wil will talk about military issues. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation you open a journal and ispresident obama: our margin is not yet finished, but we are getting close. 230 nine years after our nation's founding, our union is not perfect, but we are getting close. our job is easier because someone already got through that first mile. someone got is over that bridge. ♪ host: it was a weekend 50 years ago that shaped the course of history. the headline from the "selma times journal" -- a day that

selma will not forget. president obama reflecting on that day's events in selma, alabama. we want to start with your thoughts on race relations in america. by the way, events continued today in selma, alabama on c-span 3. our phone lines are open with your comments. 202 is the area code. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 745-8002 independents. you can also send us a tweet @cspanwj. or send us an e-mail journal@c-span.org. it is 7:00, daylight savings time as we move our clocks ahead

one hour. the president's speech, as he honors the courage of americans the 50th anniversary of the margin in selma, alabama. then your times -- the new york times has a speecn article. on one side of the side was the protesters who knew they could end the day as martyrs, on the other side, alabama state troopers, eager to play the role assigned to them by history. many of the moments of national reckoning have been accept lease brutality or failures of the criminal justice system. 50 years on, the violent images still have bit capacity to --

have the capacity to shock and shame. that from the bbc this morning. the president speaking about 1965, african-americans and their right to vote. [video clip] president obama: they solve the idea mi manifest itself here and america because of campaigns like this. the voting rights act was passed. political, economic, and social barriers came down. the chains that these men and women brought our evidence today. african-americans serve from small towns to big cities. host: the comments of the

president yesterday. by the way, the full speech is available on our website c-span.org. we want to hear from you on how race relations have changed since selma alabama. (202) 748-8000 is our line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. here is a headline from "then your times." here is some background about the edmund pettus bridge. it was built back in 1940. it was named for edmund pettis a brigadier general, he also served in the senate, he was also part of the alabama kkk. on lines are open. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans.

we will hear first from sheridan from columbus, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: thank you for calling in. caller: first of all, let me say, anderson, indiana is still the northern capital of the ku klux klan. i don't know if you knew that. number two, when i graduate from school in the 40's, we had a black vice president, who later became an attorney. but, we are still in the situation, steve -- and justice of the supreme court once said, the mind of the big ot is like the people of an eye, the more light you shine on it, the smaller it gets. i totally agree with that.

either way, you and peter are my favorite guys on c-span. i really appreciate c-span. have a wonderful day, steve. host: from the montgomery alabama advertiser, this is the headline -- the past and the present collide in the middle of president speech. connelly is next from the bronx, new york. race relations, 50 years after selma, what is your assessment ? caller: i'm actually -- well, it doesn't matter if i'm independent or democrat. my comment is race relations in america is kind of the second story as to why we are not getting along in this country. i think that religion, being

something that all of our leaders have to double down on, you know, the president saying god bless america. it's really what is dividing us as a country. we should be a nation of scientists people who honor the tradition of learning and education. once you throw god into that -- god mean something different to everyone. it is not a unit of measurement. that is something that divides us. if we were all more, sort of into education, and honoring that, the religion that people would study and follow would be that much smarter. people would be that much more educated about the god they believe in. you wouldn't have so many uneducated educated people using got in the wrong way. host: thank you for the call. the bronx, new york.

the front page of in your times a photograph of the president joined with first lady michelle obama, john lewis, along with the president's mother in law and two daughters. also attending yesterday's ceremony, former president george w. bush and laura bush. all of these former presidents were invited. james from florida. good morning . caller: i tried getting through all day yesterday. it was frustrating. i'm glad i finally got through. it's rough watching this, to hear some of the things. i just noticed that when black people call the show, they just don't realize -- i mean, they don't see the hate within themselves. i guess they think it is

righteous anger. i want to go back and to go back into history. of course, the guy talking about religion. the abolition movement was a christian movement. it did not start in islam -- the air was the first to encounter the black race and enslave them. it is interesting that barack obama's own name is an arabic name. he is a descendent of muslim slave masters. i get a kick out of that. yet, he has a great affinity for his slave ancestors. if white people had a burden in their heart to elevate people different from them, and yet, nice guys finish last. the nicer we are, the more we are hated. the interesting thing, to me, is

the foundation that allowed martin luther king to preach and march. in most countries, people would have never tolerated that. in most countries, one racial group dominates. they basically will murder or destroy anybody that tries to do that, whether it is syria nigeria, sudan kenya. everywhere in the world where there is diversity, there is conflict, tension, bloodshed. the other thing is 85% of interracial crime per year is black on white. for every trayvon martin, there are probably 100 whites. a lot of black people have been calling, saying there will be some kind of racial civil war. i don't think i will ever happen. i know the nature of my fellow whites.

i know whites from chris matthews to bill clinton, they will never do anything as a white male. they will stick a knife in my back, it which is what they have been doing, to maintain my power. i'm just getting a little bit sick of the divers the as strength bumper sticker. look at where the white liberal lives. there's an old saying that a modern-day liberal education gives white people the right attitude about minorities and the means to live as far away from them as possible. your average white liberal wants to live as far as way as possible from black people. they flee whenever they can to a white utopia. host: there is also this front joe that says, don't we need to look at the over militarization of local police departments

since 9/11. the caller made a point about race relations. there's a story this morning from a newspaper on madison wisconsin where another black teenager was shot by a white police officer. the police department calling on protesters to show restraint. the massive police chief saying, in light of so many things that have happened, it is understandable that the reaction at the scene is extremely emotional and upsetting. one of the madison police officers followed a teenager, identified as 19-year-old tony robinson, after receiving reports that a man was jumping in traffic. the police officer followed the man to his apartment, and forced himself in, they say that then

robinson assaulted the police officer, wendy police officer drew his revolver and shot robinson more than once. back to your calls on race relations in america. 50 years after selma. here in washington dc, william. republican line. caller: i would like to make two points. first of all, black people will never again equality in america until they gain reparations. the second part is john lewis. john lewis is an example of black people's democratic in equity. he's been there for 30 years. someone else needs to come in and take that job. host: william from washington dc. by the way, if you get through turn the volume down, it will eliminate the echo. show you some photos from bloody

sunday, also some film. by the way, we will have live coverage today i was ceremony taking place in selma, alabama getting underway at 11:45 a.m. the program will re-air at 8:00 eastern time. of course, all of our coverage available anytime at c-span.org. brian from salt lake city, utah. independent line. caller: good morning. i sort of want to go back to 2004. there was this great man who came out and spoke at the democratic convention. i thought, this is a great guy i should vote for him. then, i started learning where he came from. frank marshall davis.

his grandfather wanted -- this guy was on the communist list. he went to school in indonesia studying the koran, then he goes to that damn reverend in chicago. he went to that church for 17 years. he just reached hate. you know. look at his background. president obama's background. that's where it comes. i'm sorry. the guy hates america, is the way i look at it. host: brian from salt lake city utah. we will go next to richard from royal oak, maryland. we are getting your comments on race relations 50 years after selma. good morning. caller: good morning. i had a comment -- i'll tell

you, the racism in this country we need to teach younger kids that people are people. we come in a lot of different colors, shapes and sizes. but if you don't break them up -- bring them up, they will be troublemakers. if we don't start them young and educate them to treat people as people, and avoid ones that are problems, it's going to take a longer time. host: let's go next to scott from new york. independent line. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i have a public access show called humans weekly. that gentleman hit the now on

the head. i would like to speak first about yesterday, i heard president obama. yes, the human spirit we need to all vote. the humans out here in the country, if we would all get together, we would solve some of these problems. it's not white or black. it's more green. has and has not -- haves and have-nots. god put us on this earth. the test is that we have to get along with others on this earth so that we can go to heaven. except each other for the colors they are. correct, there is injustice to every race out there. not just the black or white race. again, thank you. i would really like to tell you guys that i like you guys. i've been calling for about 15

years now. scott, the human race, the human party. have a good sunday. host: this is the story this morning inside in your times. kerry facing challenges on the iranian nuclear deal. here are some details from michael gordon as john kerry wraps up a week in paris of diplomacy. striking an initial accord with i'mran.

also getting a lot of attention must we, the speech by benjamin netanyahu, that is also on her website. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm listening to what is going on in the background, and i want to make this clear. i have been reading everything i can. i've been a lifelong democrat, and i changed parties because of barack obama. i have never seen such a polarization in my life in this country. i disagree with a gentleman caller before that says we do not need god in his country at all. i think more than other come --

more than ever, we need to pay attention to what is happening. in the book of isaiah, 9.10, we need to listen to that. we have excluded god from everything and we need to look at what's happened to us. as far as the cron goes, people need to pay attention to what the koran teaches. the koran teaches that they are supposed to have world domination and that we are p awns in the chess game. that's what it's all about. they want people to submit and take control. if they don't take control, they will rate, steel. they are told to do that. i'm not a hater. i'm a great believer in love and peace. i do believe that our president is dividing us as a nation. i do believe that we should not make any any, agreement with

iran. host: thank you very much for the call. another poll they came out this week on race relations. we will share that with you in just a moment. if you're just tuning in we are asking about race relations, 50 years after bloody sunday and in selma, alabama. more from the speech yesterday from the president. [video clip] present obama: when americans cross this bridge, they were not physically imposing, but they gave courage to millions. they had no of office, but they lead a nation. they marched as americans who had entered hundreds of years of brutal violence. countless daily -- they did not seek special treatment, equal treatment promised to us a century before. what they did here will reverberate through the ages.

not because the change they wanted was preordained. not because their victory was complete. but because they proved that nonviolent change is possible. that love and hope can conquer hate. host: the comments of the president yesterday in selma alabama. joined by former president george w. bush and his family who traveled down on air force one for the ceremony. again, live coverage of the ceremony today taking place at one of the historic churches in selma, alabama on our companion network, c-span 3, "american history tv g." mike from georgia. good morning. caller: i'm chipping out this morning. what i'm doing is recording

c-span. i'm innocent back with serial, or whatever, and listen to these crazy racist conservatives calling in on sunday morning telling us how they are christian and the first thing they do is pay on black people. that white woman just a minute ago, was a great example. the people in crisis are fighting against the president. it's laughable. anyway, this is a great sunday. i love the president's speech. like i said, i'm sitting back and enjoying the show. host: enjoy the show and enjoy your serial. -- cereal. we will go next to john. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. i'm not prejudiced. i grew up in a black neighborhood. i'm white.

we had only three white kids in my neighborhood. the crime was just abhorrent. after college i moved to a white neighborhood. we don't have any crime out here. i just think that blacks need to take a little bit more responsibility for themselves and their families. that would help out race relations. thanks. host: cawley camp a hero, this is one of the photographs from the new york times as the president embraces one of the iconic figures of the civil rights era, john lewis of georgia. next is joseph from wyoming. independent line. caller: good morning. i just called to say that the young lady who is beginning early or, excuse me the young

man from york. i believe he was right in saying that humans need to come together as a race. however, i believe that because of the racial divide we have in this country right now and that has existed for hundreds of years, it will be very difficult for that to happen. in regards to barack being the president, just him being the president and a black man in the united states, the first black president, it is very hard for whites to overcome that. in general. i've also been a person that has been profiled by the police. i just find it incomprehensible for a white male to understand what a blackmail goes through in his life. just being a blackmail. -- black male.

