is the henry waxman peace. salt lake city, utah, good morning. caller: are you there? host: go ahead. believe the nfl deserves a tax exempt status. what would i tell congress? that's pretty much useless to tell anyone in the government because they listen to the money, not the little people. much, tommy for a from augusta, georgia, good morning. caller: how are you doing? taxedk the nfl should be

and big corporations and all the rich people like mitt romney. it started with ronald reagan. host: thanks very much for the call. next is riverton, wyoming, and the issue of the nfl and tax exempt status. caller: good morning, how are you? thank you for c-span. i believe that everyone should and ied including the nfl think we are just stupid not to do the right thing and tax them. thank you. host: thanks for the call. the front page of "the washington post," a look at 2016 and republican options are wide open with 15 or more essential candidates.

mary is joining is joining us from mississippi, welcome to the program. caller: good morning. this is grossly unfair. this is just another example of big business who should pay their fair share. if you ask me, the whole tax system is unfair. the biggest burden is placed on the middle class. and the lower moneymaking people. the rich people get too many loopholes that the middle class has the biggest burden and it's

so unfair. thank you. host: thank you for the call. peter haskins has this points -- this is a story inside "" the new york times - there are two ways to divide the $3000 seats. about 17%an includes for the seahawks fans and 17.5 for the denver broncos fans and 33.6% for the also ran teams and 25% kept in the nfl and six percent split between the new york jets on the giants versus the new jersey law which says that 95% of the tickets are reserved for the public. that's an in depth look at the challenge to get tickets for the

big game from "the new york times." here is a tweet from senator angus king. next is andy joining us from oxford, connecticut, republican line. caller: thank you for taking the call. this is all crazy. of course they should not be taxed. they are being taxed. they took the money and given to the ballplayers in the ballplayers paid taxes. they give to the owners on the stockholders on the stockholders and the stockholders and owners pay taxes. big government is getting the money anyway. taxes, the pay any government would still get the money even at the president of ibm took the entire profit, he would pay tax on it. the problem is, the government could not say let's raise the taxes for ibm because there are no more taxes on ibm.

we would have to raise individuals taxes and no lawmaker wants to vote for that. host: thanks very much for the call. times," anew york look of the books on the bestseller list -- you can see more of the list -- you can check out all of our nonfiction books every weekend including in-depth which is on today. check out the schedule information at www.c-span.org or booktv.org. next is jimmy from pasadena, maryland. caller: good morning. i don't think they should focus on taxing the nfl. firing thefocus on people that gave them the tax exempt status.

illegals aive the tax number to file taxes so they could pay income tax on their income, every one of them claimed 19 exemptions some of the government is wasting $4 billion per year sending back to mexico for false tax forms. they should focus on that. $4 billion lost to mexico in fraudulent tax claims. everyone of them has 19 or 25 exemptions. host: thanks very much for the call. from the "times picayune"- mitch landrieu coasted easily to a second term.

more on new jersey governor chris christie and the follow-up to the store that rope late friday afternoon, getting a lot of attention on the cable channels and political rights -- among the five things he should know is the bombshell that is not a bombshell, it offers a harshly negative portrayal w of mr.ildstein's character and judgment.

they criticized "the new york fire was set media up by sloppy reporting and there is suggestion that it was evidence alleging that evidence existed. the original story said wildstein's claim that he had evidence. the statement saturday, "the new york times" says we update web stories but we did not know changes unless it involves an error. more details available online at om and governor christie is the host governor at metlife stadium for the super bowl being held in the northeast in new jersey. darlene is joining us from west virginia, good morning. should the nfl be tax-exempt? caller: no, they should not be. i like sports, all sports, and i am a big fan. i don't spend a lot of money on it, i stay home and watch it but my husband was a minister and

they said he was self-employed. he was not, he was under the rulings of the governing churches. a higher taxaxed than the ordinary person. i think everyone should pay their own taxes. thank you. "the atlanta journal- constitution," more of the aftereffects of the ice storm that hit the area and gridlocked the city on tuesday afternoon. from "the sunday star-ledger" in new jersey, more on governor chris christie. at a super bowl event. clifton is joining us from saint augustine, florida, good morning. out throughve found

conversations with clients of mine that the nfl was tax- exempt. it was a shock when i heard it, as much money as they make. regardless of the amount of money that got, those are powerful institutions and make lots of money. this is one of the subjects that comes under tax reform. this is one reason in the 21st century american politicians being elected have to look at tax reforms in different parts, simplified the code for lehman, the little people like us. under tax reform, we will look at this tax-exempt status for these big companies, sports franchises, even churches. it's not going to be popular but if you tax all these entities, imagine the amount of money that would be paid toward the debt. it is time in the 20 to reassess the tax exempt status. they should not be tax-exempt . being from miami, you can go down there and all the stadiums

and arenas that are built on the backs of taxpayers, some of which are not pay for an up being used in this goes on in every city of every franchise. no tax-exempt for billionaires. it should all be reassessed should come under reform. host: thank you very much for the call. one of the stories focusing on organizations and politics and money is inside "the new york times" -

more reading doubt in "the new york times" has a closer look at rand paul. he is scheduled to be our guest on newsmakers next sunday on c- span. news from punxsutawney, pennsylvania -- means hes shadow which is forecasting six more weeks of winter. we will take a quick look at some of the other issues on this sunday morning in closing -- including executive order, roundtable coming up in next hour, as we look at two points of view on the president and the use of executive powers and later, how young voters view the president's state of the union address and their rarities. you're watching "washington

journal," for this sunday, february 2. we are back in a moment. ♪ ♪ >> bringing attention to what women have contributed to this returns to the question of the

body. for one thing, many people object to bringing women's history and studies into a middle school or high school classroom. there is an assumption that women's studies is only about sex, birth control, abortion and actually, it's also about women in politics, women in law, women working on farms ,queens, prime ministers and my job is to break down the fear that many people have and what goes on in a women's studies classroom. >> women's history today in the antifeminist backlash. bonnie morris will take your questions in depth live for three hours starting at noon eastern. booktv's in depth on c-span two. >> she was someone who grew in the office. by the bayy burned

of pigs experienced. he had listened to the experts, cia, joint chiefs of staff and he went to seedegaule in france -- and he went to see degaulkle in france who said you should surround yourself with the smartest possible people, listen to them and hear what they have to say. at the end of the day, you have to make up your own mind. kennedy remembered what harry truman had said that the buck stops here. after that bay of pigs, he was absolutely determined to make up his own mind and here with these experts had to say and way with they were telling him but, at the end of the day, he was going to make the judgment and he was going to be were the responsible party. clear whenundantly

you listened and read the transcripts of all those tapes during the cuban missile crisis. he was his own man. hewas making up his own mind held the joint use arms length. i wanted to invade and bomb and he did not want to do it. >> an inside look at the kennedy administration tonight at 8:00. "washington journal " continues. we are focusing on executive orders in our sunday roundtable. joining us for our conversations rogereelon with the cato institute. with the lazarus constitutional accountability center. appreciate you being with us. this is how the "christian science monitor" poses the question --

guest: i expect one could say that it is both. it is very much overreach in my mind. be sure that, to be sure, the president has certain authority to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. he is pressing that discretion right to the limit. we are talking here not so much about executive orders because most of what he has done lately has not been through executive order but it has been through rules and regulations through his agencies. , in the caseity, of the affordable care act, for example, he has been on a tear to essentially rewrite the law in many respects. it is as if congress issued a statute that said this is advisory now fill in the blanks and that's what has so many people upset today. host: article two, section one

of the constitution states the following -- the executive power shall be vested in the president of united states of america. and then there is the 10th amendment, the powers not delegated guest: there is another part of article to which i think has come to be interpreted by the courts generally as the main basis for defining what the executive power is. it is referred to as the so- called take care clause which means the president will take care that the laws are enforced. ish that has come to show the president is supposed to take care which means use reasonable judgment in determining how to execute the laws.

he is to be faithful to all the laws, not just to a particular provision and make sure they all work together well and that includes the constitution. fulsomea rather definition of with the presidential authority is in president obama, everything he has done so far that i can think of and the targets of criticism, are well within that job description. host: let me ask you about this from "the christian science monitor," a comparison of the president and his predecessors on the power of the pen. currently, the president has had 167 and he says it will increase. george bush had 291. 624 in four had 300 years in the white house, george had 166.alker bush

-- obama appears appears to be on track to be issuing the average number of executive orders but the numbers don't tell everything. it executive orders are issued well within the authority and scope of the executive power, there is nothing wrong with them. if you have far fewer orders issued that there be on the scope of power, that is a concern. perhaps it would be useful to put this in a larger context. if i have a minute, i would be glad to do that. we all learn in high school civics about the three races of government, the congress writes the laws and congress's powers are enumerated and therefore limited. there are only certain areas where they are authorized to legislate. the executive and judicial powers, on the other hand, are openimited so it leaves

the question -- what is the scope and nature of the executive power or the judicial power? traditionally, we have, in this country, allow the president to have fairly wide scope in foreign affairs but in domestic affairs, the power is primarily to see that the laws are faithfully executed. the left today has essentially reversed that. they want to hamstring the president strongly in foreign affairs but leave them wide open in domestic affairs at least if the person is in office. that all changed. we've lived with limited government for about 150 years but changed during the new deal. that's where the problem before us now begin. it began with the courts allowing congress to regulate invest areas. as a result, you had the creation through a series of supreme court opinions of the modern executive state where most of our laws are written

today. the congress passes a law and these agencies, there are well over 300 today in washington, write the rules and regulations, essentially legislate a mess where so much of our law is done today. is turningh doing to his agencies,hs, the irs and so on and giving them instructions as to how he wants his broad statute to be carried out and he is doing it in ways that raise very serious questions about whether he is, in fact, rewriting the law. the source of the problem ultimately is the vast amount of legislation that has been coming out of the congress since the new deal and especially after the great society in the 1960s. that is the root of the problem we are talking about this morning. host: let's follow up on that point in a moment. what about the executive orders this president has signed.

