days about, if there is no congressional vote, it really is essentially congress giving tacit acceptance to the notion that the president can do this. he does not argue but i would argue that accepting this is essentially accepting the cheney preemptive war doctrine that commerce would not accept even right after 2001. they mean us harm and we should go after them. there is no imminent threat. they mean us harm and we should go after them. i support the limited mission but i do not want to give the president the unilateral ability to make that determination. so i think the constitutional principle -- i think the absence of a vote would be a very dangerous thing. how confident with respect to the aumf? i am pretty confident but i am still new here. i think a lot of things are going to happen and they don't. i often tell people around here that things are going to be here to those who have been here a

long time and i end up being right. what made me start feeling right, frankly, when the leadership came out saying the president has all the authority you need, i was weary that we would not get a vote on this. when the president started in august and i call the team to ask what is going on, are you going to bring this to a vote and it was unclear, i did not think it was going to come to a vote. after the president's speech to wednesdays ago, senator menendez who has been asked if the president and his authority and he said, let me hear what the president has to say and i will tell you. when he heard the president speech say this is clearly open-ended, with senator menendez, senator durbin new has been public that we have to have an authorization vote both in leadership. senator mcconnell has saying we've got to have it. i have conversations with members of leadership.

i would rather not get into parsing those two carefully. in both houses and in both parties, there is a strong belief that we have to. with december 11, it creates a natural window for that discussion. in one sense, having it before the election would have been better because, you know, people can be accountable for it. no one will be able to hide here in no one running for office will be able to hide. their electorate will ask them. there is an opportunity for citizens to understand where their candidates are. i am not i'm international long guy. i am not an international law

guy. but it raises an interesting question. i would think that the president can count on article to to justify the actions in iraq domestically but he is fine internationally. the president of iraq has said come in and help us. so the international law side on iraq i think it is pretty straightforward. the domestic one we have to make straightforward by a vote. on the flipside on syria, we , just voted yes on syria. that resolves a domestic issue. but the issue of international law, it is -- is it an incursion into sovereignty and you look at what various actors in the world have said, iran says it is illegal. russia says it is an incursion into sovereignty. syria is not complaining about it. so russia and iran are making the argument about sovereignty and syria's comments are murky. so they are pretty straightforward in iraq.

they are complicated in syria. not being an expert in that, i do not know how that will be answered. but if we can get the domestic side handed down with congressional authorization as we go through that process in the process of working with allies and the president talking at the u.n. about more allies on board, because there are u.n. security council resolutions on things going on with isil, that will probably sort itself out but it is a thorny little question. >> i am sure we can go on talking about this. but that is all the time we have today. let me conclude by thanking you very much for coming in. [applause] >> thanks.

>> president obama spoke this morning before they u.n. general .ssembly this afternoon, the president presides over a meeting of the united agency or to counsel. he will be urging the adoption prosecuteution to foreign fighters. we will have that u.n. meeting coming up at 3:00 eastern here on c-span. we are asking you what is the greatest threat the united nations should address. thatcomments facebook.com/cspan. darlene asked -- says -- erick

more on our facebook page. one of the topics being addressed is the ebola outbreak. according to a new report, it can grow to 1.4 million cases in liberia and sierra leone by the end of january. evente coverage of that at the pittsburgh medical center coming up this afternoon on noon eastern, just getting underway. barbara comstock and john faust will face-off, filling this need to vacated i-frame wolf who announced his retirement earlier this year. coming coverage of that up at 12:30 eastern. also on c-span radio. now a look at some of the ads running in that race. >> barbara comstock wants to make abortion illegal, even in cases of rape and. they want to overturn roe versus

wade. >> i think roe versus wade should be overturned. >> barbara comstock even voted with right wing republicans to require women seeking an abortion to have a vaginal ultrasound. that is all i need to know. >> i am john faust and i approve this message. >> trash talking politics from john faust. dishonest and negative campaign against barbara comstock. sexist, bazaar, insensitive, ignorant. barbara comstock is an award-winning legislator who gets results. john faust talks trash. barbara comstock gets results. >> i am john faust. we have cut a lot of waste. we consolidated offices. we can walk a few feet.