host: did you have a chance to read the justice department report on race relations? caller: no, i have not. the only thing i have to go off of is the news report right now. host: is available on our website, by the way. it is about 100 pages. of course, we covered the news conference from outgoing attorney general, eric holder. thank you very much for the call. this is from our twitter page, thanks be to god for mlk. of course, his son will be in attendance at the ceremony in selma, alabama. from then york times sunday magazine, this is the cover story -- as u.s. troops to bar afghanistan's most crucial leaders are not the generals or the politicians, they are the

police cheese, charged with battling insurgents and building a civil society. from politico, justice in america. from time magazine, the bush identity. jeb bush in iowa this last friday. next week week, he will be traveling to new hampshire. we will be live each day with some of the republican likely candidates. democrats line. what's your take on race relations 50 years later? caller: race relations 50 years later. we still have a long way to go. the fact of the matter is there are a lot of good white people out there. there's a lot of good people out there. the problem is there's a lot of bad people out there that make the good ones look. in terms of our progress,

legally, we have to continue to fight. fight for the rights of people in this country, whether you are black, white, mexican. we have to see ourselves as american and not see ourselves as individual races. once you get over that hurdle, then we can start to build better relationships. host: thank you. carol has this point, when all else fails the race card is played, it is carefully taught as an excuse for wrongdoing and hearing the truth. by the way, our guest tomorrow is out with a new book, and her

perspective as an african-american correspondent with the white house. our next caller's funding, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. my personal opinion is if you are an american, black, white, red, whatever -- we should spend more time on not fighting each other and getting along, and worry more about the people in the middle east and russia that want to do harm to us. we need to defend our country. black, white, red, it don't matter. thank you. host: next is byron from selma, alabama. thanks for phoning in. before we get your comment, tell us what it was like yesterday in your city? caller: it was busy. very busy. hectic, a lot of people. very -- how can i put it to go

exciting. very exciting. fascinating that we were in the spotlight. and talking about changes in america and a positive way. host: on the question of race relations, 50 years after bloody sunday, what is your assessment? caller: my comment was for a gentleman previous. if you look back in history -- you have a lot of christians specifically in the south, that were for slavery. if you look at some of the greatest people, a woman was ford not only slavery, but woman's rights. i disagree with his comment on that.

if you look up a hundred years ago, you have the portuguese and the spanish who brought slaves here. i think you need to look at the history on that. host: thank you for the call. with regards to race relations 50 years ago, sadly for many americans, sadly all that has changed is the laws. another story from the washington post -- clinton's error. we will be covering hillary

clinton tomorrow, 11:00 eastern on c-span. it is an as a cosponsor by the clinton global initiative and the bill gates foundation. it is focused on women in america. michael joining us from brookfield, wisconsin. independent line. good morning. caller: this isn't white or black, honestly, in my opinion. this is all monetary. the bailouts. you know, all of the monetary issues that we have had. sorry, i can't really do two things at once here. it's not a race issue. this is all in monetary issue. we are all going through the same thing here. it's not one race or another. i grew up with a bunch of black people and we have the same

views, the same everything. host: michael from wisconsin. this is from the washington times -- race relations worse under president obama. 39% believe that relations between blacks and whites have worsened. 15% think race relations have improved. 45% saying that it stayed about the same. 45% of whites and 26% of blacks think that relations have worsened. this is a survey conducted in february, but for the justice department report was released. the justice department also announcing that it will not bring federal civil rights charges against darren wilson for thee death of 18-year-old michael brown. that is from the washington times. another speaker yesterday, john

lewis. here's what he had to say reflecting on what happened. he was there 50 years ago. [video clip] john lewis: you and i are here. we can bear witness to the progress we have made in 50 years. we must use this moment to recommit ourselves to do all we can to finish the work. there is still work left to be done. get out there. push and pull until be redeemed the soul of america. host: that message from democratic conga's men, john lewis, who is now 75 years old. he was 25 years old when he was part of that march that included martin luther king. bloody sunday in selma, alabama. we are happy you about race relations, 50 years later. our next caller is joining us from new york. caller: good morning, steve. i'm listening to some of the white callers and the general

saying is that president obama has divided the country. he had to show his certificate. have you ever seen a president of united aids have to show his birth certificate? you notice, when cheney, and all of them said stuff -- 5000 people are losing their jobs each month before. now, people are gaining jobs under obama. martin luther king led black people down the wrong path. black america could have been better today. host: thank you for your comment. jody has this, racism has been

part of life for every black person. i not talking about it, it stays the same. talking about it, might change. you can share your comments on our twitter page, @cspanwj. the kentucky primary switch would let rand paul run for the president and keep his senate seat.

next is vickie joining us from houston, texas. also on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i would just like to say first of all, people call in, and we are talking about 50 years of celebrating, remember -- not celebrating. also, john lewis is the person actually walked the bridge. if you don't walk in someone's shoes, you don't know what is going on. black people have been mistreated. we can ignore it. we do have to move on, but there were people who died on that bridge. now, 50 years ago, there were people that died on that bridge. white people they eventually got killed coming off the bridge the second time around. we are human. true that. raceism is real.

host: this is a scene from yesterday with president obama john lewis, the first lady. this is the headline from washington post. from stan, racism will never go away until we understand that treating someone in a positive way because of their race is also racism. from the guardian, obama and selma. next on the republican line, antonio from he virginia. caller: good sunday morning to you. my comment is the fact that racism is played out on both sides. but like special interest groups, as well as some of my republican colleagues. play out racism. the biggest mistake that both sides make is grouping all

african-americans into one segment. when, in fact, there is only a small segment of the african population that is in poverty. here in the washington dc metro area, you see a large group of african-americans that are well off, extremely affluent. however, we somehow get grouped in the same category as the african americans in poverty. i believe both democrats, as well as republicans, view all of us in this one pot. i think that is raceist in nature. host: it's not about the color of your skin, the color of your ideology. time magazine -- next in line, the bush dynasty complicating

his life. the washington post -- in defense of dynasties. from the roosevelts to the bushes, they have been good for america. our next caller is jesse. good morning. caller: i would just like to say , with the threat from extreme islamic countries, we do not have the luxury to be racist. we need to unite together and fight the real problem, which is extreme islamic countries such as iran, extreme states such as isis and also also -- we just need to come together as a country and fight the problem. host: jesse, how do you do that?

caller: first all, i would say call it what it is. this is a religious war. it's not because we are saying it is, it's because they are saying it is. their religion teaches domination over all religions at the core level. thank you and you have a good morning. host: next is larry's joining us from indianapolis. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. one of the comments i would like to make is first of all, america is a d diverse country. we do have good, bad, and ugly in every race. some people are calling in and they really don't know -- i hear a lot of them blaming the president. obama is not to blame. you look at congress. you look at your representatives. good things can happen for this country.

one caller did call in -- when you look at the selma march, you did see blacks, whites, different ethnic groups. that's the way this country has been. we had people that believe in america. really believe. they say, this guy may be black, white, hispanic, asian, this and that. that doesn't matter. what we have to do is set aside a difference and build this country. i hear people talking about the threat from the middle east. ok, that's fine. but you know what, if we change here, show by example how this country, on paper, is supposed to work. you know, if you work hard. that's not really the case.

our problem here is corporations are taking control. host: thanks for a much for the call. a few more minutes with your calls and comments on race relations, 50 years after selma. we will turn our attention to before look at and oral arguments heard last week by the supreme court. from the usa today -- civil rights icons joining the president, the first lady, and president bush. the front page story of then your times -- ferguson became a symbol, but bias goes beyond city. what it calls systemic flaws are familiar nationwide. kathleen is nice from massachusetts. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment on the

gentleman that called from north dakota claiming that liberals like myself do not want to live near -- with black people. we, here in massachusetts, we have a black mayor. we had a two term black governor. we have just now elected a republican, charlie baker. we had a long history of republican governors, like mitt romney, because we are open. we do have some issues in the liberal wealthy communities. my zip code was the owner of the patriots. but, we need more work -- you know, maybe this man from north dakota wouldn't be welcome here. he sounds kind of close minded.

the liberals need to do more for the poor people in our state. we are very privileged here. we don't take anything for granted. we have the best hospitals colleges. you know, we're just really lucky. we could do a better job helping the poor. we can do a better job helping the disabled. host: kathleen, thanks very much for the call. this weekend is a great way to showcase what we do best on c-span 3's "american history tv ." including the phone lines that were open yesterday. this is our website for "american history tv." every week and on c-span3, we bring you history programming. at 11:45 a.m. eastern time, a service will be held, taking place and selma, alabama. speakers will include martin

luther king the third, reverend al sharpton. linda from georgia, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. thank you for c-span. i always enjoy it. my comment is basically there's a lot of all of us to be responsible for education. if we have a lack of it, that's why we have as much black on black crime and crime in general. yesterday, about selma, i was shocked there was no representative from the king finally. host: martin luther king the third was in attendance. he is also participating in the ceremony today that we are covering. caller: good. i miss that. thank you very much. host: our last call for this segment is from atlanta, georgia. good morning. democrats line. caller: hi, steve.

i really like c-span. i wanted to talk about the speech that president obama gave compared to what dr. king was saying. they are saying exactly the same thing -- 50 years later, it is the same speech pretty much, as far as how are people being treated. i think one of the things, from dr. king, the original speech after the ceremony from yesterday was how he was talking about jim crow was introduced. how the poison was in -- especially when he talks about poor people, white people and black people, this is what is happening to you. then, he talked about how to jim crow poison poor white people.

everybody needs their poison to keep a separated and not work together. when dr. king started his poor people's campaign, that's when he actually got shot. i don't think it's a real problem of race relations. i really think it's poor people. when we all get together, and say, hey, we do not like how we are being treated. poor white people are getting treated very badly too. as far as black people, as a whole, the gentleman said he lived in a black neighborhood. i'm thinking, he didn't say, but he probably lives in a poor neighborhood. then, when he moved to the white neighborhood, maybe they weren't so poor. you go to a poor neighborhood of course there will be a lot of crime. in a poor black neighborhood, you do not really see the police

as your friend, as someone to go to an help you. the history is you have to look at these people who are black as a different way. you beat them and demonize them. those people who are doing that are coming from -- you don't see a very poor police officer. so, the white police officers are the ones protecting their neighborhoods, but they won't protect our neighborhood that they think is not -- that they are dehumanizing. host: i'm going to stop you there because we are short on time. quick final comment. caller: i just really appreciate the president of the united states going down there and commemorating with congressman john lewis the whole sum a thing -- selma thing. host: a good way to end the segment.

from the selma times journal -- the efvents events yesterday something that people will not soon forget. now, turning to the affordable care act. trevor burrus and elizabeth wydra. later, defense one reporter, molly otoole. first, the presence task force looking at 21st century policing tactics. lori robinson joined us on newsmakers. here is a portion of newsmakers which follows "washington journal." [video clip] >> even though they are great recommendations, you did not require body cameras. some officers that i've talked

to feel like they would like to have body cameras. can you talk a little bit about why he did not require body cameras. also, another thing people thought should be in the report was federal funding tied to training. >> addressing the first point. any jurisdiction, because policing is a local matter in this country, any jurisdiction can go ahead and require body cameras. for our report, to say that every jurisdiction should necessarily have body cameras, i think ignores the fact that there may be local decisions that will vary on that front. part of what we said is every police department should consult their community about what that community thinks is best. so i think it is up to local

communities to decide. part of that goes to issues around cost. the cost of pretty high. -- cost is pretty high. i'm not a technology person. but, the costs are much less about purchasing the individual body camera, but about storage the redaction, paying someone to go through the reduction apparently it requires a full-time person. the team is regularly in court cases. it's a big job. there are other issues around it too. public records law issues. it's a little more collocated than just, we will order them up and send them out. host: lori robinson is the

cochair of the presence task force on 21st century policing. she joins us on newsmakers at 10:00 eastern. of course, also posted online on c-span.org. we want to focus on the u.s. up in court and the affordable care act. joining us is trevor burrus of the cato institute. you were inside the court. also inside the court, elizabeth wydra of the constitutional accountability center. guest: this is an incredibly important case. without the tax credits given to americans across the united states to help them afford the affordable care act, all of the benefits that we have seen -- millions of americans getting health insurance for the first time, protections against people

with pre-existing conditions all of that would go away. studies have shown that nearly 10 million americans will lose health insurance if the supreme court rules against tax credits nationwide for all americans that need them. the whole health care industry, in general, would be caused to go into what economists have called the death spiral. it's why we have seen pretty much everyone with a stake in the health care industry from doctors, nurses, patients -- host: is it legal? guest: on that point, i want to point out that a lot of the hospitals, it's not surprising they're trying to still have the federal subsidy. whether it is legal, no, it is not legal. we begin with a clear statue.

