dramatic show of defiance was the federal judiciary, chief justice roy moore of the alabama supreme court on sunday night ordered the state's probate judges not to shoot marriage licenses to gay couples on monday, the day same-sex marriages were expected to begin. the order, coming just hours over the january decisions of u.s. district court case were scheduled to take effect, was all most certainly going to thrust this state into legal turmoil." that on the front page of "the new york times" this morning. coming up next, we will be talking with bloomberg washington bureau chief jonathan allen about the week ahead in congress and what will be happening in the white house as well. later, american enterprise institute senior fellow karlyn bowman will be here to talk about their new report on how americans view law enforcement. if you missed it last friday the white house released the latest national security strategy.

national security adviser susan rice outlined the next steps in foreign policy. here is what she had to say. [video clip] susan rice: the first element of our strategy is to secure the united states, citizens, allies, and partners through a dynamic global security posture in which we employ our unique capabilities, forged diverse coalitions, and support local partners. this approach builds on a more secure homeland and national defense that is second in a -- second to none. president obama is committed to maintaining the best trained best equipped, and best led military force the world has ever known. while honoring how promises to our service members, veterans, and the families. to ensure success, we call on congress to work with us to support responsible investments in our national security,

including by ending sequestration. to counter today's threats we are implementing a comprehensive counterterrorism approach that takes account of how the enemy has evolved. as al qaeda core has been decimated, we have seen the diffusion of the threat to al qaeda affiliates isil, local militias, and homegrown violent extremists. this diffusion may for now reduce the risk of a spectacular attack like 9/11, but it raises the possibility of the types of attacks that we have seen in boston and ottawa, sydni and paris. to meet the morphing challenge we are combining our decisive military capabilities with local partnerships, with the financial tools to choke off funding and the international reach of our law enforcement and intelligence

agencies. host: if you missed the event with the national security adviser, you can watch the whole thing on our website, cspan.org where she outlines the foreign policy strategy. we want to welcome back to our table this morning jonathan allen, washington bureau chief with bloomberg news, to talk about the week ahead in washington. let's begin with what will happen at the white house this morning. angela merkel will be meeting with the president behind closed doors and that you will hold a joint news conference about what to do with the situation in ukraine. do you expect that activate coming to capitol hill as well -- i know there is lawmakers who believe they should be armed but is there going to be a legislative effort on this? guest: you know, greta, i think congress is probably going to wait to see what the president says here. this is a tricky issue obviously. there was a desire to, the

russians coming into ukraine and at the same time not to hand ukrainians arms that could be used long into the future. we have seen the danger of that in other places where the u.s. is armed nations and many, many years later and's up fighting those arms. there is reasonable hesitation. one of the leading ukrainian diplomats was in our office is a couple weeks ago basically begging for this aid baking -- begging for the ability to fight back. there is a range of weapons and some of them are more strictly defensive, some of them are more strictly offense of them some of them were in between. radars that since incoming fire fire back at the spot. it remains to be seen. i am curious what the president and chancellor merkel have to say when they come out of this meeting. host: the differences between the two of them, how are those differences addressed -- it has

got some in the administration like vice president joe biden saying we should arm these rebels, but secretary of state john kerry over the weekend sounded resistant to the idea. guest: it is interesting, this is really divisive even within the democratic party and even former foreign relations committee chairmen kerry and biden. there's always a lot going on in the world and in particular, a lot of hostility. we're talking about a possible authorization of the use of military force against isil. there are those in congress who are very gung ho about that and there are some who are very gung ho about the ukrainian situation. for a well sanctions seems to be the watchword, and now arms are the watchword. you can see this escalating. host: speaking of isis, does the president send over language for a new aumf this week?