this is what barack obama said during his state of the union address as he spoke to a joint session of congress. [video clip] tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class, and build new letters of opportunity into the middle class. some require congressional action and i am eager to work with all of you. but america does not stand still and neither will i. wherever and whenever i can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more american families, that's what i'm going to do. [applause] host: from last tuesday night. to follow-up on the type of executive orders that this resident has signed, what is your take? guest: as roger appropriately pointed out, executive orders are only a part of what the president does. the actions that the administration has taken which have drawn most of the ire of

roger and his allies on the right have actually been regulations. i want to point out that most of that has been about adjustments in the timing of implementation of parts of the affordable care act. emphasis thatrs what the president has been doing is not suspending the affordable care act or refusing to enforce its. this is most important compliment. he has been phasing it in and is made decisions along the way to certain pieces of it and they need to meet -- be delayed by more than one year. this is exactly what presence and administrations have always done and are expected to do in implementing complicated pieces of legislation like the affordable care act. george w. bush's secretary of health and human services said three days after one of the most

important delays of the so- called employer mandate was announced, this decision was " wise." he compared it to decisions that he and president bush made when their implementing the prescription drug benefit in medicare which many of us are personally familiar with now. complicatedery piece of health legislation. it also had a very bumpy introduction was not very popular. they have a lot of problems that they had not anticipated. they took their time and implemented it sensibly and now it's a very successful and popular program. that's what the president is doing and it is the very definition of taking care to see that the laws are faithfully executed. i think my friend roger's beef is not with the fact that the president is rewriting the law, his beef is with the law as it has been defined for about the last 75 years.

i respect that. he has sincere and well thought through views. the problem in his view is not about violating the law. the problem with the law has given the president and congress to much authority in his view. we are discussing and debating the president use of executive orders and executive powers in response to what the president said tuesday night. speaker of the house john boehner said after five years, the president is clearly out of ideas. few bipartisan proposals. americans heard an american more interested in advancing ideology than in advancing ideology than solving the problems regular folks are talking about. guest: there is no question that this president, more than any

other recent president, has gone about his business in a kind of confrontational, in-your-face way that has raised serious questions about the kind of understanding he has of the constitution which is striking given that he was an instructor in constitutional law at the university of chicago, my on the monitor. -- my alma mater. what we are seeing here is a statute that is very unpopular and si is right, my beef is with the statute itself but it is also with the way the president is going about implementing this. let'sw was written so now enforcement is the normal approach to these matters. of course, the law was so poorly written, so poorly thought out, that there is no way to enforce it is written.

what he is doing, in so many ways, is rewriting it. for example, he is having the administration impose this contraceptive mandate which has led to the suit by the little sisters of the poor. he has instituted delay's. he has put certain penalties off for a while. hocs simply --it is ad and this is what has so many people up in arms because they cannot plan their own lives. businesses and individuals have to plan for their own insurance, their health care, and yet it changes day by day. this is the kind of thing that has led to the extraordinary unpopularity of this bill and in particular the way it has gone about thing implemented by this president and his administration. up on let me follow-

specific examples of where the president has used his powers --

let's get to your phone calls on this issue. democrats won, good morning. caller: good morning. i think this question is ridiculous. likethink what it would be if the president did not have this executive order. congress is not doing their job and if this president did not have this executive power, where with the people they? if this had not been brought up -- this was not brought up with other presidents. what is happening here? are they trying to cripple him

from helping the people? evennk it's ridiculous talking about this, thank you. host: thanks for the call. guest: i think i probably should say nothing because the caller said everything i would want to say better than i could say it. that the stress lighting -- that delaying pieces of the affordable care act to make sure that they get implemented more smoothly and in a way that the people who are regulated by the active people who benefit from it will be able to handle these responsibilities and these benefits in a sensible and effective fashion, that is ed andtely precedent right in the middle of the president's constitutional job description. it's what all presidents have done with complicated pieces of legislation like this and that's

exactly what he should do as the caller pointed out. i would also add that this is how the framers designed the constitution. that,reated a legislative the judicial branch, and an executive branch and of those three, the only one branch that is always open for business is the presidency and the executive branch. rely on ato legislative branch and the -- branchent alone, along, half the times when things go wrong or come up, the u.s. government would be completely impotent. what the situation was before the constitution was written and it was what the framers were most interested in avoiding. they wanted to have an effective federal government that could that almosttnesses caused the united states to lose

the revolutionary war and they particularly wanted an executive branch which had with they called energy. they repeated that over and over again. the energy to be a strong government. guest: i think bill's question was directed at me when he asked where we would be if the president did not assume this power that is not given to him. we would be living under the constitution is where we would be. the constitution simply sets forth a set of rules for the conduct of government. the president will not always get his way or his policies implemented if we followed those rules. bill complained about the congress doing nothing. that's the kind of gridlock that was built into the constitution by madison when he established three branches of government and pitted power against power. the fact -- just to give an example -- of the recess appointment power -- the

congress had come in the case of those three were appointees, refused to affirm them. what did the president do? he went one step further than any previous president had done. officeointed those two when the senate was arguably in session. of course, that led to litigation, the noel

guest: the actions that the president has taken, these have all been well within his authority that has been granted by congress. that is true mold these cases. let's take the immigration example. that is one of the examples and opponents of the president frequently site.

what the president did 1.5 years that certaine children of undocumented immigrants who had gone to school and served in the military would not be targets for deportation. this is a perfectly sensible thing to have done. to say that the president was not enforcing the immigration laws is ridiculous. hasrate of deportations increased almost four times under obama over previous administrations. not coincidence all. congress had only appropriate enough money to cover the number of deportations annually that are now being put into effect. who said many people the executive branch did not have the resources to undertake

deportation proceedings. to exempt people who are clearly beneficial to our society and are not threats to the public welfare from deportation and since they were not going to be deported anyway because the government did not have the resources to do it was a perfectly sensible thing to do. agosupreme court 1.5 years in discussing the president's authority under the immigration laws in a decision that chief justice roberts and she justice kennedy joined said very clearly that the decision to undertake deportation proceedings is at the core of the president's authority to enforce the immigration laws and they specifically said that humanitarian concerns are part of what the president can take into account and specifically targetat deciding not to people who are gainfully employed, for example, rather

lons is a sensible way to use that discretionary authority because people who are gainfully employed or students in school or who have served in the military are, again, not threats to welfare here. the view on what the president did administratively in that decision, the view that has been expressed by opponents of the president that this is somehow usurping congressional authority and violating the constitution is directly contrary -- that is a cramped view that is directly contrary to what the supreme court has only recently reaffirmed in a very bipartisan position. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. we are focusing on the presidential use of executive powers. joining us for our discussion is kison.azarus and roger

pilon. to jane's in peoria, illinois, independent line. caller: good morning, i am so sick and tired of hearing how president obama is the worst president in the world. first of all, president obama would not have to use executive power if congress was doing their job. they are not. you sit up and you talk about how bad this president is. it was not a problem when george was -- george bush was lying to the people and got us into two wars we did not need. that was ok. president obama is trying to get us out of the war and get us out of the next four. host: take your point of view

and frame it in terms of a question and we will get a response. -- i would is it like a truthful answer -- that when president obama uses executive power, it's a bad thing when it was not a bad thing with other presidents? he has not done anything beyond the constitution. respectes, well, with to congress not doing their job, it all depends on what you understand the job that congress is supposed to be doing is. congress simply to not pass a statute that the president wants past is not the case of congress not doing its job. it is a case of congress disagreeing with the president's policy. thiss exactly the way system was meant to work. you have to have all three wrenches of government on board

-- all three branches of government on board to a copper something. you have to have the congress passed the statute, you got to have the president sign it, and you got to have the court find that the statute is constitutional. if you have accomplish all of that, then the government will be doing the job that initiated and began in the congress. what we've got with this president is a failure of leadership. you talk to the republicans in the house and you find that, for several years, he hardly had anything to do with them. care act,e affordable obamacare, was passed without a single vote from the republicans in either the house or the senate. that is not bipartisanship. that is partisanship with a vengeance and that is part of the reason why the bill is so unpopular together with the way it has been implemented and with the bill itself which increasingly is being seen as a

massive intrusion into the private affairs of individuals in this most intimate area of their life, namely their health care. host: calling it the recess appointment rent, this is one of the many essays you can check out from the cato website. we will go to bob from philadelphia, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span and taking my call. i wanted to thank c-span for having this forum on this debate. quite frankly, you would not see it anyplace else. the press is so liberal that the point should be made that if a conservative or republican president stood there in front of congress and essentially threatened and cajoled them, there -- they would be demonized. people would be standing on rooftops screaming about what an

imperial president. this guy somehow gets a free ride. thank you for the debate and thank you for the form. it would not be seen or heard elsewhere. host: thank you. there is also this tweet -- guest: thank you very much and thanks to both callers. on the question of whether the congress is doing his job, i would like to address that. let's look at the so-called recess appointment issue. it is a little bit arcane for most people. requires senate confirmation for a high-level executive branch but it has a

safety valve, a clause which senate is inn the recess and therefore not available to decide whether to confirm or not confirm, the president can make a temporary appointment to make sure that the job is filled. the question right now is whether the president appropriately use that power to add three people, three commissioners to the national labor relations board a while back. thatwas going on there is the minority in the senate, not a majority but the republican minority at the behest of their business community allies had decided to completely shut the labor board down by refusing to confirm three members for three slots not because they had objections to the individuals but because they literally wanted to shut the labor board down.