we replaced the computer but cap the monitors. they still work fine. approve this message because congress does not need another right-winger. they need someone who can balance the budget. and we definitely didn't need so many government studies. is a devotedmstock wife, mother, and public servant. she was elected to the house of delegates where she wrote the law to protect women and children from human traffickers. barbara comstock gets results. year, create new jobs, saved taxpayers millions of dollars, and restored millions to our schools. barbara comstock is a trusted -- two will be a great congresswoman for all of us. >> i am barbara comstock and i approve this message. coverage of the debate will be coming up on c-span.org ansi standard -- and c-span

radio. ,> this weekend, friday night the values voters summit, featuring ted cruz and rand paul. saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a national town hall on the critical and historic impact of voting. quinn.0, sally friday night on c-span 2, just before 9:30, danielle green and william mullen talk about their experiences in iraq, ices, and these of american force. , matt refill on the distractions of technology and its impact on technology. sunday, the ninth annual brooklyn book festival. on c-span 3, former chiefs of staff and advisers talk about

the relationship with the commander-in-chief and how he makes important decisions. saturday night, jonathan white on the role of the union army in abraham lincoln's 1864 reelection. sunday afternoon, author annette dunlap explores the evolution of first ladies' fashion. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us. e-mail us. or send us a tweet. conversation.n like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> the new supreme court term begins in a week and a half. the next constitutional law attorneys and scholars preview some of the notable cases coming up in the new term, including gerrymandering of congressional districts, religious freedom.

thisederal society hosted event that is an organization of conservatives and libertarians seeking to reform the current american legal system. this is from tuesday. >> it afternoon, welcome. it is the season of the supreme court preview. this is also the season when you have two different kinds of cases. some of them quite interesting. on the horizon are some real block rushers that could really transform american life, including seven petitions the justices will consider at their first conference on september 29 concerning the question over whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. not far behind that, a challenge to another aspect of the

affordable care act and perhaps also on the horizon, conceivably this term, affirmative action and abortion. things going on at once as so much as the case with the court. a very distinguished panel. i have never been to a panel that has not been introduced as a very distinguished panel but this one has that mark. with us today, warren kerr. he is quite possibly the leading expert on the fourth amendment. it's a pleasure to have you here. he was a clerk to justice kennedy. a partner at the wiley rein firm, and the clerk to justice thomas. virginia sykes who has recently gone back to her practice in austin after service as assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel at

doj. she was a clerk to justice brennan. adam white, counselor aboard and green associates and well known to a lot of us as a frequent contributor on legal matters to the weekly standard, the wall street journal, and other publications. carrie severino, chief counsel and policy director of the judicial crisis network, and also a frequent voice in the media. she clerked for justice thomas. i should introduce myself. i am adam liptak. i cover the supreme court for the new york times. what we are going to do is set up maybe a dozen different cases, mostly granted, a couple on the horizon. moving from panelists to panelist with maybe a little bit of exchange between us if someone has a insight or dissenting view. a brief discussion among ourselves and we will turn to your questions.

thank you, adam. think you to the federalist society for the invitation here. i will run through three cases in five minutes, so it will be really fast. just introducing three cases and we can come back to them later if you'd like. one of the cases this term, yates versus the united states, raising the question which i know is on everybody's mind, our red grouper fish tangible objects under the toxicity law? this is a case involving a criminal statute that makes it a crime to knowingly destroyed, alter, or mutilate any record, document, or tangible object. the question is if a tangible object means a storage device for some sort of record or document or if it means anything that is an object that is tangible. and the fact of the case are drawing a lot of attention. i think properly so. involving an individual who through -- he was convicted of

ordering his employees a throwback red grouper that were undersized, facing an investigation of civil violation of harvesting fish that were too small. the question is whether the fish are tangible objects. it's really a statutory construction case about the aqua -- how broadly to construe the and ing's oxley law should also add that i joined an amicus brief on the defense side arguing that the statute to be narrowly construed under the rule of validity. that is bates versus the united states. another is the facebook threat case involving a question of how to construe the interstate threat statute, section 875 c involving transmitting a threat. it involves an individual that posted on his facebook status