if we did not begin with a clear statue, we would not be here. saying established by a state is not actually established by a state. it could be hhs. no it is not legal. about how important it is, it is important. about rule of law and the executive. it is not a foregone conclusion. that is how the act is supposed to work. before the aca was enacted they had a issue without the subsidies. it did not put them in a death spiral. new york had a, massachusetts had it. host: let's talk about the 13 states and washington dc which now have the state run exchanges. california, connecticut, idaho maryland, colorado hawaii,

kentucky, massachusetts minnesota, rhode island, washington, new york, vermont. what about the rest of the country? guest: i think the nation as a whole would be affected by a ruling in this case. you do have these -- i think they know well prize-winning economist who have said it will cause a death spiral do not think it is that for questioning. everyone across the country would be harmed by the millions of people who would be caps off health insurance is the court rules this way. there might be about 10,000 additional deaths if the court were to rule in favor of the king plaintiff. host: how do you get to that number, 10,000? guest: the court put that into the record. you would have to read the brief. i'm not a public health economist. i rely on their expert opinion

in giving that number before the court in the record. host: the last time the court took out see a formal care act the swing vote was john roberts. did that surprise you? guest: it did not, but it was a low bit more surprising than i thought because that tax issue was surprising. our side one on the common clause issues. whether that is a swing vote it he is definitely in play, as is possibly justice kennedy, which is a low bit overplayed in the media. i don't think he is wavering that much, i give him about a 20% chance. i give roberts of 50% chance. guest: he only spoke a few times. one of which was to make a comment. it was a little surprising. the chief is normally not that quiet. i think he did it -- those on

the other side still have a question mark over chief roberts had. i was surprised by chief kennedy raising the federalism concerns. he is also aware of the burden that the king interpretation would put on the state. their interpretation that either you set up an exchange or you did not get tax credits, instead your marketing gets sent into extreme disruption, your constituents lose benefits. kennedy's point gets to the point that if congress were to give states the choice -- the fact is, at the time no one was aware. certainly not the folks in the state whose job was to implement the law. if you're going to put that much of a threat on states, you think

they would make that threat a little clear. they did not. that's not the way the law works. host: i will get you to respond. the chief justice has now released or arguments. every week that they come out we release them. we had posted the entire two hours and 20 minutes on our website, c-span.org. here is that exchange. [video clip] justice kennedy: it seems to me that if your argument is accepted, the states will need to either create your own exchange or we will send your market into a death spiral. we will have people pay mandated taxes. the cost of insurance will be skyhigh. this is not coercion. it seems to me, under your arguments, perhaps you would prevail. there is a serious

constitutional problem if we adopt your argument. michael carvin: quite if this was unconstitutional, then the medicaid statute that this court approved would be unconstitutional. host: your response? guest: if they want to decide on that, they would hold it over for extra briefing. second, new york versus united states, with this coercion commandeering doctrine, o'connor explicitly ruled coercion comes from subsidies not from system to stay. there was a very onerous condition on whether you would have to wait to apply to

citizens and that would require overruling that. the third point is that it is not clear whether or not there is collision. easily, we could rule. by the lack of subsidies -- rule not by the lack of subsidies. it is hard to argue for federal result test federalism about the states rights. host: if the supreme court rules that no federal tax subsidies can be provided to americans buying insurance on federal health shape -- health exchanges, the economic effects could be devastating. 7.5 may people who qualify for subsidies this you would have them yanked away after the court

decision and 9 million people would be unable to get subsidies. state economies would suffer in the eighth people would lose coverage cash guest: yes, that is possibly true. those are the things driving the price of health care up. i would be all for that if you want to free it up. what we have an is half of america posing a health-care plan on the other half of america. there is no reason the health care planning kentucky has to look like the one in massachusetts. host: why should americans have health insurance if they do not have other people be forced to pay for their lack of insurance. guest: people do pay for insurance for that. one of them having a price where

health care goes down in price. this is a bad law that has so many problems in this is just the latest one of them. guest: we have a democratic process and we passed the affordable care act. criticizing guarantee protection issues that he does not like the law. those in the lawsuit want to kill the law. the president was reelected after leading on the issue. more people are trying to do is kill the law anyway they can. that is something more appropriately done through the political system and not to the courts. when you look at the other provisions, they are extremely popular with the american people.

it is incredibly popular. all of these things work together. tax credits that allow people to purchase insurance and protections for people with pre-existing conditions, they all work together. if you get rid of one of them come the whole thing collapses. this is about people who want to kill the bill at any cost. it is really not an appropriate use of the court and the legally meritless argument they make is just showing this is a political crusade against the law. host: you can also join us online. our twitter page or facebook.com/sees 10. chief justice john roberts giving each side 10 minister in

the oral arguments. how typical or unusual is this? guest: it is not unusual. the previous chief justice and the chief justices sort of have control over the courtroom to a certain extent. -- would never have done that. a stickler for time. roberts is a little more flexible and this is the only case argued that day and often there are two on the dockets. given there was only one, it was not terribly surprising here we were expecting it. host: iowa, democrats line. good morning. caller: as a person who got denied because of pre-existing conditions, i'm glad about the affordable care act. the question i have is, how come republicans are so against the law that 10 million people signed up and the nra, who only has 5 million members, has more clout in congress and senate to

get pills past and things, you know the law is helping the poor and not the rich and middle-class and i guess that is the question i have. host: we will get a response. guest: the nra is good a galvanizing those because there are a lot of single issue voters on gun issues. why republicans are so much against the law, i am not one but i can speak as a libertarian, i believe it is very harmful to the pocketbooks and welfare of the american people. i maybe wrong about that but that is what i believe. lisbeth mentioned the 10,000 people who might die. i think the law does not work in theory or application. there is no secret i do not like the law and we don't like the law and general for reasons that are -- that are at least goodhearted and not just to take

the -- to take away people's health care. don't forget what we did with the affordable care act p are we pretended insurance is the same thing of health care creditors not a method of paying for health care p are we increased demand for health care without doing anything for supplies. if there is someone out there who has to go to the hospital with her mother because you have to make sure she is giving -- getting the right medication that is not going away. host: trevor burrus is -- has his law degree from the university of denver. elizabeth wydra is a graduate of you law school. tell us about your organization. the constitutional accountability center is what? guest: we are a nonprofit, nonpartisan law firm. a center devoted to the progressive promise of the u.s. constitution. we work in the courts and with

the public to engage in conversation over the meaning of the constitution and rule of law in this country. host: inside the court for oral arguments. john, good morning. caller: i would like to ask your guests what their position is on the forthcoming decision on the affordable care act, whether you would like to see it health constitutional, or would you like to see it when? guest: yes, this is not a constitutional case like the first time before the court. last time it was an explicitly constitutional challenge. this time, it is a statutory interpretation case where it is something the supreme or does all the time. they interpret provisions of laws all the time. if you look at the well-established precedent, you

read a law in its entirety in its context. you do not just take four words out of the law and read them in isolation without how they fit into the rest of the law. all justices have agreed on that principle paired when you imported into the controversial context of the affordable care act, you start to see some of the justices step back from well-established decibels, which i think is unfortunate. you look at the a formal care fnc that the tax credits are available for all americans across country who need them, regardless of whether the state is running the exchange. because the law has plain text that says if the state does not establish an exchange, the federal government shall establish such an exchange in the shoes of the state. you do not take four words out of context in the spring court.

you could take four words out a movie at and say i think that was about a whale watching cruise. host: this tweet, somewhat related to the background, -- guest: the individual mandate, against the will. yes. there are standing questions i do not think we should get into right now. this kind of worry. back to the point about the law it is not just four words that the statute. you are mischaracterizing our argument. in section 1321, established by hhs. supporters of the law want to say established of the state -- the counter textual reading you have to look at is their answer -- an absurdity.

i do not think there is any absurdity in that partially because it is not just four words. we are looking at the law in context. the fact that the states do not want the federal government. they cannot just say you have to do this. they give incentives to do something. we're seeing resistance to this because we said it was democratic process to pass the law, kind of, maybe. we're seeing resistance to it so no one expected the states to not give up exchanges. but there are these states who do not want a federal takeover of the health care or to have citizens subject to the individual mandate. in a brief in the wall street journal, that was a calculated decision. no it was a clearly designed incentive to get states to set up exchanges. it is not four words quoted and

then you give up the analysis. there was good reason for this. caller: thank you for the discussion. i will be listening later on the c-span page cannot want to take issue with something elizabeth said earlier about the democratic process in passing the law. i see it when people use that. i see it as a jab against the supreme court's's authority. it is extremely misleading when people say america is a democracy. indeed we do elect our officials democratically and when officials get together, they pass laws democratically. but america is a constitutional republic. an example i always hear used is a piece of the land that we all wanted, we could all have a vote on it and take it from her, she would get to vote but she would lose. in america because she has

property rights under the constitution, she gets to keep it regardless of what the majority wants. i do not see that as a valid argument for any thing that something was passed democratically. something could be passed by the mob that everybody wants but if it does not fit within the individual rights of a person, they cannot take it. that is how america works. the supreme court does have the final say on this. guest: i won hundred percent agree with you particularly about your last point about the process that violates your constitutional rights. a brief is just filed on friday saying the exact same thing in the context of marriage it already. you cannot pass laws democratically, the majority that otherwise, -- trample on the constitution and principles. but we're talking here about a law that is not been challenged

constitutionally in this case. it has been upheld as constitutional by this in court. that is the supreme court passes job to declare what the law is. we now have a lawsuit here that the reason i say it is lyrical and it is challenging the democratic process is because if you look at the origins of the lawsuit, my colleague has a great piece on our website going back to the conference and a slideshow of the legal theories put out to kill the law than the law any cost, it is really in my opinion a political opposition to the law in search of a legal area to push through the courts to see what challengers to the affordable care act could not get through the democratic process and i do not think that is an appropriate use of the courts. host: our guest is elizabeth wydra and trevor burrus, who is with the cato institute. bobby is joining us from pittsboro, mississippi republican line. good morning. caller: good morning.