the labor board only had two of its five slots filled in the supreme court had decided that it needed a quorum of at least three to act. by refusing to consider these nominees, the senate republicans -- filibustering -- is not that they had a majority even the senate -- the republicans were able to completely keep the president and his administration from faithfully executing all the laws that protect workers and the right to organize in unions that the national labor relations board and forces. -- and forces. --enforces. it was never seen that the power to confirm or not confirm would literally eliminate repeal large chunks of laws or shut down: cetaceans.

expected theut confirmation authority would be exercised only very rarely and only because of problems that the senate had with particular individuals. i think the congress here was absolutely violating its own constitutional responsibilities and the president, in exercising his recess appointment authority to make sure the labor board could actually function, was doing just what the framers expected and wanted the executive branch to do as a means of self-defense, a word they used in the federalist papers. they foresaw this kind of political fighting between the two branches and that was very important that the executive branch specifically would have the ability to resist encroachments from the legislative ranch and preserve

the executive branch is vital authority to see that the laws are faithfully executed. i want to point their audiences attention to this from jeffrey anderson in "the weekly standard." guest: absolutely, that is probably the most important of all the members of the federalist. -- numbers of the federalist for the point you just made can be brought to bear on whatsi has said.

to make sure that one branch does not intrude on the powers with respect sy, to this recess appointment issue, has pointed to the reasons why the minority did not approve these members of the national labor relations board. that is not the issue, ultimately. the issue is whether they have the power to refuse to confirm these nominees. the alternative issue is -- does the president have the tower given that refusal to confirm, to appoint them himself? i submit that he does not. the president has the power to fill up vacancies that happened when the senate is not in session. these vacancies did not happen when the senate was not in session. moreover, the appointments were made when the senate was in session. it's a double violation on the

part of the president. that is what has got so many people up in arms. with respect to the tweet you got a moment ago, and brought to our attention, this person is making the point that the two previous callers have made, namely, that the president is acting because the congress is not acting. the fact that congress is not acting does not give the president power to act. the president's power as a function of what the constitution says, not a function of whether congress does or does not act in a given area. simon rogerpilon and lazarus. your is more of what the speaker of the house this past week said as he reacted to the president's announcement that if congress fails to act, he will. [video clip] >> we will continue to look

closely at whether the president is faithfully executing the laws. he took an oath to do this. dealing with federal contracts and the minimum wage, he probably has the authority to do that but we will watch very closely. there is a constitution that we all take an oath to including him. following that constitution is the basis for our republic and we should not put them in jeopardy. host: will go to richard joining us from pawtucket, rhode island. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. all in all, i think what the president said was pretty blurred -- was pretty belligerent to congress. i think what he did was pretty successful in the way that he was able to derail the public from having to the main topic of the things that are concerning americans the most right now which is the economy.

within your viewpoint, i would like to know if he was successful in doing that. thank you. guest: i would like to respond. first of all, i would like to point out that speaker boehner, very responsibly and the only specific points he made in his statement that was just on, he specifically said that the two important actions that the president had actually announced in his speech, namely requiring federal contractors to pay a minimum wage of slightly over new irahour and the accounts for lower income people -- speaker boehner said those that theere lawful and

congress would continue to watch and make sure the other actions are lawful. that's what congress should do. i want to point out that speaker boehner, unlike many of his allies on the right, is at least shooting straight. when he said that. the specific in the president has done for which he is being criticized are, in fact, lawful. host: one other quotation from federalist 521- this is from james madison.

guest: yes, the reliance on the people is our ultimate protection. the people must also be informed which is why it's a good thing we have c-span. they also must be alerted in these matters and, regrettably today, our education system does not teach the kind of basic civics that is necessary to be an informed and knowledgeable citizen about our system of government. with respect to the point that sy just made relating to speaker banner plus comments, he spoke about the minimum wage for government contractors but he did not speak about the accounts. ira accounts.he

those accounts are apparently to be done through executive order. it seems to me that that will present a problem. these are going to require the appropriation of money. you cannot create this kind of system without funding it. congress has up are created no funds for the creation of these accounts. "the wall street journal" had a piece friday or yesterday about the problems, the constitutional problems that would surround the ira's/ . this is the perfect example of him taking his law into his own hands. the previous caller talked about doing this for the purposes of diversion from the larger issues such as the stalled economy over the past decade or so that is still stalled five years into the obama administration.

i think your caller is absolutely right on that. so much of what obama has been doing has been done in the name of diverting attention to his other problems -- the irs scandal with respect to the tea party, for example, then ghazi, the ap/fox news scandal -- these are the kinds of things that he does not want to see the outlook attending to. so he issues one statement after another. what was captured very nicely by saidon appointee who stroke of the pen, law of the land which is kind of cool. in other words, you can rule from the white house by executive order or by instructions to the agencies and ignore congress. this regrettably is what we have

come to in this country by the statef the administrative and the failure of the courts to more seriously monitor them. judicial this engagement has allowed this imperial executive state to come about. that is what we live under essentially today. host: another source on this topic is linda feldman the christian science monitor. is barack obama an imperial president? and his use of executive authority in the white house with a divided government? caller: good morning. i would like you to correct me with this.

he put u.s. in the state of emergency was given the ability to use the power which the thing that should have happened is after the war the state emergency defended, the use of the power was allowed to use but it wasn't. we're supposed to be under a state of emergency right now. i think it's fair to hear people calling under the llusion thinking that this causes when the president is working in the interest but he's not. >> host: response? guest: i'm not sure i completely understood the statement or question that the caller has just made and if i didn't, please correct me. but i think the question is ether the president's use of executive authority is in line and actions cies

of past presidents. and if that is the question i think the record is very clear that the president is acting s irely within the precedent set by past presidents including president lincoln whom the caller referred to. and again, i want to point out roger here -- well, part of what he last said seemed to me to sound an awful lot like a political attack. and -- of a piece with some of the thing that is some of the political opponents of the president are saying. was really it again criticizing our government as it has existed since the new deal. and he has also very strongly criticizing the law of the constitution that the supreme

court has propounded in those years. i would go on to say that i think that his criticisms of the constitutional law and the definitions of executive and federal authority as they are now inscribed in judicial decisions interpreting the constitution, i would say that rogers' criticism of that law as it is defined really is an attack on the constitution as it was interpreted by our first great chief justice, mar shall, in the early part of the 19th century and chief justice marshall was of course the contemporary of the framers and he famously wrote in a number of decisions that it was a constitution that we are expounding. it was built to last for the ages. it was intended to be flexible. it was intended to give the federal government the authority to regulate commerce and by that chief justice

marshall said interstate commerce is that commerce which concerns more states than one. anything that affects economic activity beyond the borders of one state is something that congress can regulate if it needs to. and that is exactly what the interpretation of the constitution has been and it is what my friend roger quite sincerely is objecting to. host: i'll give equal time. one of our viewers saying

senator manchen is a former governor of west virginia now the senator from that state, he's a democrat. >> i thought some of the tone that was used could have been different. i was an executive, i was a governor of the state and i knew the powers of the office. i knew the constitution of the state of west virginia. i knew that i was responsible for day-to-day operations to run it effectively and as efficiently as i could and i would use all the powers the office had and the constitution gave me. but i would not make it sound as if i was going to go beyond the powers or do it my way without you. i just -- that tone could have been a little bit conciliatory. host: that was from last tuesday. and this tweet.

guest: well, thank you for that one. with respect to the first of those tweets, that president obama has issued fewer executive orders than his predecessors, again he is right on track to be -- that's not quite accurate. he is on track to be in line with his others with respect to the numbers. but as i said at the outset, the issue is not the numbers. the issues whether those orders or actions that he does take are taken pursuant to the authority that the constitution grants him. now, to pick up on the point that he made earlier that my beef is really with the post new deal constitutional law, i plead depilty to that. but i'm not alone in that. there is a growing body of thought in this country from the academy right on down that the new deal was indeed a constitutional revolution. and we have no better authority for that than rexford tug well

one of the principal architects of the new deal. and i quote, in order to get our programs through, we had to engage in tortured interpretations of a document, namely the constitution, that was intended to prevent them. and so the people in the new deal who were turning the constitution on its head knew exactly what they were doing. they were taking a document that was intended to authorize limited government and turning it into a document that authorized effectively unlimited government. that we are surrounded with today. wrsh the government can regulate and redistribute virtually at will. the idea that the federal government has any authority whatsoever to be involved in the health care business is simply preposterous. where do you find health care anywhere in the constitution? he said we'll say well they have the power to regulate

interstate commerce and health care is interstate commerce. the whole point of the power to regulate interstate commerce was to ensure that it was free from interference from the state especially and free in the sense that they would have the authority to write legislation that removed such other impediments as there might be to a free market among the states. what was not a power to then go into the business of health care or to regulate it in every kettle across the country. this is the kind of thing that would have the framers turning in their graves if they saw what was happening. we had two schools of thought at the founding. the federalists and the anti-federalists. the anti-federalists were opposed to the new constitution because they feared it authorized too much central power. the federalists said in response, no it doesn't.