updates involving what can be construed as threats against his wife. at one point he threatens to go to an amusement park or go to a school and perhaps commit a violent act at the school. he argued he was simply joking around, he is an aspiring rap artist and during his status updates, he is talking about true threat through his prudence -- true threat jurisprudence and all what he is doing is first amendment protected. it is all very meta-situation of what is the true threat. the first issue in the case is whether there is a subject requirement. if he thought he was doing was not a serious threat, you interpret what is a threat based on what a reasonable person would think or what the individual subjectively believes. can you have an accidental threat? a big issue online because you read something online and you don't know what the person was thinking.

are they really intending that or was it just a joke? they can be hard to tell from context. if the court construe the statute as not requiring a subjective requirement, the next question is whether the first amendment allows that. whether it is the first amendment that prohibits a negligent threat statute effectively. there is a statutory question and the first amendment question if the court does not resolve that case. i should add that i gave a very small amount of assistance on the defense side for that case. the last case owner to talk about a time versus north carolina, a fourth amendment case involving reasonable suspicion to stop the car in which drugs were found. it involves a north carolina traffic law that says you have to have an operating stop lamp. the individual stopped because they had a tail light out and the officer pulls over the car for having the tail light out, finds drugs in the car.

the north carolina court of appeals construe the statute as requiring a stop lamp. you only need one operating taillight, a traffic law drafted a long time ago. the court says, there was no violation actually. it's totally lawful to drive with one taillight out. news you can use. [laughter] and the question in the case is whether you can have reasonable suspicion to stop someone under the fourth amendment based on a mistake of law. a reasonable mistake that you think it is unlawful but it is not. our whether you have to hold the government to the law as it is actually construed by the courts even if that construction happens later and it's kind of a counterintuitive construction. that is the question under the fourth amendment of how to determine reasonable suspicion and probable cause. if there is a counterintuitive reading that happens later, you hold the officers to that

interpretation or not. so that is a very quick run through of the cases. >> you are the rare panelist that has been told to spend five minutes and spends maybe fewer than that. let me ask you a question about this last case. in general, you avoided giving a kind of take on the right answer or a prediction about what the court might do. i wouldn't mind each. let me ask you this. am i right thinking there would be a gap between the criminal defendant who as i understand it from the cop shows i have seen, can't say that i did not know that was the law, therefore i get off and the cop saying i didn't know the law but yet i can search her car? >> my own view is the defense should win because the ignorance of the law is no excuse. it should apply as much to officers as it does to individuals.

i think it is very easy for the government. it is hard to drive without violating a traffic law. that includes one mile an hour over the speed limit. it is not like the executive branch of the state has the power to go to the legislature and say we should have a law that makes it on lawful to drive with one broken taillight. this is something very easily fixed by the legislature and ultimately if the court was right in its construction of the statute, which i think you have to assume they were, the individual driving was doing nothing wrong and should not be pulled over for it. >> what do you suppose the court will do? >> it's hard to know. it is tricky because you can interpret this case in two ways. not handling the remedy aspect of this case -- i suspect if the court had the exclusionary rule

aspect of this, they would say that it does not apply. it may be a case that ultimately makes no difference that is conceptually interesting but may not have a lot of ramifications. >> i have two cases to cover briefly here today. the question of federal law under the religious land use and in stood to show -- institutional act of 2000. arkansas does accept federal funds, and they restricted an inmate who, for religious reasons, and to grow a half inch a half inch grow

beard to only grow a quarter inch beard. the question here is, was that the least restrictive means available to advance when the institution claimed was a compelling government interest? there was an extensive hearing in district court. the prison one based on won a largen difference to prison administrators. before last term, you might have thought that it was to come out. i think hobby lobby -- a lot of people are seeing this as a direct follow-on. the companion, statutes, they are interpreted the same. why doesn't the inmate have broader religious freedom here? when we are going to see in this case is tension. there is a lot of evidence in the states brief which demonstrates and illustrates some of the things that can be hidden in a beard.