if democrats made this law, how come people have to drive 100 miles to get to accept the insurance. guest: the american health care system as it is set up, it is entrenched by the affordable care act and does not serve u.s. patients. it serves insurance companies. it is the biggest people of death piece of crony capitalism ever passed. says you have to buy from the from a private is this. it takes everything that health care system before was not serving you, that you cannot call your doctor and get a better service from your vet than your doctor and it put that in place more so. we have a third party paying system, getting insurance from your job, which makes no sense whatsoever at all of us from government. it does not do anything to fix it and therefore, driving 100

miles to see a doctor is what you would expect. host: if you are saying obamacare is big money for insurance company industries. wall street wants obamacare. supreme court works for wall street. guest: i would disagree. i'm a big believer in the institution and i do not think it has been overly politicized. people often attack me the five conservatives vote in my step in what -- and i say, what about the four liberals. i do not think either one is football. i think they have philosophies that are irreconcilable sometimes and much different than it used to be in american history. so no, they are not owned by wall street. host: massachusetts, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: you are on the democrats line. thank you, liz. caller: i recall a sweet a

gentleman who was a lawyer on c-span he was talking about the lawyer combing through the affordable care act and found the four words. his response, his reaction to finding the four words to the gentleman on c-span was this would disembowel the affordable care act. i think there was probably some glee in that discovery. also, i do not know if it was the same lawyer or not, but what about all the people who would suffer, and he said, they will just go back to what it was before and what is wrong with that? i would like your guest passes opinion on why their total and party is supposed to be the party of the family when they are so willing to make so many people miserable and lose their health hair and as elizabeth said cost 10,000 deaths.

host: let's start with trevor and then go to liz. guest: the affordable care act has extremely adverse health effect some people because it does not solve the problems i mentioned. i am doing this because i think it is a badly constructed act that is that for our health care system. i also believe in upholding the rule of law, upholding the intent of congress to give the subsidies out in exchange for them setting up an exchange for the state. it is a general principle for the rule of law. host: and yet this -- guest: i do not know what lies she is talking about. we debated the affordable care act over and over and over, the committees that heard it in congress and more markup, more hearings, and it was an incredibly transparent process.

i do not think anyone would say we did not talk about it enough. i want to get back to liz's call. she is writing talking the the origins and flossie, which i alluded to earlier. when the four words, established by the state, were initially discovered as a possible tool by opponents of the law to get rid of the act, first, they were saying, gotcha we found a typo you put in there and we will try to hold you to that typo and kick millions of people off of there must -- much-needed insurance on top of that, they realized that would not fly in the supreme or so they had to reverse engineer this tory of why the words of be there under their interpretation. that is why you have this, we are trying to incentivize the state to set up exchanges. that was not the initial theory under which these were discovered by the challengers. reverse engineer trying to guess a somewhat valid legal theory.

in a new york times editorial, it used probably the strongest language one could use on aaron said, frankly, this is a lonely -- baloney. guest: the big one being how much it actually costs p are what you see in this is they told the insurance companies you cannot deny anyone health care for any reason, so the insurance companies said, that will be expensive, so for the next part, they said, we will make people buy your product and that is how we get you money. it means we never figured out how much the law actually cost because congress did squarely moves to keep it out of the cbo report and to keep the truth -- the truth about it how much it would actually cost for the american people. host: our guests trevor burrus and elizabeth wydra.

plainview, new york, republican line. good morning. caller: i have several points i want to make and i will try to be quick and i do not think the car analogy holds up because known forces you to buy a car. you can walk you can take the subway, and you do not have to pay insurance. in that case, the car is not a good analogy. the second thing is no one read the 2000 850 pages. congress voted for something they never even read. how can you rationally say they voted in a thoughtful manner if the intellectual nancy admitted she never read it? guest: yes, i do not think that is true. the members of congress who were the chief authors of the law, in particular i think of the noun

bassett are who is chairman of the senate finance committee who was on the brief that i filed in the supreme court on behalf of members of congress they carefully thought about what was going to be in the law and the provisions for tax credits for americans who need them based on income level regardless of the state in which they live, regardless of which entity runs the exchange on which they by the insurance, but incredibly important to the law and that was thought about very carefully. knowing what we know about the challenge, with a perhaps go back and write, "we really mean the federal government can step in and run the exchange for you," maybe they would. the context in which it lies in the act, it is their tax credits were to be available to all american -- all americans. it was in the analyses, there was an assumption they would be available nationwide depending

on just the income. the state acted based on that assumption. the states, when they were to determining whether to set up their own states or not, they race a lot of issues about having control over the exchange etc., but never raised the possibility their constituents would lose the test credits -- lose the tax credits. scott walker set up his plan for his health care system in wisconsin under the assumption that people in wisconsin could get past credits on the federal exchange, directly contrary to the challengers in the supreme court passes theory of the law. host: part of the exchange before the supreme court, the general argued the case on behalf of the administration and joining in the question it, two associated justices. ginsburg and scalia.

verilli: from when this decision would came out and the new insurance is purposes would begin, to set up exchanges and get them up and running, i think it is completely unrealistic terror just to give you an example of the current timeline, in order to have an exchange approved an insurance policies ready for the 2016 years, those would have to be approved by may of 2015. it gives you a sense of the timeline they are operating under. >> you really think congress will sit there while all of these disastrous consequences ensue? how often have we come out with a decision such as the bankruptcy court decision? congress suggests, a statue that takes care of the problem. it happens all the time. why will that not happen here? >> this congress?

[laughter] >> i don't care which koch clinches you're talking about. if it is as disastrous as you say, so many people without insurance and whatnot, yes, i think this congress would act. host: you were inside the court. what was your impression? the atmosphere? guest: it was interesting to be in the court that day. you had arguments being presented before the justices. in the audience, there were members of congress on both sides, members of the administration. secretary burwell was there. you have nancy pelosi, senator hatch, paul ryan, people impacted when the american people come together and focus on the supreme court as an

institution and as a place and the arguments i thought were very well presented on both sides. justices were very engaged and asked very good questions so you had wonderful advocates making presentations to a very prepared bench. guest: somewhat humorous. challenging justice scalia for jokes and she had once said the last time you are here in this never ending saga, so there was a laugh out of that. entertaining jokes. host: mario joining us from brick, new jersey. independent line. caller: it is disturbing that c-span's treating the argument as if there were actually two = to this. this is a complete ideological cause by the plaintiffs, looking for the tiniest way to kill the law. they have said it plainly before

the lawsuit that we need to strangle the law in its crib. if they stuck to the typo, that would be one thing. but they have to go further and they know, this is what congress intended. i watched the debates about this and read about this constantly. i never heard one person even mention this. it is beyond comprehensive that you would make a threat and not tell people about it for the thread is useless unless the other person knows about it. honestly, i sort of wish the plaintiffs would win. it will be like the dog that caught the car. republicans will not know what to do once they have to figure out a fix to this thing. thank you very much. guest: when the case gets to the supreme court, it is over playing your hand to call it meritless in that way. we have had six judges agree with us.

it is not meritless. this did occur relatively early on in the process. four years to set up these exchanges. do not forget they passed this tax credit in 2012 for all the exchanges. the states staff setting up the exchanges. the consequences of this are very much a product of the fact they broke the law. they are the consequences of breaking the law. imagine a situation where the government freight -- blatantly break the law and issues checks for thousands of people in america. one of the arguments against it is, what about the 1000 our checks? it should not play in this situation either. host: rue is next. good morning. independent line. caller: i like the one color from new york. being a libertarian, sit debt finishing a book on austrian

economist, i would think he was pretty right on the nail to say what he had. the one a few callers before who mentioned what he did about elizabeth that you might call it democracy but heating to the constitution takes into consideration the 49%. that is the really important matter i think that he is sort of just hyper fluxed democrats today are really just for passing a do not realize there is a debt to be paid. interest rates will go up. if you think of the economy can take a rate increase, it could not take it last time with the market on boom and increases marginally going much faster. to think we will take rate increases with this economy, it will never happen. host: thank you for the call. guest: i miss supreme court lawyer and a constitutional lawyer and not a business expert and i will note that stocks went

up when people came out of the court date confident the administration would win. business, whether you take that as a good sign that the law is working in america passes favor, or you take it as a bad sign is one of our callers did earlier that the law might be written for business, either way, i think it is ready clear based on the briefs filed with the court and some of the movement we have seen an industry with predictions coming out of the courtroom, that business is on the side of the obama administration in this case which means on the side of the tens of millions of americans getting access to health care in this case. is the law perfect? certainly not be are people on the left would have preferred to have a system closer to a single-payer -- a single-payer system. people on the right maybe have no law. but this is the law we have and when the supreme court takes it, it has to take the terms the law

is written in. the plaintext shows tax credits are available for people who need them based on income. it is how the law is written and it is working. guest: a shock businesses are in favor of opening up the pocketbook and making them buy a product and also eliminating competition, which is way more harsh than the managed impossibility of competition here. no surprise here for the crony capitalism of this law. host: which do you think the court will decide? guest: i am pretty confident the court will look at the statute in its entirety and not take off the words out of context in reading -- a reading that does not make any sense with how we all know the law was passed and what everyone involved at a time understood it to mean that i'm very confident. we did see some hostility and questioning from justices scalia and and toledo. you never know for sure what

will come out, but it did seem a they were pretty hostile to the government in that case. but i think that we could win very easily six justices. i am very confident that the justices, when they look at the act and the way it was passed, and the members of congress who come forth and say, this is what we meant an estate saying, this is what we understood, and everyone supporting the administration's's interpretation of the act, i am pretty confident. guest: i do think we will lose. i think and alito,'s cleo, -- scalia i also think it is important to court does not look to speculation of what might happen. it is very speculative. if we read the text, we will win

that i think we will lose. host: carol is on the line democrats line. good morning. caller: it seems like what is being left out is the people. what would overturning the law due to the people? guest: i think that is a great question. if they want to read them and tell the compelling stories of the real people whose lives will be affected by an adverse ruling for the government in this case. people who will literally be put in life or death situations if they no longer have the means to purchase the health care they desperately need. the stories are out there and they are before the court and justice kennedy's questioning about it very legalistic doctrine of federalism and constitutional avoidance, shows

underneath an appreciation of the consequences for the real people in the states that have federally facilitated exchanges. when you think about those real people and what is at stake in the case, it makes it even more important to recognize this republican congress will not have an easy fix for the law. i have been thinking a lot this weekend about the voter rights act. chief justice roberts led the court a few years go in gutting the voter rights act and kicking it across the street to congress and say they will fix that law. the voter rights act was passed unanimously with bipartisan support and this congress still has not fixed that law, something that is a cherished part of our civil rights tradition. to think the republican congress will pass a fix to help make obamacare work and that is a law they validly wanted to repeal numerous times, i think that is

a preposterous argument. guest: i think the people went to washington dc and the theory of governance we now have which is steal anything while you are there, they ran a health care plan controlled for the entire country and that is when they forgot about the people. host: if representative from the cato institute and the constitutional accountability center, that is a mouthful. we will go to steve in dover florida, good morning for the democrats line. caller: good morning. i would say the insurance is the biggest problem. i do not know why they are recalling obamacare. what will they call them then? insurance company i paid $660 a month for insurance. the government has to pay $9,000 or double that. that is a complete ripoff. that is not fair. guest: your insurance is

supposed to go up here for many people, it is supposed to go up because the laws of be distributed lost. if you like your health care plan, you could keep it, they were completely lying about that. they knew your insurance would have to go up. if you are a 28-year-old person who has catastrophic coverage like insurance should be, the plan is not robust enough to support other people on the plan. those plans were canceled and insurance is supposed to go up for most people and that is part of the problem with the law. host: next, republican line good morning. caller: i host a radio talk show for here in cincinnati. one of the things we talk about with this is that this should be optional. the american freedom should have freedom of choice. if a woman can have freedom of first of what she wants to do as far as birth control freedom of choice of abortion, why should americans not have freedom of choice when it comes to health care?