look at all the checks and balances we've got in this document. so you had two schools of thought. the limited government people, the federalists, and the even more limited government people, the anti-federalists. there wasn't a person among them including hamilton who would have sanctioned anything like what we have today. and that is the root of the problem that we see today. namely, that with all this legislation we have got an executive branch that is huge that is carrying out that requires the president to be engaged in these kinds of law making activities in effect that were never contemplate bid the framers. host: and there's this.

two different organizations represented tat table as we focus on the use of presidential powers, the cato institute and constitutional accountability center. we go to gep from alabama. caller: good morning. i have a statement and then i ant to ask a question. the conversation was going so good. it's good to see two points of view to explain something to the american people because everyone is not political and doesn't know the constitution. and that's fair. but when the gentleman from the cato institute brought up benghazi and the tea party controversy, it took away everything because we need to learn what's really going on about the constitution and the powers that the executive and the legislative branch. but my thing is i want to know

from the gentleman from the cato institute and follow up from the other gentleman, because under the constitution if the president is using his executive power to go above the congress are they impeachable offenses? and please give us clear answers so that the american people and the taxpayers can know what's really going on. host: thank you for the question. impeachable or not? guest: whether it's an impeachable offense is a political question. and -- host: but it clearly states high crimes and misdemeanors. guest: i dare say no president has ever been impeached for the kinds of things that president obama is doing. and i don't encourage impeaching him for this although there are clearly people who do. i think the remedy is in the courts. and there is where the problem has been since the new deal with the courts essentially

stepping out of the picture, defering to the political branches, and especially in the area of administrative law. we could get into the tall grasses on administrative law deference, step one, step two, and the eyes will glaze over if we did that. guest: they already are. it's early on sunday morning. guest: but this is what we've come to in this country. and that's why as the caller asked about the constitution, the constitution or more correctly modern constitutional law is all but inscrutible today to anyone except lawyers who are engaged in this. and that's a problem. because the constitution itself was meant to be understood by the average person. it is written in ordinary language. host: let me follow up on that point. impeachable offense? yes? no? maybe. guest: i totally agree with

roger that nothing the president has done is an impeachable offense. roger has continually emphasized a point of view that common in his corner of the political world, and that is that the constitution as we know it today from judicial decisions since the new deal which for those who don't know that is about three quarters of the century ago and is responsible for all the programs that we completely take for granted. he likes to say that as some kind of aberration, that the actual constitution, the original constitution, the vision of the framers is completely contrary to that. and i would just like to point out that i agree with roger that we need to take the constitution very seriously. both agree about that. but the fact is that the people who wrote the constitution were

primarily interested in creating an effective lasting and strong federal government in comparison so to what had gone before. that's why they were called federalists. and james madison and alexander hamilton and george washington all had this point of view. they would not have been uncomfortable in any way whatsoever with the kind of government we have now because the kind of problems that the government has to deal with are completely different from the problems that they had to face. and i would like to point out one thing very quickly, and that is rodgeronler's point that the fact that the federal government is deeply deeply involved in every phase of our health care system is not sanctioned by the constitution and wouldn't have been sanctioned by them because the constitution itself doesn't say anything about health care. well, that is an argument that was pressed by thomas jefferson when he was secretary of state under president george washington. it was countered by secretary

of the treasury alexander hamilton over the question about whether the united states under the constitution could create a national bank because the constitution doesn't say you can create a national bank. it says a lot of other things. it says that you can regulate commerce and have certain other powers. and both of them made very learned arguments. i think secretary jefferson made the kind of argument that is roger is pushing, and secretary hamilton made the kind of argument that is the supreme court now accepts as law which i also support. and guess what, president washington agreed with secretary hamilton. so to say that the framers don't support the idea that something that is not specifically named in the constitution is beyond the authority of the federal government is just not right. host: quick follow up. guest: the quick general point since we talked about the federalist papers, james madison, the author of the constitution, wrote in federalist 45 that the powers

of the new government would be few and defined. does anybody believe that the powers of the federal government today are few and defined? of course not. we have strayed very far from the founders' vision. host: we're going to keep both of you for a few more minutes. we have more callers who want to weigh in on this topic. let me point your attention to the front page story this morning from the "l.a. times" focused on executive authority. in an interesting take the president takes a strategy cue from the first lady. i have a fear as many

of those fear big government and obviously the socialists push the big government and find every excuse to grow government to control. and we're seeing what i want to be addressed and it's been addressed a little bit, that it's not the executive orders per se, but it's the use of the and , the e.p.a., hhs, putting idea logs in the civil servants' jobs to promote a socialist big government agenda. and that's what obama has been very see ductive in pushing that. that doesn't get the publicity. and of course we know from some of the thing that is were touched on the i.r.s. for f gibson the invasion o

guitars. the fast and furious coverup. all of these things the e.p.a.'s war on coal, nothing authorized by congress. nothing -- so the agencies are the ones where the socialists again is being pushed and it's very little that congress is able to do about it. and there's very little publicity on that. we have the i.r.s. scandal, for example. there was an appointment of an obama contributor to investigate it. host: we're going to stop you there because we're short on time. but let me take your point because it basically augments a tweet that we got. it's not the number of executive orders but it's exactly what's in these orders and the impact on our government. guest: again, that's true.

said, ink as roger has parne said, the -- speaker boehner has said the actions drawing fire from conservative sources are not unlawful. now, let's take the e.p.a., the caller was particularly exercised about the e.p.a. and saying that it's doing thing that is congress has never authorized. one of the most important areas that the e.p.a. has been working in has been reducing the incidents of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as a way of combating global warming. those actions have been controversial but they're not unlawful. the district of columbia circuit court of appeals, for example, in a very important decision that is now under review in the supreme court and a very important decision that was written by one of the most conservative republican

appointees on that court found that a whole slew of the actions that e.p.a. has taken that are very strong actions to reduce the incidents of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that those actions were clearly lawful. and i would just like to say to the caller who seems to be very concerned about the federal executive branch agency's running amuck without any check, the fact is that virtually everything these agencies do can be challenged in the courts. and certainly all the actions that an agency like the e.p.a. takes are always being challenged by industries that object to them and often sometimes by states that object to them, like the caller's state government of texas, which is one of the most parapath etic anti-federal government litigators in the country. so there are checks. but most of the time the courts are finding that those actions

are lawful. host: our last call from marie in new jersey. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to ask the gentleman there, why would they think it would be possible for the president to do these elective policies if it wasn't legal? he is a constitutional lawyer after all. since any e much president since he's been president. host: thank you for the call. guest: well, let's start with this. there are aspects of the constitution in which -- about which reasonable people can have reasonable differences. there are other aspects about which that is not the case. in some areas, what he is doing is, as he has said, perfectly legitimate under current law. and other areas, it's not the

case. as, for example, with the recess appointment or with this my ra proposal that he has undertaken. and we can find lots of cases of that. but at a general level, it is this arrogance that we see on the part of this president that is so disconcerting to so many americans. it is the kind of in your face, i don't care what congress is doing, congress is not doing what i think it should be doing. therefore, i'm going to do it. this has been the attitude of this administration from the time he first said he announced before he became president that he is going to undertake a fundamental change in america. most americans don't want to see a fundamental change in america. but he has had an jeandave of that sort from the time he got into office. and the irony is that with the

exception of obamacare, which is still -- its survival is very much up for grabs. with the exception of that, he has accomplished very little on the one hand and on the other hand he has left us with an economy that is still struggling five years into his presidency. nd so the idea that he -- to answer your question -- can think that he is doing what he is doing is constitutional is on the one hand correct and on the other hand not. but if he sees it that way it means that he is simply misreading the constitution. and will be up braided for it by the courts as he was in the recess appointments case and in all likelihood will be by the supreme court if we may judge from the oral argument that took place in that case. host: and the final point.

guest: i would just like to add and make one small point. and that is that is constitution also applies to congress as well as the president. what's going on right now is that a minority of the congress is using its obstructionist powers, which are quite considerable as roger points out to actually try to shut down government. that's really what was going on in the case of refusing to confirm appointees to the national labor relations board so it didn't have a quota so it couldn't do its business. they were trying to shut down the government. and in those circumstances, it's up to the president to make sure that the government doesn't get shut down. that is actually exactly what the framers foresaw that the president should have the means -- the constitutional means of self-defense to do to prevent encroachment by the legislative

branch. and that's also in federalist 51 and in other federalist papers. so i think we have a president here exercising his authority just as the framers intended for it to be exercised and very much in the interest of the nation. guest: no one wants to shut down government. we simply want to bring government within its constitutional bounds. strong but limited government. host: an interesting debate and discussion. roger with the cato institute. and your essay is available on line at cato.org. thank you very much for being with us. and simon louisiana russ with he cons last russ. u.s. constitution.org. thank you very much. host: we're going to continue on this sunday morning. it is february 2.

groug groundhog's day. we focus with our local content vehicle traveling around the count. today we are in washington the state capital as we focus on history and literary life including the famous oyster as we explore its impact on the economy today and the historical importance of the shell fish through this part of the country. ere's a preview. were we're here in what we call the bowman farm, a farm that's been in continuous operation for over 100 years. here we're watching the oyster harvest. the way the process works is the oysters are farmed on the flow. at low tide the farm is dried and at high tide it's covered in water. so last night the float came out with these empty tubs and dumped them out and sunk down and in the middle of the night

they harvest them. they filled the tubs up. here we are the next day in the morning and the boat is picking up the tubs to transfer them over to a truck and then they'll head to the plant where they'll be cleaned and rocessed and packaged. we're in our processing plant. in this plant we deal with all of our single oysters, individual, pacific, all processed here. these are single. and they're going to be culled today and make it out to restaurants and whole sailers by tomorrow. so these are the native olympia oysters. this is the oyster that the industry was based on. up until about the 1920s. and 30's and 40's when overharvest and pollution knocked the populations back.