weapons, contraband, more than you might think in a half inch beard. at the same time, there were lots of alternatives offered up as for ways to accommodate the interests and meet the safety needs which the eighth circuit all rejected. here you have a situation of the inmate having a very strong case and terms of -- in terms of the right to religious freedom in the right to practice it as he sees fit. there are really two companion cases involving alabama redistricting. one brought by the democratic conference and another brought by the alabama legislative black caucus. this is about as complicated a case you're going to find and i will try to quickly walk through the various issues. after 2010, alabama faced a problem.

the problem was they had majority minority districts that were underpopulated. when you cut to the legal jargon, you get down to the fundamental question of you have to move people into those districts. are you going to move minority citizens or will you move white citizens into those districts? alabama was facing for different legal regimes that they had to navigate. one, they had to meet one person one vote which means you have to move roughly equal population in every district. they had to deal with section five of the voting rights act that says you cannot retrogress minority voting power. they believed as they move white people into those districts, it would reduce the forwarding -- minority voting strength. but if they move minorities, they ran into an equal protection problem because they have been accused of packing minorities into districts to create safe minority districts

and undermining the broader representation of rights in other districts. i would violate the 14th amendment. they had to deal with section two of the voting rights act that creates arguments both equal protection in section five grounds. alabama focused on one person, one vote. in their argument, to the exclusion of the other issues. they won 2-1. the dissenting judge said they did not have strong enough arguments and they were packing. that is the grounds that are supported. >> i welcome comments from the other panelist but let me ask you a question on each of these cases. the you think it makes a difference for the man that wants to grow a half inch beard, they seem to think there is no security problem? >> i think it does make a difference.

i think we are seeing increasingly, in a variety of criminal cases, we have seen where the court does care about the other states and issues of prison security and inmate rights. >> you all recalled that in 2013, the court effectively struck down a key feature of the voting rights act in section five that required states to the history of discrimination to obtain clearance before it can make changes to its voting procedures. section five was the reason offered by alabama officials to do what they planned to say was packing. now that section five has gone away, does that change the contours of the case? >> is a really complicated issue and i think the answer is yes. all disclosure, i was one of the lawyers on the legal team for shelby county.

it's a very strange case because you have a central issue when it was decided in the district court and if they find with the office has asked, making a decision below and sending back for analysis, you will be vacating a class on the ground that may not have pertinence to the case. i think the question is, how much capital is the court going to want to invest? it has been in the briefing. >> virginia? >> i will talk about a case that involves the conflict between the president and the congress in the very controversial and difficult setting of middle east domestic and international politics.

the foreign relations authorization act directs the secretary of state on request to record the first country of an american citizen born in jerusalem as israel on that person's u.s. passport. president bush signed the law but said the requirement is not consistent with the constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and in fact requires nomination. the statute in 2002 refuses to enforce the law, to establish neutrality as part of either palestine or israel. u.s. parents when their baby was born, this arises from the denial of their request. the child was born in 2002 and

demonstrates this statute has been controversial from the beginning. this is only one in a procession of statutory provisions that create conflict between the executive branch and congress, pushing the u.s. policy towards the recognition of israeli sovereignty over jerusalem. the supreme court has seen this case before, a couple years ago the d c circuit held that the statute had to be observed, whether the state department could rightly resist is a political question. that issue went up to the supreme court and they said it is not a political question. now they are going to reap what they have sowed. they have to decide if the president indeed has exclusive recognition authority or what congress has done, with its control over passports and over the regulation of immigration, is it really a significant infringement on recognition?

does it amount to an official act of recognition? the court will find itself in a very difficult western having to resolve this power question between the executive branch and congress. the d c circuit held that the president's authority was exclusive and plenary. in fact, the requirement that congress imposed would infringe on recognition power. in part, the statute itself creates the problem here. the statute itself says that it is the policy of the united states that jerusalem is the capital of israel. this is one of the things that creates a significant infringement on the president's recognition authority rather than opening up somebody's passport and seeing israel instead of jerusalem. it doesn't change the practical reality of the point of view of the state department which, i