this right here should not be hammered down. also, they talk about subsidies. americans, we cannot afford a subsidies as americans. we have new debt. host: where can people here you in the cincinnati area? caller: 1230 wdbz and also you can hear me on our website, the buzz. host: when are you on the air? caller: sunday morning from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. host: it is the warm-up. caller: in fact, you can tune me in and we can carry the debate over. [laughter] the bottom-line is it should be optional. that is the key word. host: thank you. guest: thank you. we talk about having options here. the way the law was written, the part that you are talking about is not an issue and that is not the way the law was written. what i think is interesting here

with respect to option is that the part that is being challenged in the supreme court was set up specifically to give states flexibility, to set up their own exchange or, if they could not for reasons of scale or because they did not want to, as in some states led by republican governors then the federal government would run the exchange for them. this position of the law that was to give states flexibility and choices is being turned by the plaintiffs into, as justice kennedy said, and arguably coercive part of the law. if you take their interpretation. it is ironic that folks who generally support a flexibility in states choice are trying to read the law in a way that would take away the choice from this date. it is contrary to what the law says it is plain tax and contrary to what the members of

congress who drafted and passed the law meant when they wrote those words. it is not have states certainly interpreted it. host: democrats line. caller: earlier, the gentleman from the cato institute stated he thought the supreme court has not politicized. through the years, i've heard justice scalia particularly referred to the original intent of the law and what the original writers and passers of the law meant. in this case, it seems clear to me the people who passed this law intended that these subsidies would be available to everyone, and yet here, justice scalia seems to be treating his doctrine of original intent as p early political convenience and not using that in the case. i wonder if i am missing

something here? thank you. guest: yes, the original intent the original public meaning of the constitution. for legislative analysis, he has a book written on that, becoming important to him. a text, he is not very into legislative history and legislative intent or part of it is to get congress to write better laws. it used to be we always had very broad and purposeful things. we moved to look at the text of the law more and first and try to get better laws. host: -- guest: it was ironic, i remember last time we were up in the

supreme court, and a british tourist stop me and asked me what is going on and i said we are having these arguments in court, people who want to take down the affordable care act. it was ridiculous that in the united states, you would have people wanting so much to preclude people from accessing quality affordable health care when other countries take that as a given. that is something congress was trying to do when it passed the affordable care act. in a way that is more palatable to the american public. the idea of the individual mandate was an idea up by the heritage foundation in contrast to the single-payer's system paired it is frustrating i think when you have people on the right who want to kill the law at all costs when it was their idea. host: we will go to mark rating on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. a couple of quick points.

this is done on a regular basis. if you lower your speed limit -- money. perp -- professor gruber blew the gate for you. he stated on numerous occasions that they put in their purposefully to invoke the states into setting up exchanges. when it backfired on him, changing their story. host: thank you for the call. guest: i have had similar conversations with europeans with people saying how could you possibly with us the spirit germans, have this conversations and they would say, thinking about is not what happened in berlin, in germany, it would be what brussels did hear it i match in many americans would be against it. the law is so bad that even a big libertarian, i prefer singer -- single-payer health care to this horrendous law. that's how bad it is.

it tries to graft the system on top of a system that was already broken, with mandate subsidies pulling strings, trying to control the health care from washington. guest: you know, the invocation of professor gruber, who is an economist and a scholar and was involved in relations of the act, he was not involved of drafting the act, he was a professor who ran models and in those models, i would note his calculations assumed that test credits would be available through all the exchanges across the country p or he has said he did not know what he was thinking when he made these comments. he does not believe it is true test credits are always available on state credits. it takes away from the fact that people actually involved in drafting the act, the members of congress and their staff, have gone on record repeatedly saying they intended for tax credits to

be available on all exchanges whether facilitated by the government or exchanges, and that they were aware, which is why they put the federal fall back there in the first place in the statute. we are to have some states that new they were indicating if the law passed they would do everything they could to oppose it because of perhaps the political persuasion of the governor of that state or the legislator. host: last call from new york. paul and i was -- paul, calling for trevor burrus and elizabeth wydra. caller: my comment to trevor would be the people on the other side who have tried to fix the problem the runaway health care -- runaway health-care costs in this country, and i shall he so many combinations to conservatives as far as being

able to adopt to fix the problem , it merely show of general motors out of the business because of the runaway costs for health insurance. it has been put in place and it states and is not as good as the progressive plan, which you just alluded to that you would be more in favor of, and yet you are planning on putting a knife into the back of many good, hard-working american people, just because you are an entitled white person. that is what you look like. a very rich and entitled white person who does not really care what happens out here in the land. this is why as an independent, i always try to find what is the best argument being made and your argument is terrible. it is just from somebody who, i have a toy, i have power, and it will not be taken away from me. host: we will get a response. guest: it sounds like i could not convince you of anything of what i care about four people

and what i care about for people to have a better system than the one set up. i do not think those are my motivations and i probably could not convince you otherwise so i will leave it at that. host: these are the words that are the centerpiece of the argument. an exchange shall be a government agency or nonprofit entity established by a state. your response? guest: i would continue reading the statute and look at the section that says, if the state is not set up an exchange, the federal government shall establish that exchange and then the definition later in the statute that says an exchange is defined as an exchange established by the state. i know it is very legalistic i am sorry that is how a lot of statutes are and you have got to read them as a whole. justice scalia's wonderful new textual interpretation says you take the whole test pair we take the whole text, not just what you read, but all of it.

the plain text shows an exchange for the purposes of tax credits it is either established by the state or facilitated by the government. the key reason it says established by the state is to distinguish it from one single national exchange. even a federally facilitated exchange is subject to regulations and laws. it does work there by saying, this is a state-by-state federally facilitated exchange even if the state set it up. host: you get the last word in california, democrats line, good morning. caller: i have a question here. the point is something to do with public enterprise. every creation of some enterprise for public good. with respect to health care and the influence, the demand for such care, to establish the

statement i play, to provide good character and my question is, why would somebody oppose something that is needed? there is nothing out there for the public to obtain and the administrative question is where do you get care without having to go broke. what i'm trying to figure out is we get tax especially established and then the judges, apparently highly -- of a court, why are they not for such a public good, which is a declaration of such that we should have as a republic economic well-being? host: a good way to conclude the

conversation. thank you for the call. guest: i just asked to think about whether or not we have had a health care in anyone's memory and how we can make a health care cheaper that way. have you ever been able to figure out how much health care cost and been able to shop for health care? if you ask a doctor how much it costs, they would laugh in your face. guest: thank you to that california caller p or i'm a california native. think millions of americans are getting access to care under the law who were not previously. it is working and for the supreme court to take away the care for millions of americans to put the entire system into destruction on a reading of the law that is without -- atextual. i am confident fortunately that they will not do that. host: trevor burrus of the cato institute and elizabeth wydra of

the constitutional accountability centerpiece to both of you, thank you very much. i appreciate it. a reminder if you want to listen to the oral arguments, cameras are not allowed in the court but the audio is on the website and you can check it out any time. when we come back, we will turn our attention to foreign policy. they'll be here to talk a congress passes role to talk about the agenda, and later should john boehner remain speaker of the house? there was talk about some conservatives replacing ampyra we want your calls and comments coming up in a few minutes. first, this weekend on c-span2's tv and c-span3's's american history tv, we travel to texas to look at the world war ii era. in summary now on permanent part in texas, here is a preview.

♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] ♪ >> they sank 1100 japanese merchant ships. 214 japanese combat vessels. two thirds of their merchant fleet. 1/3 of their navy. >> we are in the torpedo room. you will see a couple of torpedo tubes in front of me. there are two down below on the deck. there was two on top. originally, she had six torpedo tubes. after the reconfiguration to make this vessel, they had to remove the top two tubes so they could install in the exterior hydrophones to include more sonar equipment to make it one that is capable of listening

further distances. interesting fact is the torpedo room at the actor crew would often compete who could read it faster. in those days, the mechanical advantage was blocking capital. nowadays, we have hydraulic systems. the guy really had to be pretty strong to move the torpedoes. >> we traveled to texas this weekend on c-span3's american history see -- tv and c-span2's booktv care or check out our full city tour online. host: let's begin by the speech last week for the israeli prime and a strand the politics behind that. where does that put the white house in its relationship with speaker boehner on the issue? guest: it was a tense moment.

speaker banner, the speaker of the house, he invited netanyahu to speak the white house generally would coordinate the business from the other heads of state. a few people thought the house would overstep. also some attention in the u.s. israeli relationship. part of the policy is that we do not invite other heads of state to come so close to their own elections. prime history netanyahu is up for reelection on march 17, when the israeli national election is. it also created tension because of the deal, the upcoming teal supposedly, with iran. the next deadline for that is a

political outline on march 24. they were concerned this would undermine the talks. host: let's talk about ukraine and whether or not the u.s. and western countries should do more providing military to those ukrainian troops fighting the rebels many believe are backed by the russian army. there really seems to be a divide not necessarily even between the white house and capitol hill, but now the democrats are saying we need to do this. >> right. for months, members of congress, particularly the more hawkish members, have been calling for more aggressive aid with the ukraine. now the democrats are on board. just this past week, really key democrats on the house side the ranking members of the armed services, the intelligent -- the foreign services committee all signed a letter with speaker boehner some of the republican leadership saying we need to provide them with the means to

defend themselves. they emphasized they also want to see sanctions or humanitarian relief but the legal aid needs to be a component of our assistance to the ukraine. host: ed and victoria testified on that committee. asked about ukraine. here's the -- here is how that exchange happened on capitol hill. >> tanks or selling those two ukraine to what we are talking about our weapons that are purely defensive, but are absolutely necessary if there will be any credible deterrence to what will be doing town by town now. the request here is not for more blankets or meals. what they are requesting is precise. defensive weaponry that would allow them to hold their positions.

>> the issues are still under review, including the types of equipment you note, which would fall directly under supply or just to state for the record, some of what we're seeing, we have seen russia transfer hundreds of pieces of military equipment to pro-russian separatists, taste, armored vehicles. >> part of the point i'm making is this is not all been transferred to russian separatists. there is no way to separatists are in those taste. they are not driving those case. those are russian soldiers driving those thanks. i would make the point that to not decide is to decide. that is the point we would make. host: molly o'toole and sherman ed royce. this has been a defining issue when it comes to congress trying

to influence foreign policy. guest: right ukraine is on the list here, talking about iran and the authorization for use of military force in the islamic state. these are all scenarios in which republicans who are in charge of congress namely, i think this is very much about their relationship with obama. there has been a lot of bristling with very exception of the expansion of executive powers. that is both that personal dynamic but also, in the past and obama passes administration and even before with the expansion of executive powers when it comes to foreign policy and the exception that congress may not play the oversight role when it comes to foreign policy and national security, that the president, the administration, really has a lot of leeway and disability when it comes to taking the actions unilaterally.