when does it arrived on the doorsteps of capitol hill? guest: i'm certain there's discussion in congress about the parameters of that and they don't want it rejected on its face, i don't think. that said, the president wanted to go and hit syria a couple years ago and he sent it up to the hill that he wanted to do that and capitol hill broke into 535 separate voices, one for each member of congress. i think they have to be careful how they do this. i would not be terribly surprised if they waited a little bit longer. i and others are desperately trying to find what the language is that is moving back and forth within the halls of the administration and also capitol hill. host: right, and what will democrats do? how will they respond to this new authorization and how does that play out politically for 2016? guest: what is fascinating about this particular issues that it splits both parties in different ways. there are a number of democrats they don't want to be seen as

soft on isis and yet many are also very wary about giving the president authority to go to war. at the same time you have republicans saying let's go in, and you have this isolationist brand, or maybe just the less willing to go in with arms brand of republicans as well. it is an interesting thing that crosses party lines and it is not clear that there is consensus on the hill. i think there is consensus that they want the president to be the want to stick his neck out on this, and they get to decide whether to help him or not. in terms of 2016, rand paul is someone who has had interesting places on this particular issue. i think the real question will become the white house work in a way -- will be can the workhouse work in a way to go after isis that is restricted in a way that isn't so restricted as to raise

the concerns of those who think the president often be able to go to war, which includes speaker of the house john boehner, who over the past year has been deferential to every president who is wanted to engage will generally. wants to engage much -- who has wanted to engage militarily. he believes the white house should have a strong hand on that. host: tied into that is funny for homeland security to protect this country from any sort of attack from terrorist groups. "wall street journal" editorial board weighing in on this issue asking "can the gop change" when it comes to funding a moment security. "if home is a gritty funding lapses, the agency will be pushed into a partial shutdown even as the terrorist threat is at the forefront of public attention, with the 'charlie hebdo'an islamic state murders. imagine if the tsa fails to

intercept an islamic state agent en route to detroit." republicans are in danger of seeking some of the ground to the democrats right now. not only with the homeland security, but you have a situation with defense spending where the president is asking to increase spending for the pentagon and republicans on capitol hill are the ones saying we don't want to do that because we do not want to see a domestic spending increase as well. there is an interesting moment politically where you have seen republicans who had been so unified as a strong on defense and supportive of anything that could be sort of terms that have kind of splintered. that falls out -- that is followed of the 2003 invasion of iraq. republicans were with the president for a long time even past the 2006 midterms, where they got shellacked. they are really wary of sending

americans into battle and are more concerned on the homeland security front now with immigration than they are with keeping the department funded. we will see how it plays out. this is something that will come to a head. speaker boehner was trying to kick the can down the road and i think mcconnell is trying to kick the can down the road. now they will have to deal with the situation in isolation and that makes it harder. host: reminding our viewers of what happened last week in the senate with home is a gritty funding and what will happen this week. -- with home is a gritty funding and what will happen this week at guest: i should say i was not watching that is closely in the senate. eventually you will see legislation going forward to fund this, but how it gets done is still a question. host: does this "wall street journal" editorial put any pressure on republican leaders? they conclude this by saying "it is not too soon to say that the

fate of the gop majority is on the line. precious weeks are wasting and the consequence of weak leadership and a rump minority unwilling to compromise is playing into democratic hands. the only winners of gop dysfunction will be mr. obama nancy pelosi, and hillary clinton." guest: absolutely, that is what the editorial is designed to do, to put pressure on republicans and say wake up. you can be against the comprehensive immigration reform plan and the executive order on immigration but if you cut off your nose to spite your face you will have an done that and have the president and democratic leaders in congress a victory. shutting down the government or part of the government is not proved to be a particularly effective strategy to you could see from the last midterm elections it didn't hurt republicans as much as it could have, that short-term shutout, but i don't get the sense that anybody wants to go campaign on pay, we shut the government down, and they certainly don't want to say we shut the homeland

security department down. host: the senate last week unable to get the 60 votes to overcome a democratic filibuster on the legislation that house passed to stop the president executive action on immigration only able to get 54 votes. i think that vote came three times to the floor and we will see what happens this week. on cnn's "state of the union" yesterday, homeland security secretary jeh johnson talked about the funding and the deadline of february 27 and what could happen. [video clip] sec. johnson: dana, i am on capitol hill virtually every day talking to democrats and republicans about the importance of a fully funded department of homeland security in these times in particular. we are on a continuing resolution right now, which as you point out expires on february 27, which is less than 20 days at this point. as long as we're on a continuing