and we're one of the few companies that still produces hem in a hatchery today. host: you can get more information from olympia washington and c-span's 2 book tv and c-span 3's american history, including our travels around the country. it's also available on our website. we hope you tune in. we continue on this sunday morning. matthew seagle is the cofounder and president of our time as we look at the young people millenials and their take on the state of the union address. we're dividing our phone lines 18-29 give us a call. and for all others. let's talk about the state of the union address. guest: about 33 million people tuned in to the state of the

union. over 100 million will tune in to the super bowl tonight. so what does that say about the state of siffic engagement of our country when you have three times as many people watching a football game? and i think that's indemic for the larger disenchantment we've seen with congress not being able to produce any results, the president trying to govern with a pen and a phone which is to a certain degree unrealistic. so i think while the speech was as optimistic as possible while there were certainly some very good steps in the right direction particularly around the minimum wage, i don't think it had the grand ambition or really honestly the grit to realize any true action. so to me and to many young people, while it was a motivating speech, i don't necessarily think there's a lot of confidence it will result in anything tangible.

host: this is one of the headlines. does that pretty much sum rise? guest: i would say that's true. i would say absolutely they want a cleaner. if you look at the statistics around young people who believe in climate change and want action on it. they want kinder in that income inequality is a huge problem. and young people are some of the most likely to make minimum wage. in fact, there is just a piece in the atlantic that talks about how the average 27-year-old in america is more likely to earn $15,000 per year as a 27-year-old than $40,000 a year. so the wages are awful. and the student loan debt and the underemployment and the personal debt are severe. and so when you have that, clearly also in juxtaposition

to the fact that there are wealthy people who have done so well, i think i read something that said about 85 of the wealthiest people on earth own more than 50% of all bottom people in the world. so that's 2 billion people who have cumulative wealth akin to 5 people. so in terms of a kinder society to answer your question, i think a kinder society would look at how we're going to make sure that people have a better opportunity of achieving wealth. host: and that headline is based on a study by deloite consulting which surveyed 8,000 people young people born in the late 1980s to the early 2020s from 2 countries and looking at what the millenials are focusing on. asked what the top issues facing society. only one of the top three was economic. giving global surprising on the economic conditions. it's also may not surprise people that climate change was

at 32% and wealth inequality also at 32%. topping the list. >> not surprised. ot surprised at all. host: good morning. independent -- how old are you? guest: i'm 30. i was calling actually to ask about the last guys who were on talking about the constitutional guys. and i also believe that ties in to what we're talking about right now the voting rights. which is we don't actually get a fair say at what's being voted on. we have people who go to college, literally they can't get a job. it seems like you can only go to a few colleges such as princetop, such as yale. and like your man was just speaking about right there, you have one portion of the country making massive amounts of wealth and you have everyone else whose going to school and

trying to do this and that and they can't even acquire 2% of the wealth. what about the transfer students from china who are coming in and more than 100,000 transfer students here in the u.s. and their economy is doing nothing but going up and we can't even transfer more than 2,000 kids there to go to school. and our economy and our wealth is just dropping. i think voters need to really sit down and ask themselves what is clean energy? i'm sure it's all the energy sources. i'm pretty sure that we talk about military benefits and our veterans and this and that. well, if anybody serves in the military, if you've gone to work you don't want somebody taking your benefits, taking your money or anything from you that you believe that you earned. host: thank you for the call. guest: i think so many of his points are spot on. but they really boil down to

one key issue which is democracy reform. democracy reform will solve so many of the other issues you just outlined because it will make the large poddy of representatives, senators we have more accountable to us, the people. and the reason for that is right now our democracy is a sham of what it should be. it's broken. the system of campaign finance we have is a joke. there's so much money that's filtered into the political process. and clearly politicians are very accountable to that money and not accountable to the broad majority of their constituents. i think the fact that voting rights is something you raised is right spot on in the sense that young people in certain communities are having a more difficult time expressing their voice given restrictions we've made that have made voting more difficult unfortunately. and when you also look at jerry mannedering in districts and the way that districts are drawn, the conclusions of

elections are quite predictable. so politicians don't really have to govern to the majority of people. they have to govern to what the likely bases in their districts are where the money is. and for the rest of the time they can often manipulate voting laws to govern outcomes in their favor or to dictate outcomes in their favor. so democracy reform is critical as a means to ensure that more people can actually vote and express their will. and then i think you will see some of these issues like the minimum wage become a no brainer. you'll see college affordable t and really lowering the cost of college become a no brainer. you'll see energy reform become a no brainer. because as you just pointed out in the survey, millenials have positions on most of these issues. it's not a 50/50 divided

country on climate change. it's not a 50/50 divided country on wealth inequality. so why are these outcomes not happening? it's because the democracy we live in is not accountable to us. host: our conversation with the cofounder and president of an organization called our time. you can get more information on line at our time.org. he's also a contributor to the huffington post. and andrew, who is 20 years old oining us. caller: thanks for having me on. i just wanted to say i was watching the state of the union address and i was the only one in my house. i go to college. and i was the only one in my house to watch it and that amazed the lack of politicalen volvement with my generation. it's discouraging but also you know it makes me feel like someone that's politically engaged can have an impact. just really make sure that everyone that isn't paying attention that goes out and

votes has at least some information and i'm always pushing people to try and get that extra knowledge so they can have an informed vote, whichever party they vote for. another thing i wanted to say is with the state of the union address, i was listening to the last couple of guests you had on the constitution. i just want to say that i think it is important to recognize that the congress and the president aren't always supposed to work together. i think there is to be some amount of gridlock. and an executive order i think it has to be used to a certain amount. but to the amount that the president has said in the state of the union i think expands upon his power as the president. host: thanks for the call. we had a lengthy discussion on the constitution and the federalist papers and the use of executive authority by the president. if you want to respond. guest: i think the amount of gridlock we've had is actually unprecedented.

it's not that -- gridlock is absolutely supposed to be a part of the process. checks and balances of course are supposed to be a part of the process. i know the previous statement went in-depth in this. but i also believe as in most people that part of the reason you see such disengagement, you see to few people watching is nothing gets done. why should i turn on the state of the union when congress doesn't do anything, the president doesn't do anything? my life situation is no better than it was last year or the year before. so why not just watch football? so i think there's a pragmatic reason for that. but it's also incredibly dill tier yuss in the sense that when people are overlooking the political process you ironically cede more power to special interests because when you're not looking they unfortunately rake things more in their favor. host: let me ask you to respond to another story.

guest: so when i was assigned a paper in college and they say you have two weeks to do the paper, i don't know about most people but i'm pretty sure that people i knew would not turn that paper in ten days early. you would maybe not eevep begin writing it until one or two days before. i certainly wouldn't. and then you turn it in right at the last minute. if you look at the statistics from massachusetts in terms of how young people enrolled in romney care which was of course similar to obamacare, it happened at the last minute.

i think that you're going to see a huge a influx of millenals enroll right before the deadline. there's national youth enrollment day which is a focused effort to get a lot of young people to sign up for insurance on february 15th. but for the most part i'm not terribly alarmed. the reason that older people sign up earlier is because they're sicker and they need insurance faster. but young people are not going to want to take the fine. and i think if you step back and look at the premise of obamacare, the premise of obamacare is to make sure that every person has insurance, that we don't have to pick up the tab for them if they want up in emergency rooms and so forth. i think the idea of getting covered is not egregious to most young americans. so i'm fairly confident that obamacare the affordable care act is going to work. it's going to serve our generation well. there are some parts of it that will have to be worked out of course the rollout was unfortunate. but any bureaucracy's rollout is unfortunate. but there's a big difference

between procrastinating and fulfilling an school obligation, a paper anything like that versus paying for health insurance that many people feel they don't need. they would rather pay the fine than pay for health insurance. guest: there are only about 5% of americans according to a poll from the advocacy group who state they don't want health insurance. most people want health insurance and they want affordable health insurance. host: and they'll pay for it? guest: absolutely. and interestingly enough, most people are going to get subsidies because infortunately given the wages of millenials, people who earn less than $45,000 a year are going to get subsidies. eight or nine out of ten will get subsidies which will make their premium about 100 a month or less. guest: but those will phase out over the next five to ten years. so when that happens, will that -- we see a dropoff? guest: i think by then you'll have most people covered.