host: is this congress and president any different than the commander in chief, what we saw with the buildup to iraq with president bush? guest: there will always be restrictions with the branches but the relationship with obama is unique. the precedent has been set pretty much since 9/11 on it when it comes to national security, the executive has endowed or has taken on powers they did not necessarily have before or was not interpreted as such in the name of national security. it is the personal dynamic between the republican party, but also between congress and the obama administration which is seen to micromanage my comes to national security, in addition to the president that has been set post-9/11 with the

expansion of executive powers in the name of national security. host: now the politics reporter for defense one, our guess is a graduate at cornell university and earned her master's at nyu. gary is joining us from new york . good morning. caller: i just want to go back to benjamin netanyahu. i was really glad to hear what he had to say and the way the world is, we are beyond hurting feelings and just deal with it. i appreciate that. thank you. guest: a lot of members of congress also were appreciative for his perspective. obviously, the stakes are very high for them when it comes to the iran agreement. what is mixed is what he may have accomplished in his speech. a lot of what he said has been very similar for what you said for a long time. they are similar in their analysis, somewhat predictable

that he did not offer any alternatives. he laid out the issues, which everyone is well aware of, but did not offer alternatives to the route the obama administration is pursuing. forceful speech about what the stakes really are for the allies in the region. host: patrick on the independent line. caller: hello, i am a veteran. as i watched historically, we have gradually been approaching on the russian borders and possible bases in poland and more people wrapped up in nato and we use russia of being aggressive, though we are pushing more towards them and it is hard to understand that. it seems like another cold war is starting. mary o'toole: that is the

concern a lot of people have in terms of tensions with russia. people are very much trying to avoid -- that is part of the administration's argument and why they have been reluctant. part of the administration's argument is that it can escalate and providing those weasel arms and president putin can use it as an excuse to provoke him into saying that this is why they can have a full scale invasion rather than these increments of encouragement that they have been having. that is also part of the russian argument, that they feel that the agreements that they have bought into post-soviet union that they are not being kept on the other side because of what they perceive as threats to their influence in the region. you can't really blame allies of nato satellite states around

russia for being concerned about what they have seen happen particularly with the annexation of area. josh of -- of cremia. caller: good morning. by netanyahu coming here, the white house is kind of two-faced about it because we have three people over there now working with the guy that is running against that they also -- netanyahu and one of them is obama's campaign manager. so what do we do about such a thing? what is the difference? host: we will get a response. guest: right. there have been reports about people involved in the obama administration who are part of that national campaign in israel. that is problematic and the

people -- as i understand, those people are no longer involved currently with obama administration. obviously, when it comes to political campaigns, you have a lot of revolving doors but this is pretty troubling the in again that we do not want to indicate that we are influencing that election, but the u.s.-israeli relationship has gone on for a long time. there are people within the united states who have invested interest within that election so it is not necessarily surprising that there would be people who have been involved on both sides of politics in the u.s. and in israel. but those reports are troubling when they want to give at least the appearance that they are not trying to influence those elections, and the same way they are cautioning israel against playing it too strong of a hand when it comes to iranian negotiations. host: akin 2012, 1 of the first troops in the summer of 2012 by mitt romney, the republican nominee at the time, was to go

to israel and a lot of people look at that as political as well. let's go to nick in tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning, people. the immigration foreign policy and this came up the unconstitutional executive order by the president and it shows -- and the republicans at show they're are not really serious about it either. we are going to ruin the day if we keep this up. as far as goes, he is an -- as far as putin goes, he sees all these scandals and the more progressivism and he knows we are weak internally and that we have -- [indiscernible] we shouldn't be -- definitely

the islamists with their religious war and he will not even allude to it. as such with the jihadist and whatnot. so who can blame these allies. off mike, he said something to one of the russian president, i can't remember officially, it was off mike and he said he wanted to reduce nuclear arms to the united states after the election. let's face it, what would you do if you are an evil person of an entity of some kind? you would exploit every opportunity. host: ok. guest: that is a lot to talk about when it comes to national security, or in policy, even

within the house leadership. when they said the ukraine example in -- is an instance in lens allies around the world are looking at -- is an instance when allies around the world are looking at this and if they faced similar aggression with the u.s. step in and provide them with tangible assistance to defend themselves? that is their argument. that there is a certain -- that the obama administration does not have a clear strategy when it comes to national security from a global standpoint and that is making our allies nervous. when it comes to an idea of american exceptionalism, which is a phrase in u.s. politics a lot, and i think it is very difficult to make the argument that anyone party has a monopoly on that. i very much believe, and the president has said over and over, that he believes in this idea of american exceptionalism. i think that the republican leadership and congress do as well. each of them has a very fundamentally different view of

what the role of american power should be in the world. the obama administration has been fairly consistent in what they see as the best route for expressing american exceptionalism in the world which is a diplomacy first approach whereas people in the other side would be more prone to use kforce more quickly, and i think the obama administration, in many ways what presidents actions dictated by the experience in iraq and afghanistan, and that manifest itself in a reluctant seat to rely on diplomacy first. we are seeing that in russia with iran talk, with the islamic states. both lead to american exceptionalism, but it is how you express that and how that manifest. host: those of you watching on c-span television, you can also listen on xm channel 120. our guest is molly o'toole.

congress takes a stronger voice in this presidents foreign policy. mike from louisiana. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. for the life of me, i cannot understand why we are pushing on russia so much worried hillary clinton called putin the hitler of our time, when really i see russia as our natural enemy against these fundamental islam is. -- islamists. we really don't have any true interest in the ukraine. i don't understand why we push on russia and it seems like we are pushing them toward the chinese and i think that is really going to kick us in the butt later on. guest: it is certainly the case

that the russia and china relationship has ramped up diplomatic he and economically, especially. russia has control of a lot of the energy supply in europe and has made certain agreements with china when it comes to making those kinds of investments in asia as well. you are right. in terms of ways in which the u.s. and russia can be allies is the area in which we would naturally work together. for example, just in the iran negotiations, russia is a party to those talks. also as you noted, russia has dealt with terrorism in a kind of separatist extremism within both russia and the satellite states of russia for quite a long time, and they have expressed that they want to be more actively involved when it comes to the islamic state fight. i think the concern is the in europe that there have been decades of peace there for quite a long time and they have worked

hard for that goal. we also have treaty obligations when it comes to nato countries. they are concerned what is going on in ukraine. while we may not have the same legal obligations, even to ukraine on a ukraine was very much trying to make a turn toward the rest on track for nato. -- track -- turn toward the west on track for nato. and we saw ourselves being interested geopolitically. be on the tree obligations, we are concerned about russian influence in the region, in particular when it comes to president putin. people have expressed that it is difficult to know what he is going to do next and what -- and where he would stop. it is not just about ukraine. host: let me put to death other issues on the table. a bill that we put forth that would require congress to approve a record -- and accord with iran. guest: that was a really interesting dynamic. it is senator bob from

tennessee, primary author and a reiteration of the previous bill. essentially, as you said, it would give congress not end up or down vote, but it will require that the deal that would be reached with iran would have to be submitted to congress. that they would be allowed some period for review and they could essentially approve or choose not to act on the bill and it would also prevent them president from lifting economic sanctions. i believe the. -- i believe the period was 60 days. we had senator lindsey graham menendez, who was a ranking member on the foreign relations committee, and senator tim kaine who has been very involved in the force against the islamic states. there is bipartisan support lighting up behind the bill. the democrats had said exclusively that they wanted to

wait to tell this next deadline for the iran talks on march 24. in some ways, getting the administration some space and they could argue that this could then the talks and that legislation and congress interjecting themselves into the talks could threaten results. when prime minister netanyahu came to congress, to some extent , mcconnell was taking advantage of the momentum there in saying that we are actually going to push forward with this bill. the administration had asked them to delay and they were going to pursue a two track and fast-track court in the foreign relations committee and outside of normal procedure with mcconnell seeking a hold of a vote this coming week. but there was such a back lash that it threatened the bipartisan support for the bill and threatened the chances of being passed and mcconnell decided to hold off and they will pursue it in the foreign relations committee.

this is an example of the dynamic going on here. congress very much wants to insert itself in an authority standpoint into some of these key foreign-policy issues, but they -- but there is still attention with what is the best way to proceed. i think the democrats have one of the most difficult positions in that regard in that they do not want to see as going against their own president but they believe they should have a larger role in the talks. we will see what happens with that bill. host: that deadline is the end of this month. secretary kerry is wrapping up a trip from switzerland and trying to hammer out deals of that negotiation. we will go to walter who has been patient in baltimore. the independent line, good morning. with molly o'toole. caller: good morning. ma'am, the idea that these conservatives want to go to war so bad that they don't know who to fight, but we had president

mccain, we would be bombing iran. we would be bombing russia and ally. we need help over there. and that is not our neighborhood. if i come to your house, apartment, and i intrude in your survival, do you have a right to defend? when i tell you that crimea belongs to russia and the ukraine fought with hitler, we have to understand that factors. now we get back to iran, really quick. ma'am, would you please explain to these conservatives that the iranian sunnis in isis are not cousins, they are mobile enemies. we are not enemies of each other. as much as much is black or white. we could never -- the idea that we want to fight, fight, fight and we call it exceptionalism is a guilt. host: thank you, walter. guest: there are tensions in the

region that get very far back and the best part of the concern about the iranian negotiation is that if we get a quote on quote had deal in all of these foreign-policy flareups, particularly in the middle east with the proxy war going on between the influence of iran and the influence of saudi arabia, mainly. people are concerned that if we get a bad deal, it could embolden iran to interject itself more aggressively and backed by this threat of nuclear power in the region, so it plays into his very deep tensions and that is the concern about this wheel. it is not just about the deal itself, that it is about whether it could enable to be more aggressive. but it is interesting because we are also encouraging -- we are

not explicitly coordinating with iran, but we are certainly encouraging or appreciative of their involvement in the islamic state fight and we saw that recently in the campaign that was launched last week to retake the city. in many ways, we had a backseat to that operation and iranians really to believe. iraqi security forces, it is a really interesting tension in that the u.s. wants to curb the iranian influence in the region but at the same time, we are in our life -- we are allies and other elements of fights going on there. it is complicated. host: other issue and authorization for use of military force. the president has one year and 10 months left in his administration and he has authorization that extends for three years. that was a point of contention put forth by the chair of the senate committee. senator bob corker to general john allen, the white house is's

spokesperson when it comes to isis. >> the length of time from a standpoint and is there anything about the timeframe. i know the president asked for three, whether it is a longer or shorter, is there anything about that that you think matters at all relative to those that you are talking about appealing to our enemies and allies together? >> well, our intent with respect , is to end the abilities and deal that the fee to them as quickly as we can. if it takes longer than three years, my suspicion would be that we would come back to this committee and request an extension. >> if it was shorter than that it would not trouble you either? >> if it was shorter than that, it would not trouble me at all. >> no, no, no. they would not trouble us either. thank you. does the length of time

particularly matter to you from a standpoint of the allies and those that were defeating or is it more congress getting behind the effort in a bipartisan way? >> i think it is the latter. host: your comments from this exchange between the senator bob cork in an general john allen? guest: i thought it was interesting how explicitly allen a knowledge essentially the deadline expiration date for the authorization for use of military force and the three years the white house reports. he acknowledge is that largely political and it is such an interesting evolution for the obama administration. i mean, in many ways, obama came into the white house and he is a constitutional law scholar. he came into the white house saying he very much wanted to refine and repeal, and bring back down to size the previous authorization for use of military source that had been passed in the bush admin assertion in 2001, shortly after