resolution, that in and of itself creates uncertainty about how we go about our homeland security missions. if we going to government shutdown, for example, that means furloughing employees furloughing homeland security officials. as craig fewugate, administrator of fema, point out, he has to furlough 80% of his work force. i am on the hill every day stressing the importance of a fully funded department of homeland security separate and apart from riders to define our efforts to reform the immigration system. host: homeland security secretary jeh johnson yesterday on "state of the union." this debate going to be continuing in washington this week coming up. what position does this put the house in? they passed this bill, but they can't get it through the senate, so what are they going to do? guest: it puts the house in a position of throwing rocks at

the white house from all the way down pennsylvania avenue. it is a long enough reach that you cannot hit the white house with your rock. ultimately the are going to have a crisis point in a few weeks, and i don't think they have a way out of it yet. host: february 27 is the deadline. they are supposed to be here in washington this week and out next week for presidents' day week. guest: i don't think time is their problem. i think coming up with a plan that the house and senate in past -- democratic support is their problem, and the democratic position -- this is reminiscent of what nancy pelosi sought to do when republicans were divided on things in the last congress -- i think their position is we are going to stand strong until the republicans come up with something clean and then we will give them our votes to edit past -- to get it passed. that puts boehner and mcconnell in a bad position because they will have to fracture their coalition. politics is something that

unifies your site and divides the other. in the case of the house republicans, they felt good about this plan to go after the president's host: let's get the called and get our viewers involved. we are talking but the week ahead for congress and the administration. when from birmingham, alabama. you are up for us. caller: it is the sheer hypocrisy of the republicans. you gave george w. bush authority to go into iraq when you did not even have credible information. you have seen isis capturing and beheading people. this is atlantis. come on. host: when talking about her publicans -- republicans not

wanting to give president bush authority to go after isis, but authority to give bush to direct. -- iraq. guest: one x the nation is that they've learned a lesson from iraq. i do not first see a situation in which isil is defeated or isis, our the islamic state, whatever. where is defeated in such short order that this will not be a problem. host: cornelia from idaho. go ahead. caller: good morning. sorry i am kind of horse this morning. basically, are you presenting the wrong argument here? are the republicans saying that we should have never pulled out

of iraq so easily in the first place? as far as funding homeland security, they have been saying, we will fully fund homeland security, we just do not want to find the presence executive order on immigration. i think it has nothing to do with republicans not being strong on defense, and so on. i think it is completely the wrong -- you are presenting it as though they're republicans are not willing to find what the president wants to do. that is just not true. host: cornelia saying that what they're trying to do with stuffed the president on this executive action on immigration because they believe he did not have the authority to do that. guest: my kid sometimes want to stop me from playing them to bed at night, but the reality is they will go to bed. not to replay the republican congress has children, but the

point is they have gone this route and they are not finding success with it. i think obviously there's a lot of outrage on the republican side about what the president has done with these executive orders. and with presidential members, or whatever they are called. there is not a path forward. it is not my frame, or your frame, it is the frame that exist. if the government shuts down -- i'm sorry, not the government, homeland security partially shuts down on february 27, you have this question of executive orders. republicans maybe could've figured out the layouts, and i could've been better. but that is the frame right now. host: one viewer posing this question on twitter -- will republicans a greed to strip the immigration bits from the dhis

bill? guest: i might try to find something to give republicans on immigration. i'm not sure what that is. ultimately we have seen this play out a few times where republicans demand something and they demand something, and demand it, in exchange for funding the government and raising the debt ceiling. each time that has happened they have not done something from this president. i do not expect that to change. they keep repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result. usually you do not get it. host: david, you're next. go ahead. caller: i was going to bring this up. my great uncle died in the last day of the russian war in the 1940's. russia came into finland and bombed the heck out of them. with no warning or anything. they ended up taking half of

finland. that was stalling, but russians are known to be aggressive anyway. they took all the nickel mines away from the fence and half of the country. they still have half of that country. they made finland -- they took out one of their major cities. russians are known to be aggressive and they will not thought that anything if someone else has equal an opposing force. if ukrainians had some of that weaponry, i think the russians would start to toe the line. host: market in seattle. go ahead. caller: high, greta and jonathan. i do not know is that young man before me remembers correctly, but no, we should stay out of