and when they go to the doctor for the first time and realize, wait a second, i don't have to pay $250 or $300 out of pocket or if they get in an accident or if they need their -- any kind of procedure that comes up when you are in your 20's or 30s, which are frequent, they're not going to have to add thousands of dollars in student ebt to their loan debt or housing debt or debt from groceries or any other costs that they have. so i think the fact is millenials do not find the idea of the individual mandate egrenals. they find the fact that as an advanced society people should not have to go bankrupt when they go sick. and as we know about 50% of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills. so what this legislation will hopefully do is reduce that and also save money as a country. and health care costs is a whole other side of the equation. host: graduate of kenyan college the cofounder and

contributor to our time. .here is this headline let's go to william, 6 -year-old old from -- 62-year-old old from georgia. go ahead. guest: i would like to say to mr. seagle when i heard he's a writer for the huffington post i realize he's very biased and slanted so anything that comes out of his mouth i'll direct -- accept from obama. guest: the huffington post i've also written for for tune cnn money.com. i've written for the new york daily news. i've published in a lot of different places. the huffington post is a great journalism outlet that has a lot of diverse voices and often a lot of conservative

contributors so i wouldn't necessarily make assertions to my bias based on where my op eds are published. guest: thank you for your comment. now i'd like to say basically yesterday i found out one of my daughters' friends who is a chemical engineer graduated from georgia tech this last july still does not have a job. i think the big problem with the lack of jobs and for the millenials this is a real issue. now, i would like to say what do the millenials think about them paying for old people with the affordable care act? that's why they're not signing up. they realize this is a transfer of money from young people who don't have jobs, don't have money, have huge debt, and they're going to pay for old people. who have the majority of the money. guest: so, a few things. most young people are in favor

of the provisions of obamacare around ending preexisting -- any discrimination against people who have preexisting condition. they like the provision that you can stay on your parents' insurance plan until you're 26. and they know that they're going to one day be old and sick, too. we're going to be old and sick, too. and that if this is part of the social contract that people who are younger and healthier need insurance to be a part of the exchange soss that people who are older and sicker and manage obtaining insurance a little bit more affordably, i don't think that's such an egregious notion. i think this idea that we're opposed to each other because we're different ages is juenile. in the sense that we have a social contract as a society where we're all supposed to live together and try to operate under a fabric that allows us not to fall through the cracks. and so the young people can

help old people a little bit. great. and if old people can help young people even better. but rather than viewing this as a generational conflict, i think it's important to ask what the philosophy is behind the affordable care act, which is that people should not have to go bankrupt when they get sick. host: in a nearly two-week period between october 30 and november 11, harvard conducting ,000, of over 2 18-19-year-olds. the approval rating of the president back in the spring was back in 52% dropping to 41% in the fall. among congressional democrats it was 41% in the spring dropping. congressional republicans, 27% back in the spring. 19% in the fall. again this from the harvard institute of politics. guest: so young people if you look at the harvard poll are actually most independents and i think what that shows is that

our generation likes to look at the facts and then base our political opinions off facts as opposed to just being blindly allied with a political party. i think the obsession over the political horse race the bickering the binary parties that are prospering and flourishing off polarizations, the media which by the way has the lowest approval rating even lower than congress. cable news has a lower approval rating than congress. that's a result of people who have capitalized off the hyper partisanship and our generation has no interest in that. part of the reason that cable news viewership is so old and so dwindling is because it only focuses on the animosity and rankor between the political parties as opposed to where there's consensus. i think what our generation is looking forward to are solutions oriented programming both from a news and

entertainment perspective but also from a legislative perspective. host: and this point. guest: the reality of the situation is unfortunately our generation is going to have higher taxes probably the rest of our lives and that's because we have a debt we've had, we put wars on the bill, we've put costly tax breaks on the bill. we've had reckless and foolish spending on certain things. and we have waste in our programs. let's not pretend that's the conservatives are totally wrong, too. those things have created a major debt and deficit that will only ultimately be solved by both some unfortunate degree of benefits cuts and tax increases. so absolutely. we're going to have to pay taxes. hopefully the burden will not be totally disproportionate on only young people. i would like to see older generations embrace higher taxes in terms of realizing

that this is an inevitable conclusion if we're ultimately going to be able to work ourselves out of the hole we're in. host: if you're in your car and listening on c-span radio, heard nationwide, we are discussing the millenial generation and how they view politics in light of the president's state of the union address. matthew is with our time. elliott joining us on the phone. good morning. caller: good morning. what i would like to talk about is put this world into a phrase, it's a spinning top. and what happens to a spinning top right now is we are educating a lot of kids and that's -- college is a continue once of high school and that's what it's getting to be. and you're putting these college graduates into the workforce and they're making more than the guys that have been there 20 years that got all their education through

experience. and what that does is makes a company top heavy. and the top will flow down, it will fall, and i want to ask the young guy do you think that you can just come out of college or which is a better way for you to earn experience through work college and what he thinks about that. host: appreciate it. guest: the answer to your question is both work, college experience, and so forth. it's a in nation. i think when you -- combination. when you don't have higher education, we know from data that you're likely to earn less the rest of your life. you'll have lower wages. and you'll have a tougher time finding a job. the new unfortunate reality is that a high school diploma is even worse in the job market than it was decades ago. so college is necessary.

but work experience and internships and apprenticeships are necessary. the president spoke about germany and how they have apprenticeships which are part of their high school system. and he's unfortunately at the mercy of the kindness and ben ev lens of the private sector of corporate america in terms of whether they're going to increase the amount of apprenticeships they give. but workforce experience, internships, apprenticeships for, summer jobs coupled with a higher education is the ideal. the question is whether people can afford to go to college and whether or not they're ever going to be able to dig themselves out of their student loans. the huge irony, college is the best ticket to upper mobility. pretty much everyone agrees with that. republicans, democrats, the president focuses on that. michelle the first lady wants through her new community college summit she's attending every kid to go to college.

but ironically, after you go to college, you're shackled into student loans. $30,000 on average per student is student loan today. $1.2 trillion as a country. host: 30,000 no question that's a lot of money. but some say that also could be an automobile loan at 30,000. guest: sure. host: so you're getting something for the education. you can question what you're going to get over an automobile loan. guest: of course. but automobiles are not as necessary to finding employment in upward mobility especially because more young people are migrating to cities. and if you live in new york or d.c. or any city with decent public transportation, you don't need a car to survive. and that's not an expense that's mandatory. however, the higher education if you if you want to earn about $1 million more throughout the course of your lifetime, is necessary to have competitive wages in america. guest:

host: host: of course you go to graduate school or law or edical school it's more. host: you're 60 years old? guest: a little over that. i wanted to express the hope that i have in the millenial generation. i worked for one of the six major banks on wall street during the crisis and with subprime mortgages and saw what they did to accumulate mortgages to derive their derivative activities and exactly what happened. the first people who actually had major public voice and got the story right was the beginning of the wall street -- the occupy wall street group, which was primarily young people who had researched it, got it right and had the courage to get out there and say what really happened inside those banks. and i think that was why there was a rise in the popularity of

the occupy wall street. and i sort of blame the media on the decline because they focused on the people who were in the parks and kids who were complaining about the loans for education, which are obviously legitimate but it shifted the focus away from the real problem which is wall street and what the banks are doing. anyway, it's a two fold -- hope for me. not only did you get it right but you were the younger generation who got it right and had the courage to get it out there. thank you. host: thanks very much for the call. let me follow up on an early point. this is from one of our viewers. guest: there are about 400,000 apprenticeships that we have now as a country. i think we're trying to expand that number considerably. however, i'm not personally sure off the top of my head how that breaks down on a statewide

level. but i would presume that they could have larger corporations based there that are interested in apprenticeships. some of the fortune 500 companies that the president has worked with will see more likely to be the states that are employing young people. host: from illinois, dan. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say it's very refreshing to see this young man on tv this morning. i would like to encourage all young people to commit themselves to something worthwhile while you're young. and life will have meaning, a lot more meaning. i think i heard him say that he was not too impressed or overexcited about the president's state of the union message. i was jumping off my chair. i couldn't sit still. because i know what he is talking about. i know about the brick wall and

the partisan politics and the miseducation of our nation and our young people through all this media nonsense that they're trying to get people to fight among themselves and further their own political agenda. this president is so smart, i think that he is doing a great job. he is going to do great things for the country. he is planning for the long run. he is a community organizer himself. he knows how to go around the establishment, the government, to get things done. he's going to go through the states like he said through organizations through companies. he has so many options at his disposal he is going to do great things. and he knows where the resources are. host: thanks for the call. did you want to respond? guest: i think the unfortunate part about the state of the union to reiterate my earlier point is too few people were watching and paying attention because they've tuned out washington, d.c. as place that can make any productive output

in terms of improving the quality of their lives. that was the unfortunate part of the state of the union. the speech, the tone was excellent. i just think we're appropriately cynical about its ability to yield outcomes. 2016, in the early look is who you think your generation is going to grave tate towards first on the republican side? guest: on the republican side, it's rand paul. formerly ron paul. in terms of where a lot of young conservatives who have libertarian procliveties lean. and the reason for that is young people on the conservative side are incredibly opposed to the drug war. and rand and ron paul have been hampions of disclosing how costly, how socially inequitable and how foolish and wasteful of resource it is drug war has been.

and i give them a lot of credit for that. host: on the democratic side? guest: on the democratic side, there clearly is talk of hillary as the inevitability, the inevitable candidate again. so i think that is a risk for her because when she ran the inevitability ticket the first time, she was upstaged by someone else. so i think it would serve her mpaign well to approach this 2016 race if she decides to get in with a little bit more framing as the underdog. but in terms of who the favorite is, i don't even think we know on the democratic side, besides hillary clinton, who is rumored to run. elizabeth warren was rumored to run. there's talk that maybe kristin jill brand will run. she's done a lot of great work for small businesses and female

entrepreneurs. and i think income inequality in terms of gender is incredibly important. and also a passionate issue to millenials. and one of the moments in the state of the union that saw the most social media interaction for millenials. so she could absolutely be an interesting candidate as well. host: thanks very much for being with us. appreciate your time today. guest: my pleasure. host: on a political note the "washington post" reporting that governor martin o'malley is moving ahead with his plans to potentially run for 2016. you can read that story on line at "washington post".com. coming up at the top of the hour our "newsmakers" interview with debbie stab now, the chair of the senate agriculture committee. you note snesked sunday senator rand paul scheduled to be our uest for c-span's "newsmakers" program that we will tape later this week. when we come back we want to turn our attention to the t.s.a. screening. has it gone too far?