9/11. they shortly authorize the quote on quote, war in afghanistan and the invasion of iraq, the obama administration said they wanted to work to essentially retired his authorizations that had put the united states on a permanent war. it is very interesting that now they are acknowledging that that three-year sunset is more -- to make it more politically digestible, rather than just believing that that three years of the timeline is important. it is somewhat arbitrary and that the obama administration recognizes a want as much but stability as possible in order to achieve the mission, and that is what they are seeking from congress. the three the -- the three-year timeline was very much put in there in a way that perhaps might allow the authorization use of military force to get bipartisan support that would put it into the next administration -- a year into the next administration, so it

would essentially lock in the next president to whatever is decided. now, there would force the reconsideration, but it was interesting that knowledge of the three-year timeline. host: in pennsylvania, thank you for waiting. you are next. good morning. caller: good morning. the political -- foreign affairs are long-term processes. before molly was born, there were things that the democrats did that some of the situations we are doing with now. one of them is ukraine. we convinced ukraine if they disarmed that would -- disarm their nuclear weapons and heavy-duty weapons, we would be there for them if they needed it. the democrats are showing that they cannot back that up because here we are. similar to what happened in iraq who gave a verbal cue to saddam hussein which caused him -- it

didn't cost them, but they headed into kuwait. really, it has caused an effect long-term. now, this won't be here when we head south, but does she have anything concerning ukraine as far as us not being there for them when we asked them to disarm? thank you. guest: right, certainly. part of what is going on in ukraine and we discussed this earlier with another caller when he asked why do we care about ukraine so much and how is it in our interest and how we don't have the same treaty obligations to ukraine as some of our nato allies but there are certainly agreements that we asked them to make when we were brokering these deals. after the fall of the soviet union and even before then, and we certainly do have those obligations, but when it comes to that being a part of an issue or not, i think you could

probably point to historical examples from either party in which they pushed for the u.s. to back a certain course, which later backfired. politics tends to not have the strategic thinking when you are in an election cycle, and that is one of the things the obama administration has really pushed. idea of strategic patience and staying the course and letting things play out. that is a very difficult argument to make when it comes to you as arguments. it is not exactly a mission accomplished moment or the sexiest message to say, please hold on and see this thing through. when it comes to these larger geopolitical fights, we are talking about the war in the war and islamic state and everyone has acknowledged across the board, that it is going to be years. a years long fight. we have seen post-9/11 and we have been at work for the past 14 years. it will likely go on into the future when you have u.s. political cycles that doesn't lend itself to that kind of

long-term strategic thinking that you have those concerns that if we are making those short-term decisions without making what these could be coming to get ourselves into similar situations as we have seen. host: in new york on the democrats like, good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to ask, basically, i constantly hear these attacks raged by republicans and conservatives against the obama administration and him being a weak leader on foreign policy, but to me, he has been quite hawkish on foreign policy when you consider he has bombed more countries than george bush did and he expended overseas assassination programs. -- in several countries where we do not have. i just do not understand how we can keep saying that he is a weak leader in that we need to keep doing what we have been doing in iraq. host: thank you for the call. guest: i think in many ways the narratives that have been played up and played into with obama's

from one foreign-policy crisis to another and not having a clarity and a decisiveness when it comes to foreign-policy, i think in some ways, that has continued and has been propagated because the republicans have found it to be effective. it was a line that got them son success when it came to the mid- term election and now we are approaching 2016 where foreign policy would be expected to play a larger role, particularly the presumptive nominee on the democratic side, hillary clinton as the former secretary of state, and that is part of the reason for the narrative. white is gaining traction from the american public beyond the political echo chamber is because people have a lot of anxiety right now. particularly when it comes to the islamic states. the effectiveness when it comes to the use of social media quite unfortunately, projecting these horrific images and atrocities right to your twitter feed, and i think that really

has raised the level of anxiety that we have not the since 9/11 and you can tap into that anxiety by portraying the president being weak on foreign-policy. but as we were talking, it has been very interesting to see how obama has evolved when it comes to foreign-policy. i think in many ways, there is a reluctance to use force and answer some of these hawkish cries. but in many ways, the events when it comes to a global stage they put him in that corner. host: most notably with cuba and israeli politics, the comments of senator bob menendez and a harsh democratic senate and the committee of imitation, and he potentially faces his own legal problems. guest: right. that could be an interesting dynamic because he is a major figure in the democratic party when it comes to foreign-policy, national security, and he has been on the foreign relations committee for item long time and recently chairman. it will be adjusting to see how

that plays out. he is quite the force and has somewhat of an antagonistic role with the administration on the issues, mainly on the misuse -- the issues you mention, iran cuba, and somewhat of an ally with the hawkish members on the other side of the aisle. but it certainly influences the debate and discussion around these issues, so it will be interesting to see how it plays out and how he is doing with his own relationships. host: in iowa, senator ted cruz thing if you disagree with the president, you can face the wrath of the justice department or is that political rhetoric or is that a fair charge? guest: senator menendez has been facing legal trouble for a few years now. in the allegations and you would hope that the department of justice would it be taking the investigation for a partisan reason, but it is certainly the case that there is a pension -- attention between some of the hawkish members of the iran hawk on the democratic side and the

administration. i think it is going fairly far as senator cruz will tend to do, rhetorically. suggesting that the obama administration is pursuing the investigation on corruption charges of senator menendez, at least for political reasons. host: grace is next and long been neat -- long beach, new york. on the independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. everything has been covered now, but i wanted to ask her is, how come nobody got -- when reagan got mad at israel, everything was ok. when you send those soldiers over there and 250 of them died i am going back years because i'm an old lady. now, you've got all these countries and they have all been set up by all these different people, all these different

presidents, now, when these countries are slowly going down now because these presidents are getting old and you've got younger people who want to be able to live. they can't live on little handouts they are getting from the rich dictators. host: thank you for the call. let me go back to her earlier point about reagan and previous presidents with dealing with congress on foreign policy. by the way, to work for the call, grace. guest: right, as you have said the tension between congress and the presidency, that is fairly constant. but i do think that you have to look at that expansion of executive powers, particularly after 9/11 and how much that really has changed the game and what the executive can do in terms of use of force following 9/11 with authorization to use military force and sweeping a very, very broad.

they were granted to him by congress but the interpretations of those actions, and i think that is fairly unprecedented with the national security apparatus we are looking at now and how strongly the administration kind of controls the apparatus. i think that is fairly unprecedented when you contrast it with the reagan era and subsequent terms. host: all that we have covered is available on or website at www.c-span.org with the growing video library. james, you get the last word. caller: yes i heard a c-span presentation earlier discussing the agreement that our country with russia when they withdrew from eastern europe that we would not expand nato farther into europe, and all these experts just took it as an automatic that we would just ignore and renounce that agreement as soon as we signed it. i just wonder where our country got to the point where we just automatically assume we would pronounce agreements? that is stop hitler used to do.

i would like your comment. guest: i think that both sides are using those agreements to make their own argument and rush is suggesting that we are reneging on our elements of the degree we signed when it came to disarmament, particularly that ukrainian disarmament that crimea would belong to ukraine etc., etc. the u.s. on the other hand, is suggesting that russia is doing the same or has done it first and we are simply responding to read i do think that both sides can use that argument for their own means and in defending their own actions, but certainly, there is an active threat and reason for concern on the part of nato allies and in that instance, we are obligated under that treaty to defend those countries. not necessarily militarily, but when it comes to rotating forces through, training exercises

much, much more of a defensive action from the u.s. perspective that russia perceives as an overt attempt to intervene in what it is doing in the region. host: we will look for you reporting online at defenseone.com. thank you for being with us. this last week on "washington today," we were asking on the performance of the speaker of the house john boehner and based on some stories later in the loop, we want to take it one step further. we want to hear from republicans only for the next 30 minutes. here is the question -- should john boehner remain as a speaker of the house? eastern and central 202-748-8000 34 republicans of the mountain and pacific time zones, 202-748-8001. you are watching and listening to c-span's washington journal for this sunday, march 8.

we move into daylight savings time, it is now 8:31 -- 9:30 one eastern time in washington dc and we will be back in a moment. ♪ >> you received what i used to cause a kid as a -- washington was a large man. very robust, terrific natural athlete, and madison was a skinny little guy. >> tonight on "q&a," on founding father james madison and the partners that aided in the success of our nation. >> the gift i like most about is his ability to form a remarkable

relationships of the great people of his era. but it also alludes to his gift to the country of his talents and what he was able to do to help create the first self-sustaining constitutional republic. >> tonight at eight, eastern pacific, at c-span's "q&a." "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we would like to ask if the question should john boehner remain as speaker of the house? phone lines are open and we are asking to hear from republicans only. 202 748 8000 for those of you in the eastern or central time zone. for republicans in the mountain and pacific time zones, 202748 8001. he is joining us live on the phone, thank you for being with us. give us the back story because the speaker faced 25 no votes

when the republican conference met in january 2 elect a speaker and now you are reporting based on with the speaker put forth acclaimed bill for the department of homeland security to prevent more tea party activist and they are angry at this eager of the house during what can you tell us? mike: this is nothing new. boehner to the gavel in 2011 and they picked up 63 seats just in november before. it was an enormous election that brought republicans into power and he really disappointed a lot of conservatives who thought he would be much more effective as a conservative legislator. it wasn't his fault. he still had harry reid in the senate and he still had barack obama with the veto pen in the white house, so he wasn't as effective as a lot of people thought he would be worried the first batch -- thought he would be. he was forced, and a lot of

those debates government funding bills, bills to increase the debt, and those sorts of things. the things that had to begun -- had to be done and he had to keep to keep the government running and conservatives were angry. when a speaker came around in january, 25 people voted for somebody else and they voted to get rid of john boehner as the speaker, and that is a public vote. it is an embarrassment to the leadership heading into this congress when they have the most significant majorities since the hoover administration. it is just another case of governing and it is sometimes messy. host: an interesting development, bill pascrell is a democrat from new jersey and he told you, i probably would vote for john boehner as speaker because, quote "who the hell would replace him? " guest: that was not an unusual

sentiment this week. democrats do not like john boehner's legislative approach to things, normally. a disagree with a lot of bills he runs to the floor and they would do things a lot differently, obviously, but they seem -- they see him as a compromiser and moderate lawmaker. he comes to the table when he has to, usually midnight, after the government shutdown of 2013, he has not allotted to happen again. he has worked deals with obama the democrats in congress, and so, it wasn't just the fact derail it was almost every democrat i talked to last week said, ok, we do not like boehner's legislative approach 100%, but he would be better than the other guys who would never compromise with this and it would be a disaster for legislative progress and we want to get things done in the next two years. it is obama's last two years and

the white house and we think we can work some bipartisan compromises. boehner can do that, a tea party guy know we could do that. we vote for boehner to keep him in there. host: let's talk about the process because under house rose, any lawmaker of congress can basically file a motion that would force a full boat in the house, correct? guest: that is right. and then it would go to the floor, so it would be a normal houseboat after that meaning that is why the democrat sentiments are so significant because boehner still have a lot of support among republicans in the house obviously only 25 people voted against him for speaker and that means over 200 voted for him. he does have his own guys, obviously. so the conservatives, the tea party guys would need overwhelming democratic support to get rid of him. if we were hearing -- if there was an acknowledgment among the democrats that they want john boehner, politically, it would look good.

anytime a speaker's ousted, but it is an embarrassment for the other party. you can see wheels of spending and some are saying, yeah, that might be pretty good and in 2016 we are not supposed to win back house, but maybe this would help. but then something would click, and there would say no, we cannot get anything done. that is kind of the dynamics that are happening and conservatives would definitely need democrats and democrats would not help them out, so boehner's gavel is safe, i think it is safe to say. host: an interesting development. let me get your reaction to what the speaker said last sunday because of the weather here in washington dc, there was not a scheduled thursday news conference, but he was on cbs's "face the nation." he talked about -- he talked about his job as speaker. boehner: the house is a rambunctious place. we had 435 members.