russia's business and the ukraine's business. senator corker is off his rocker. they need to respect the president. whoever that president is. also, joe biden, still has a little cold war left in him as do most of the senior republicans. jonathan, i like your sense of humor. you have to keep a sense of humor because those guys, half the senate and the congress are off the rockers. we need the humor. what should we do, jonathan? guest: tough question. host: a couple of questions about ukraine. this is obviously not just playing out in washington. outside of washington, people are paying attention to this as well. there is a group of lawmakers who are really pushing to arm the ukrainian forces. will they be successful? guest: i think they will be successful in a limited fashion. i think ultimately what you will see -- the pressure being

brought on this government, on the administration, from congress and ukrainian leaders is strong. the question is which arms? are of arms that will be used against their own people, or other countries around them, or perhaps someday, or are we giving them things that are short-term solutions. the details really matter. it is very interesting that the last color was just saying to stay out. we do not usually get to see repeats of history so quickly or what feels like a repeat of history so quickly. in the case of arming people in the late 80's, they ended up turning against us. i think this idea of having

people around the world all arms or russian arms, or chinese arms. wherever there is a pig conflicts, the armament comes from big players around the world. i think there is reasonable reluctance to doing that and keeping safeguard of keeping track of those weapons. host: another issue on the table this week is the health care law. on friday, a representative john fleming, was here. i long time practicing physician . he talked about the differences between democrats and republicans and the gop alternative on health care. [video clip] >> for democrats under obamacare, i would direct you to stephen grill who is an expert on this. we take a health care system and then lay on top of it a government bureaucracy which makes the more expensive. what we would much rather do is

begin to reform the insurance system to make it a competitive system. ted down those walls state to state. her firm -- reform medical malpractice. get the cost down. make the premiums less expensive. then we can help those who need help financially through tax credits or providing cash into the health savings accounts. let them manage their own lives, and manage their own health care. our goal is to lower the cost here and then it becomes more attractive and accessible. it is patient centered health care and not a government run system. host: that was congressman john fleming on the washington journal on friday. when does the site take place question mark what will we see this week? guest: i think we will see this for the next two years. -- few years.

i think the republicans are trying to come up with their own plan to truly replace what obamacare does. this is really the first time they have congressman ryan, and others, congressman fleming obviously working on these issues. this is a battle for both sides. i do not think anyone really wants to give up the fight and washington. most of what we fight about here is things the two sides disagree on and can raise money for the two sides. i do not see any end to this insight. -- ins site. is inconceivable to me that someone running for president for 2016 will say, obamacare is the law of the land andd let's leave it be. i think you are starting to see some ideas coming forward that

republicans think are the reasonable adjustments. by after the ball went into effect, there were adjustments that were made. there was some unintended consequences, but they were very narrow. i do not think you will see the president give on that. i think ha hillary clinton will yield on obamacare on the campaign trail, with the exception of some small marginal issues here and there. i think we're heading into this as a campaign issue for toy 16. host: our next caller, eric from pensacola, florida. caller: i called originally to have some acclamation on your side. when you called i think the republicans, the isolationists. i would be curious, what is the opposite of an isolationist?

so far you have mentioned to her three instances in which are intervention, and who knows what kind of shadowy deal is going on behind the scenes, because there is a lot of money at war, but your consistent discussion of all the issues where he get in the middle of stuff -- the cia trained bin laden -- the instance of -- for example, i echoed down the street and threaten someone because i think he will be me later. you have to wait to be attacked first before we throw our men and women into the meat grinders. a lot of my family is in the military. i do not want them, their lives wasted. if you really care about the troops, do not send them into wars where there is obviously not a desire to win. who knows what the goals are. what is the opposite of isolationists?

guest: first of all, i think eric may have misread me. to use isolationist is pejorative. i was using as an easy catch all for everyone. i hope that the rest of what i said is not reflective of a view as you suggested. there are a lot of reasons for americans to be a little wary of war at this point. and concerned about the ways of which the united states is affecting other countries, and its own national security by being so heavily invested in conflict around the world. i do not mean isolationist and a negative sense. just to divide the wings of the republican party.