host: we'll have more details on exactly what the t.s.a. has been up to. but first, a look at the other sunday morning programs, all of which can be heard on c-span radio, which is heard nationwide on x.m. channel 120. good morning nancy. >> good morning, steve. on today's network sunday talk shows, topics will include reaction to the president's state of the union address. politics in 2014, and save football games. you can hear rebroadcasts of all beginning at noon eastern with "meet the press." guests include dennis mcdunna, white house chief of staff. he makes appearances on several of the shows today. also south carolina republican

nator tim scott and julianne asaunge of wicky leaks. and paul ryan. at 2:00 p.m., fox news sunday, guests include nfl commissioner roger goodell, denver broncos executive john elway and former nfl quarterback archie manning. cnn's state of the union follows with louisiana republican governor bobby jendle. then it's "face the nation" with eric cantor and white house chief of staff dennis mcdunna, mayor rmer new york city rudy giuliani. brought to you as a public service by the networks and crmp span. that lineup is noon eastern with meet the press, this week, fox news sunday, cnn's state of the union and finally face the nation from cbs. you can listen to them all on

c-span radio, 90.1 f.m. here in the nation's capitol. across the country on satellite radio, channel 120. you can download our free app or your smartphone or listen online at cspan.org. >> i was in a car wreck. which i wrote about extensively in my book. and the whole time i was in the hospital, not injured really. i had a cut on my leg and a broken ankle. i was praying that the other person in the car would be ok. and the other person in the car was one of my best friends, which i didn't know, i didn't really recognize that at the site of the crash. i think because i parade over and over and over for him to be ok and he wasn't, you know, well, i thought nobody listened. god was not listening, my prayer wasn't answered. so i went through, really, a very long time of not believing

and not believing that prayers could be answered. and it did take a long time and a lot of growing up to come back to faith. >> first lady laura bush live on c-span and c-span 3. also on c-span radio and c-span.org and watch our recent interview at the george w. bush presidential center in dallas at 10:30. c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we're c-span, created by the cable tv industry, 35 years ago, and funded by your local cable or satellite. watch us at h.d., like us on facebook and follow us on twitter.

"washington journal" continues. host: for the next half-hour we want to focus on a story that's been getting a fair amount of attention over the past few days, based on a new essay on political.com, and reprinted, including in people magazine, which has the headline, america, i saw you naked. the six most shocking revelations from a former t.s.a. agent in his tell-all. want to ask whether t.s.a. screening is going too far. from people magazine, the essay points out that the revelations may not surprise you but they're likely to have you considering just what is happening the next time you go through a screening at an airport, or as is the case today, heading into metlife stadium for the super bowl. you can join in on the conversation by sending us a tweet. you can also give us a phone call. or you can send us an email. john pistol last fall testifying

on capitol hill saying in fact his agency is being very careful to make sure that the screening does not go too far. here's the t.s.a.ed a administrator. >> there's been calls for t.s.a. to use more common sense to go about doing things, to be less invasive. fewer pat downs, fewer of the imaging machines that provide the graphic images, we've done those things. we've taken 15 steps, including t.s.a. precheck, which you mentioned mr. chairman. the known members of the crew members, we announced expanding the program to allow d.o.d. members to go through screens around the country. under, also, 12 and to bring less invasiveness. host: john pistol testifying on capitol hill last november, and that entire exchange is available on our website at c-span point org. the daily caller is refuting the

political story saying the t.s.a. pushing back against a magazine expose. this is what the piece looks like, the t.s.a. administration security on thursday claiming, pushing back against claims made by a former t.s.a. officer that the agency's operations represented an abuse of public trust and funds. the former t.s.a. administrator by the way is jason ead saw ngton, saying yes, i you naked and yes we were laughing, con phoenixes of an ex ..s.a. official and again, from caroline may of the daily caller who writes that t.s.a. is refuting many of the claims made by the administrator. let's go to bud who's joining us from perry, florida. good morning, your take on all of this? caller: yes, good morning, thank you for taking my call. host: absolutely. caller: i'm 81 years old, i've been around a while, 26 years.

don't think we're going to make our ood points criticizing government. the fact that we saw our government naked, come on now. where did they come up with that phrase? my comment is simply that you can educate people, you can get them super smart, but without experience and wisdom, we're going to be in lots of trouble, and like i say, there's been leaders in our country and other countries, when you get a guy in power that has no experience, you got a problem. thank you. host: again, the question we're asking the t.s.a., is the screening going too far? again, all based on the magazine article which is available online at politico.com. this is what it looks like from the website.

it begins by saying on january 4, 2010, when my boss saw milletter to the editor in the "new york times," we had a little chat. it is rare for the director to sit down with a floor level transportation security administration officer. it usually is right before termination, and so i was nervous as i settled in across the desk from her. she was a woman in her 40's with sharp blue eyes that seemed to size you up for placement in a spreadsheet. she held up a copy of the newspaper saying to stop the terrorists, no lack of ideas. it was circled in blue pen. one week earlier in december 2009, a man had tried to detonate 80 grams of a highly explosive powder while on a northwest flight. he had smuggled the bomb aboard a plane in a pouch in his underwear. it was a masterpiece of post-9/11, passengers tackled and restrained him and he succeeded in burning nothing besides his own genitals. the story goes onto talk about how t.s.a. is in fact looking at

private parts as you go through the screening process. the entire essay available at politico.com. and so our question is it going too far? yes or no. frank, from kansas. democrats line, good morning. aller: good morning. i had think, unfortunately, perhaps not a unique experience with t.s.a. i spent two years on the watch list because i suspect, i called my congressman a liar in town hall in 2002. since then, i've had all kinds of awful stuff. i'm very disabled, it's very painful for me to drive. it's gone so far that i regularly drive to the west coast or las vegas. i'm flying to vegas in the morning, by the way. because of the painfulness, and the ridiculousness of the process. one time i even was threatened physically by a t.s.a. agent

because i had made a negative remark about dick cheney's son-in-law. it's quite bizarre, way out of control and i don't see any oversite or useful things, thank you. host: thank you. one of the points, what those t.s.a. guys are really saying. definition on the insiders t.s.a. dictionary from james harrington. his blog taking sense away. you can read some of the exchanges, again this piece available from politico.com. from lancaster, pennsylvania, john is on the phone, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i've been listening to all the talk about people seeing other people naked. but this is the number one concern? the number one concern is every time you go through these ma chines, they're x-ray machines and you're being radiation. the number one concern of the american people is the fact they're absorbing all this radiation. and people who fly frequently ought to be concerned about

that, honestly. maybe they're radioactive now. not only them, but all the pilots and flight attendants who fly every day, getting radiation, radiation, radiation. this is the number one concern, thank you. host: thanks for the call. one quote from the political story and the t.s.a., former t.s.a. official, most t.s.a. officers i talked to told me they felt the agencies day-to-day operations represented an abuse of public trust and funds. this from one of our viewers. t.s.a. is to create fear, but now the right is getting annoyed. next plan may be for controlling the masses, maybe something with drones. some background onto the t.s.a. was formed of course in the wake of a 9/11 terrorist attacks as the federal government consolidated the security operations at airports and terminals around the country. there are currently around 50,000 t.s.a. officers. they screen on average 1.8 million passengers every day. they also deploy thousands of

behavior detection officers. there are about 400 or more t.s.a. explosive specialists and thousands of air marshals on daily flights. the average salary for a t.s.a. officer is between $28,000 and $45,000 a year. next is troy joining us from houston. good morning, republican line. caller: good morning, yeah, anybody who has a brain can see that our fourth amendment rights are being clearly violated by the t.s.a. the people in t.s.a. are generally good people and they're just trying to do their job. but their screening has got to go away. the war on terror is a joke. everyone knows that building seven wasn't even hit by a plane and it fell down. rande paul will win in 2016 because everyone hates the police state. host: next, woodwridge, virginia. nelson is on the phone.

caller: yes, good morning. if we can remember back before t.s.a., we had security guards, they were paid $8 an hour. there was no screening. there's a balance between safety and going through the screening process. i for one prefer to go to the screening process to know that i'm safe on an airplane when i'm flying. so, so be it if i have to be searched and photographed naked, then so be it. host: edward harrington, dear america, yes i saw you naked, and we were laughing as an ex t.s.a. agent. our final question, is the t.s.a. going too far? joseph from new jersey is next, emocrats line, good morning. caller: joseph you said? host: yes, you're on the air. caller: how you doing? host: fine thank you, how are

you? caller: good. i'm wondering if the people who worked at the airport has a passenger service rep. and also used the screening machine and i saw it was on both sides of the fence. and like i told everybody that flies, why in the world is everybody in the world complaining about screening? because if you don't want screening anymore in this country, then you can put it on the ballot as a vote to take it off or not. but what the people are doing with their screening is trying to save peoples lives. so if everybody is calling in is against screening, then you just walk on the plane, have no screening and let everybody perish or children get bombed and things like this if we have no screening. so why is everybody complaining? host: joseph, thanks for the call from new jersey. of course, new jersey is the host of this year's super bowl between the broncos and the seahawks. and abc news reporting that t.s.a. will be screening at the rail stations as fans head to

metlife stadium in new jersey. those fans heading to the super bowl will have to travel light and even get on a train heading to the game. the t.s.a. says that fans will not be allowed on the rail line unless they show their ticket to the game, and adhere to the nfl bag policy. all fans boarding trains to the stadium from junction station, the start of the new jersey transit, to the stadium in east rutherford must pass through a security checkpoint. that will be manned by t.s.a. according to abc news, and only people who show their tickets to a valid super bowl seat will be allowed onboard that train. jennifer is joining us next. good morning, from pennsylvania. pronounce the name of your town? is it copenhagen? caller: yes. my comment is that i do think that i prefer to get from point a to point b safe.