a lot of members who have different ideas about what we should and shouldn't be doing. >> cannulae to those members question mark boehner: i think so. i will not suggest it is easy, because it is not. remember what is causing this. it is the president of the united states overreaching and that is not just on immigration. 38 times he made unilateral changes to obamacare. many of these, i believe, far beyond his constitutional authority to do so. and so the frustration in the country is representative the frustration of our members, and it has people scared to death that the president is running the country right off the cliff. host: that was last sunday on cbs's "face the nation." your reaction. guest: boehner is blaming the president and he has done that for years. this is his problem. these are his guys, the republicans. he has the gavel and he has to get them under control. if not, nothing will get done and it is going to be in extreme embarrassment for the next two

years. it was not just the speaker boat, but they had art he had to pull two or three bills off the floor. these eight that would be easy past and low hanging through antiabortion stuff immigration stuff, education bills they haven't been and counting those, and they have not been good at managing these guys and the headlines are going to keep churning if they do not figure something out. host: mike ellis who covers congress for "the hill" newspaper. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you steve terry i appreciate it. host: we are asking, should john boehner remain as speaker? we are hearing from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i think boehner should go and the cost ago, to. they sit there and they let themselves get steamrolled. we need a person who is going to stand up and hold the purse strings and say, no, mr. president, you cannot have this and you cannot have that.

now, president obama is -- and remember, he has a hand and he is going to all of a sudden turn around and raise taxes? no that is the part of the house of representatives, and boehner is not doing his job. he needs to go. as far as mitch mcconnell, what a joke. i mean, he got on the floor of the senate and acted like he is still the speaker. ok, ladies and gentlemen, wake up during we are getting screwed and tattooed by a bunch of people. and ladies and gentlemen, one thing you have to think about -- anybody can be elected as a speaker of the house of representatives, you do not have to be a member of the house to be elected speaker of the house of a presented this. host: thank you for the call. "time" magazine out with cover story focusing on politics. a bush cover -- "the bush

identity." jeb bush was in iowa this past weekend and hillary clinton is tonight at 6:30 on c-span. good morning. caller: yeah, the last person who was on the phone was a democrat or what? host: we are hoping to hear from republicans only in the next 20 minutes, so what is your take on john boehner estimate should he remain as speaker? guest: caller: of course. host: ok, next. you are on there. caller: i am calling from fort lauderdale, florida. this is not what we voted for ok? he had an excuse in the last congress because he was in the minority, but there is no excuse

now and he is caving on everything. i think this is more than just the president is outmaneuvering him. this is -- he wants the very same thing that obama wants. host: thank you. ruben is next for miami. we are hearing from republicans only. john boehner -- should he remain as speaker of the house? caller: good morning. my comment is, absolutely not. we do not need two democratic party's. we do not send them there by a large majority. the republican party to compromise with their own things and allow mr. obama to have everything he wants on a silver platter. it is time for us to say, no more. no more.

we are going to lose this election if we do not speak to our agenda. we believe in small government, we do not believe in things like affordable care act. we do not believe in spending beyond our budgets, and we have -- this is what we were sent there to do. host: thank you for the call. next is randy from wyoming. again, only republicans in this half hour. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. no, i do not think he should remain. and like another caller said, i do not think mitch mcconnell should either. i quit the rnc because of all these moderate candidates. and then i'm going to throw jeb bush into that mix. we look for lower government, we don't want obama steamrolling over our congress and that is my comment. thank you again. host: thank you. writing about clinton's serial

air, more on the e-mail stop. his weight in "washington post," it turns out clinton will face a serious challenger it her primaries after all. her name is hillary clinton. host: ron is joining us from maine. caller: massachusetts. host: massachusetts, sorry about that. caller: i think he is doing a great job with what he has and i think the immigration problem is the number one problem and people have to start realizing that that is a real problem, especially with the deficit of these people coming in and able to use the system. boehner has been able to stand up to that and that is what we need. host: thank you for the call.

david is that from a north carolina. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. yes, i think mitch mcconnell and boehner should go. i do not understand, i have nothing against them, but i do not understand as many people as there are, why you can have a fresh face. why does it have to be the same old people? like i say, nothing against him, just new blood. host: david, can you stay on the line for a minute question mark your the second or third caller to join with mitch mcconnell saying it is time to get rid of him as well, why./? caller: he is throwing away money and his wife is connected with the government. sometimes he goes a little too far. fresh blood and anybody who has common sense and is sane. host: thank you. front page of "the washington

post." president obama travel to the edmund pettus bridge on the 50th anniversary of bloody sunday. he said the march is not over yet. you can look at that photograph of the president joined by those who were there 50 years ago, including congressman john king. the edmund pettus bridge -- congressman lewis, the edmund pettus bridge was cross at the alabama river and is named after a former confederate general and a former -- this was the scene yesterday with the president joined by his wife, two daughters and mother-in-law. john from new york. caller: hi. thank you for taken my call. with regards to speaker boehner just very disappointed in him. i think he has a lot of strong points, good qualities, but i was really disappointed over his soliciting netanyahu to come.

i am really in disagreement with a lot of the policies of the president, but i think this was more or less an attempt to just embarrass the president and i think you have to think of the office. i personally believe that he has to show more of a willingness to compromise with democrats. i just keep on thinking when reagan was in there and a lot of the personalities were such where they could get along and get a lot of accomplished. i just do not see this happening. i think a lot of these people have to set aside personal feelings and trying to compromise on certain issues for the benefit of the country. again, thank you for taking my call. host: two i. next to jim joining us from tennessee. republicans only this half hour. should john boehner remain the speaker? caller: no. emmett, should probably be replaced also. they do not come, they can

situate. i think there is compromise, but we are not seeing it. host: louise from fredericksburg, virginia, your take. caller: i personally think he should stay. i was disappointed about netanyahu, but i understand it is coming from the extreme right and i think that this has been going on for a couple of years. they try to replace them with eric cantor and unfortunately, for all of us, he got thrown out of office. so i think that boehner is the absolute glue that holds things together and i think that mr. mcconnell is a very good man but it i work from tennessee, i would be kicking out schumer and i would be watching those people with your wallets. because those guys, they are manipulative financially, and

now they are in power with the army and military, and you know, we have a $700 billion military. come on, guys. that's wake up. you men out there i have a brother who was killed in vietnam and a brother who died from warship at 49 years old. please, you guys better get new her something because you are absolutely outrageous. -- better get neutered or something because you are absolutely outrageous. host: this is a photograph of "the new york times." more from the president as he talks about what he describes as the american experience. president obama: that is why psalm is not an outlier in american hands. that is why it is not -- that is white psalm is not an outlier in american experience. it is instead a manifestation of

a creed written into our founding documents. we the people, in order to form a more perfect union, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. these are not just words. they are living aims. a roadmap for citizenship and an insistent -- and assistance in the capacity of free men and women to shape our destiny. for founders like franklin and leaders like lincoln and fdr let's us just the experiment of self-government resting on our citizens in this government, and that is what we celebrate here at alma. that is what -- here at selma. that is what this movement was all about. host: the president yesterday in selma, alabama three you can

watch the entire speech at c-span.org. lloyd is on the phone from florida. back to comments and calls on speaker john boehner. caller: i agree with most of your callers that boehner and mcconnell need to resign or be voted out. host: what is your frustration with senator mcconnell? what is your take on him? caller: i think he needs to resign or be voted out. host: he just wanted reelection. but you are saying being voted out of leadership? caller: are you going to argue with me before i can make my comments? host: no, no. i am sorry. go ahead, please. caller: i'd like to make my comments, if you do not mind. they are trying to get along

with the democrats, but you compromise out of the strength and not weakness. they are afraid to do bold work that would irritate their democratic counterparts, thinking that it they come up with something that would please the democrats, they could compromise better. that is a big mistake. it is not working out. they have been trying it for years now. you need people who were -- you will attack the democrats. who will absolutely get them in a position where they have to compromise because if they don't, they will get nothing. host: who should do that that be? caller: i have no idea. ted cruz comes to mind in the senate, in the house, i have no idea, but not someone who wants to try and come up with something pleasing to the democrats. the fact that the democrats are behind these guys is a major

message. [laughter] host: ok, thank you for the call . randy in fredericksburg, virginia. caller: good morning. most scholars think that mr. mcconnell and mr. boehner need to go, i think they are too moderate. in the clip you played where mr. rainey was complaining about mr. obama using his executive order but he hasn't done a nothing about it. he just sits back and winds very -- sits back and whines. host: who should that be? caller: you know, i am not up on who was a leader in the house, i think her zoo be good in the senate. host: alan is the next. -- crews would be good in the senate -- cruz should be good in

the senate. host: alan is next. caller: i will tell you why they should be gone. he made a comment in the news saying oh, it is too hard. we cannot do it. mcconnell should be out because he should've kept the rules that the democrats had. then he couldn't said the stuck to the president and let him veto the things. third reason, when you said that the democrats would back pain or -- back john boehner, it tells you they do not want some of conservative there. you are getting these calls because conservatives need someone who can buffer at the extreme liberals. we cannot have a moderate republican to buffer extreme liberals. we need a conservative that would do that during here is the biggest reason. the most important story to the country in the last eight years is what the irs did investigating conservative

organizations. it democrats were in office, for sure they would have had a special consul. they should have had a special consul investigate that because that is disgusting. host: do have a candidate in mind? alan comes up. -- hung up. comments of congressman from georgia, john lewis who was there 50 years ago in selma. congressman: you and i are here. we can bear witness in 50 years and we must use this moment to recommit ourselves and do all we can to finish the work that still -- there is still work left to be done. get out there and push and pull until we redeem the soul of america. host: congressman john lewis of georgia who was there yesterday

among the speakers. we should point out former first lady laura bush and president george w. bush. today, we will have live coverage of the ceremony getting way at 11:45 eastern time at the baptist ame church in selma alabama. among speakers, young format ever former mayor of atlanta mark from carolina. caller: no. i think john boehner and mitch mcconnell should go. they should both go. you've been asking the question about who should replace john boehner. why don't we take a look at louis gomer. he stood up and spoke a lot of great things. as far as mitch mcconnell to be replaced, i think ted cruz would be a great candidate as far as speaker of the house. i got tired of hearing john boehner talk about how he is one

third or two thirds of the representatives and now he is two thirds and the president is one third and the reason they are going behind closed doors with nancy pelosi after mr. netanyahu and after he spoke they go behind closed doors and all of a sudden, they wait until everybody wasn't looking and they go and they take a switch and pass homeland security and take immigration out of there. i think he should've said it -- sent it right back to the senate the way it was first represented. host: mark, you get the last word. thank you for all of you. should john boehner remain speaker of the house and weighing in on the senate republican leader mitch mcconnell. we will continue the conversation at 7:00 a.m. -- april ryan will be joining us

for american urban radio and later as the republicans look at the prospect or replacing the affordable care we will talk to an expert. we hope you tune in tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. thank you for joining us for this sunday edition of "washington journal." enjoy the rest of your weekend. "newsmakers" is next. have a great weekend. ♪ >> next, "newsmakers," with laurie robinson. then defense secretary ashton carter testifies before a senate committee on his department's 2016 budget request. after that, israeli prime

minister's speech to the u.s. congress. susan: we want to invite laurie robinson, the cochair on 20th century policing. both during the clinton and obama administrations, she served as the assistant attorney general for justice programs. i should tell our audience that we invited mr. -- ms. robinson's cochair. mr. ramsey got about the listeners that any police commissioner could get on thursday when he learned that one of his officers were shot to death in the line of duty in philadelphia. we regret that news, and certain play -- and certainly also sorry we couldn't be here with us this week. kevin johnson is a national reporter for "usa today." thanks for being here. and sari horwitz is