with the republican party, there are fewer people who are so antiwar in which there is a case where they think war should not happen. there is a significant percentage of democrats who think that way. it is a nod to the past of the roughly a party, and a wing that is just more reluctant than another wing that is willing to go toward. host: we'll go next to a republican caller from new york. caller: good morning. i am a first time caller. host: glad you called in. go ahead. caller: my question is is in it the president's job to submit the use of force first off? has he yet done that? secondly i'm so sick of my representative schumer pontificating about how the republicans are holding the american citizens hostage to the

dhs funding. when, in size, are we holding american citizens hostage from a possibly unconstitutional law by protecting immigrants and stead of american citizens? they but fuddled me that they can use this argument. guest: let me dissect that these ids. i'm confused as to how the caller can even find what senator schumer has said. that guy is never out there. as far as the common on immigration, i do not see any benefits that are extended to immigrants that are somewhat -- in some way discriminating against american citizens. obviously just shields them from being deported if they're willing to register. i think it will be interesting to see the successes on that

registration because there is such a high debate. i'm not sure that people will come out in the shadows and say hey, i am here now. let me have some brief exoneration or maybe that will change. as far as the aumf goes, the president is expected to submit. as far as the responsibilities i think the constitution never saw this -- a war without a war. it is the parameter of the president to make whatever is a judgment he wants. it is the parameter of congress to make whatever laws they want. without his suggestion, they can move forward. i think you've heard this from capitol hill for a long time. they want some unifying theory as to why the united it should become involved in syria and now in iraq.

i think members of congress do not think they have something they can go back home and sell to their constituents. at least not a broad enough set of congressman. host: we're talking with jonathan allen. the washington bureau chief for bloomberg news. ethel is next on the line. caller: good morning. i just want to know why the democrats are always blaming the republicans about the homeland bill. they just know a vote. the president could veto the bill. the republicans better stick to where ever they are at right now. if the democrats fail, the bill doesn't go to the president.

i always vote republican. now, i go independent. if they do not do their job, forget it. host: we'll go to chase in indiana. republican. hi, chase. caller: i was calling in regards to president obama is aspect on the ukraine. i think we should be using our military resources more towards isil and the middle east. the fact that the ukraine situation is more controversial. i was just calling in to get you guys is aspects. host: we will go onto lex in california. republican caller. caller: good morning. so it's ok to call out christians and name them for

doing something thousands of years ago. you can say anything against the muslims? our president says delegates christians every day. host: are you still there? what is the solution here? what do want to happen? caller: the solution is if you do not know your enemy or your ally, how can you win? the muslim problem and the jihadist fundamentalists -- if you are fundamentalist, you believe it wholeheartedly, and you have to call it out. host: you were saying earlier reporters like yourself are trying to get a hold of the language and the parameters to this new authority.

what might be in their? boots on the ground language, that option, could it be in the authority? guest: i think that is one of the most controversial things about this. the president has said reportedly -- repeatedly that there will not be boots on the ground. there are military advisers there. this is a distinction without a difference. it is the thing that the president signed up on. this is not the first time. before isil, there was an know boots on the ground idea in libya. then, when we found out about the benghazi attack, there w were a whole bunch of cia guys with heavy armament ready to defend the embassy when they got out of there. i think what you will see is a lot of debate over that are together aspect.

whether there are loopholes. i think that the 2001 use of force in afghanistan and the use of force for iraq have been used to justify a lot of other activities. whether this is something that expands the president's ability to conduct war without changing those first two authorizations word limits those other two authorizations, or whether it expands his ability to g get into syria and iraq, or actually limits it. i think these are questions that will be caused disagreements between lawyers. host: another deadline is for nuclear talks. ahead of that, you will have the

israeli prime minister netanyahu coming to congress and talking to congress in a joint session. the headline in the new york times today says, "netanyahu speech creates uproar and faces pressure to ask u.s. appearance. ." guest: you do not want a condemnation. usually, he is a police for people who say anti-semitic things. this is a place where he has decided to come out on an issue that is sort of outside of that scope. the president and the white house are angry at nine yahoo! for a great number of things. i think what they sensed was an overreach here by speaker boehner and some overreach from