i don't care if they see me naked as long as i get there. i don't see why people are complaining about the screening. it is necessary and it is safe. i worked in the world trade center years ago, and i don't ever want anybody to go through that again. so the t.s.a. screening is necessary, and i really don't care. i may never see these agents again, so it doesn't matter. host: ok, thanks for the call. cnn reporting on another t.s.a.-related story, loosening its rules on interaction alcohol. maybe you've never splurged and don't want to place it in your checked luggage as required for your connection back home. but now there's a way if you want to buy a bottle of johnny walker before you head back to the u.s., the transportation safety administration is relaxing just a little bit. some of the rules for those coming into the united states from abroad. travelers who buy alcohol or other liquids at the duty free airport shops abroad can bring

them into the u.s. on international flight and carry them onto a connecting flight. more details available online at cnn.com. next is michael from hilltop, west virginia. republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: fine, thank you. caller: my thing is that t.s.a. is just a forerunner of many things to come for checkpoints, different state lines and things. i know we're stopping terrorisms and bombs on planes, different things like that. but many things are moving in the united states toward a different united states, you might say. i was a democrat for 33 years, i trusted them until i heard the word socialist democratic party. now i'm a republican right now, but as soon as they do something kind of strange or socialistic i might just change to an independent, i'm not really sure. but there's too many things happening in the united states where the united states rights and the constitution and the bill of rights are being faded

into the background. a lot are saying a piece of paper means nothing, but so many years ago gave their lives and their homes and their families to make that constitution in the bill of rights. a lot of blood run in the creeks and down the mountains for that and it's going to come against, eventually, i hope not. but people need to wake up and understand that there's a movement underway to destroy this country and turn it into a socialist country. host: michael from hilltop, west virginia, thanks for your call and comment. well, his father served as the mayor of new orleans before he became housing secretary in the carter administration. his sister is the senator from louisiana. t's landrieu again, as mitch landrieu wins easily. there is this headline from the sunday star ledger, scandal darkens christy's moment. a look at super bowl sunday and governor chris christie's role, a revelation that came friday

and some sharp feedback from the chrisy administration over the weekend totally refuting what news media accounts were reporting on friday. vickie is joining us, good morning from mclean, virginia. on the issue of t.s.a. screening. going too far? caller: how can we protect our rights by taking away rights, particularly the right of privacy? and does that not extend to the human body? also i wanted to comment on the person who said if we don't want it we should put it on the ballot. we should have put it on the ballot if we wanted screening then if that's the case. thank you. host: thanks for the call. front page of the washington post, for 2016, republican options are wide open with 15 or more potential contenders. as republicans look ahead to the

2016 race, they are hoping to avoid the kind of chaotic and protracted battle that dismayed the party elders and damaged the vens candidacy of mitt romney. however that could be a hard thing to prevent. inside is another look at potential photographs, including a photograph of jeb bush who has been talked about the republicans bracing for a possible wild ride. a y is joining us from georgia. caller: you had two hot topics this morning, and i want to commend you on both of them. host: that's our role, so we're trying to do that, thanks very much. caller: yes, my comment is that we are protected by law. but we are protected by law. and i think what the t.s.a. is doing, screening, it's needed. i think we should always, always

try to protect those who fly in the air, and i think that all the callers who agree with t.s.a. detecting those who travel in the air is tremendous and continue to do a great job. i'm in support of it, the american people should be in support of it. never again should we have to worry about flying and fear. thank you so much and hope that c-span continues to do what they do best. host: thank you and thanks for tuning in. we're asking about the t.s.a. based on this new essay available online from a former t.s.a. officer saying i saw you naked, america. our question is is the t.s.a. going too far? one of our viewers saying the t.s.a. is not designed to protect your rights, it is designed to protect your safety. two headlines we want to share with you, front page of the "new york times," first on the drought in california, it is bad and getting worse. in fact, there are a number of communities that might have to be shipped water in order to have suitable drinking water. state officials according to the piece in the "new york times"

saying that they are moving to put emergency plans in place, and that there's the possibility that many communities will be without water because of the severe drought. next to that is this headline, the law doesn't end the revolving door on capitol hill. a look at k street and former congressional staffers. an indepth look at what they can expect when they leave office, when they leave capitol hill, i should say, and also what the law states and doesn't state in terms of the so-called revolving door because there are "plenty of exceptions." karen is joining us from blooming dale, illinois. good morning, welcome to the program. caller: hi, i worked with jason harrington actually. and he's not telling the truth. the images that he put up there are not the images that we saw. number one, those are the old machines. we don't even use those machines anymore. and when we did use those machines, they were not the images that we had. our images were not as defined

as that at all -- host: let me -- when and where did you work with jason harrington? caller: o'hare airport for t.s.a. host: how well do you know him? caller: i knew him very well. i actually worked with him at a few checkpoints. he was a lazy worker. he's mad because he got fired. so he's disgruntled. and the code word that he so-called used that we all used, nobody's even heard of these words that he said. and nobody's laughed at these images. so the things that he's coming out and saying, it's because he went to school to become a creative writer. this is basically for him to write a book and try to get it published. that's what this is. a lot of these are misconceptions, a lot of these are lies and he really should be punished for using things that are false statements. host: are you still with the t.s.a., karen? caller: yes, i am.

host: and, tell me about your job. what specifically do you do? caller: i work the checkpoints. right now i work in the international, and basically we're there to protect people, you know. people have -- we have a bad rep with people, and you know we understand that. st people think oh, we're an inconviencence, we're an inconviencence. we're not there to be an inconviencence. host: can you stay with us for a moment? i want to read another part of the essay. he said "i hated it from the beginning. it was a job that had me patting down the crotches of children, the elderly and even infants as part of the post-9/11 airport security show. i confiscated jars of homemade apple butter on the pretense they could pose threats to national security. i was even required to confiscate nail clippers from the airline pilots, the logic that they could hijack the very planes they're flying. once in 2008 i had to confiscate

a bottle of alcohol from a group of marines coming home from afghanistan, it was celebration champagne intended for one of the men in the group. he was a young decorated soldier, was in a wheelchair, had lost both of his legs from an i.e.d. and i of course had to take away champagne. your thoughts about what he wrote in the essay? caller: ok, the nail clippers, we don't take nail clippers from people. e has a problem because he's disgruntled, and so he has to lie to write this creative book. so, he has to make things up to make it more interesting for people to want to read it or buy it or publish it or what have you. it's asinine, actually, because when i read the article, i was flabbergasted, i couldn't believe it. we're all looking at each other like, these words that he's using, these code words or whatever he's calling them, it's ridiculous. never been used, nobody says

these things. host: if you could talk to him today, right now, what would you tell him? caller: i would ask him why he's doing this. why are you making up things that's not true. if you didn't like your job, that's your problem. some of us, we're here for obviously a different reason. he obviously came in because he was going to school to be a creative writer. and so he's sitting here writing his story. the image that you have up on your screen right now with the people on, jackets on. we cannot wear our t.s.a. coats on the checkpoints. so, if they're taking the -- which is to go to the bathroom, they would not have their jackets on. so they are obviously on break right now. so, he's using it as, as part of his story. host: karen, thank you very much, we appreciate you calling in and offering us another point of view on this essay which has been getting a lot of attention

over the last couple of days. thank you very much. caller: 12 years, so you know, it -- i know what we really do. host: ok. karen, thank you. from poughkeepsie, new york, j.p. is on the phone. caller: hi, good morning, thanks for taking my call. what concerns me, actually terrifies me, is that people are accepting of police state solutions to our problems. you know, don't forget when the original attack world trade center attack happened, the f.b.i. was notified that there were these three guys in flight school that only wanted to know how to fly the plane once it was in the air. and, i don't know, nothing happened! all this stuff, to me, is just securities theater.

it wouldn't have stopped the original attack, and we were warned! the flight school instructors called the f.b.i. and said look, this is odd. have 100% asy to safety if you have 0% rights, but do you want to live in a police state society? i don't. >> j.p., here's one of the calls. he quotes thomas jefferson in one of his tweets, when people, it fraid of is liberty, when people are afraid of government, it is tyranny. and a look at no guns for airport screeners, points out that the t.s.a. will not arm its officers in wake of the november attack at the los angeles international airport that left one screener dead. we will continue our conversation as we do every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time, 4:00 for those of you in he west coast.

to talk about immigration issues as congress moves ahead. some dwofments on house republicans drafting the principles of immigration. host: c-span's news makers program is up next, with the democrat of michigan. be sure to tune in at 8:00 eastern time. thanks for joining us on this sunday. hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend, have a great weekend. >> today on c-span,

newsmakers with senator debbie stabenow. --s is followed by state of president obama's state of the union address in the republican response. the numbers of congress from both parties respond to the state of the union and discussed the year ahead. after several years of wrangling, the house has passed a five-year farm bill. now it is up to the senate and that will be happening this week. join us on newsmakers is senator debbie step now. she is chairman of the agriculture committee. our panelists are