netanyahu for coming over here. the idea that candidate would go to another country, in the middle of his own election, is ridiculous. you remember president obama going over to europe and middle east. mitt romney traveling around the world. we dishonor chris christie over in europe. this is a time honored tradition for a lot of folks. i think the anger is a little bit of generated out rage that the president was cut out of an invitation from congress. congress has a foreign-policy role, and is their prerogative to invite anyone who they want. i think really what is going on here is an opportunity for the president to stick one to netanyahu, who he really does not like and feels like

netanyahu sticks it to him. including the 2012 election when netanyahu was all but a surrogate for mitt romney. host: let's listen to what the minority leader had to say, nancy pelosi, when she was asked about this visit by the israeli prime minister and whether she would r at 10. [video clip] >> as of now, it is my intention to go. it is still my hope that it will not take place. do not think in terms of boycott. members will go or not go, as they usually go or do not go. host: you think everyone will attend? guest: not everybody. vice president biden has already said he will not be there. look, she said that we will do a quiet walk out. people will suddenly the sick. she does not want to say dare

boycotting a foreign leader. that is a bad thing. there is also division in the jewish community. nancy pelosi has done pretty well in the jewish community for their support over the years. it's a lose lose situation for democrats. reticular for jewish democrats who went and spoke to ambassador dermer about that. they said, listen, you put us in a box. we could either not show up and a good number of our constituents would be angry with us because we us to the israeli prime minister, or we could show up and a good number of constituents would be a angry with us because we are going against the president. this is a bad situation for the democrats. i think that will become clear when netanyahu shows up, as he plans. host: clearwater, florida. lane, go ahead. caller: i have a question i want

to ask. it has been bought a for a long time. when it's putin and obama meat, when the microphones were turned off, putin said to obama that i can do more. host: it was not putin at the time, what did he mean? guest: i think anybody knowing that when they are running for election, they can do more after election. when they are in the white house house and do not have anything to worry about. i think the relationship with russia has changed so much since the annexation of crimea, since the hostility of ukraine they

are pretty clearly russian backed. all of that is out of the window. from the change over to you putin has been a big change as well. no matter what how much -- host: you co-authored a book about hillary clinton. it is coming out in paperback later this month. there will be some new details in it. can you tell us what will be new? guest: i cannot tell you too much. i would just say, look for the reappearance of bill clinton as a significant factor in the decision-making that is going on in the hillary clinton operation. i think there is some good juicy stuff about how he is affecting them at this point. host: where is she with her

decision on whether or not to run? guest: million-dollar question. i think the thought for a long time in the clinton world, even before the midterm election was wait as long as possibly you can. there is not any reason to go out there and be in a position where you are asked what you think about something. that hasn't dangerous for presidential candidates over the years. i think there is an advantage to her staying low and watching the republicans fight it out. we have seen some holes that show her on top of the republican party. i think she will wait as long as she can. it has been some back-and-forth. will it be able first, july? these are dates tied to fundraising quarters. she could shock and all everybody as to how the campaign is running money -- raising

money. i think the likelihood is that they will wait until they feel a real pressure to get in. right now, there's no one running in the democratic primary that has any chance of beating her. that is a luxury for her. that means there may not be much of a choice for iowa voters or new hampshire voters. i think iowa and new hampshire are becoming a little less important. host: speaking of books, dave will axelrod is out with a new book. he talks about how clinton needs to run like an insurgent, and not rely on the clinton name. you mentioned iowa and new hampshire, bloomberg politics has new headlines. jeb bush showing a lead in iowa.

new hampshire. guest: it is good news for jeb bush. it is bad news that he is not running away with it. when george bush burst on the scene, he was not just the choice of establishment republicans, but conservative republicans, and grassroots republicans as well. that will not be the case for jeb bush. at some level, if he survives it will be a good thing for him. if he makes it through the primary elections, that will be a good thing. he has been off the campaign trail for a long time. host: let's give them one more call here. john. caller: