at 9:15, lawrence hurley, the supreme court correspondent. he is here to discuss the supreme court rulings and the university of texas admissions program. will continue to exist, -- demand action, whether it is on the floor around america. we are not giving up, we are not giving in. we will continue to work. john lewis outside the u.s. house of representatives after yesterday's wrapup of the 25 hour democratic sit-in on the floor of the u.s. house over gun legislation. good morning and welcome to "washington journal" for this friday, june 20 4, 2016. we begin the program asking you about them and the impact of the house democrat sit-in on gun legislation. here is how to join the conversation on this morning's

program. if you are republican, use 202-748-8001. democrats 202-748-8000. independents 202-748-8002. we welcome your post on facebook and send us a tweet @c-spanwj. yesterday wrapping up an active week on capitol hill and a very busy newsweek. you are waking probably hearing the news of the british vote in the e.u. referendum, voting to leave the european union. the follow from that -- the front page -- the fallout from the times of london. cameron resigns after brexit defeat. we will talk about that later in this morning's program should another issue in "the new york times." "split court stifles obama an immigration." we will talk about that as well. but "the new york times" combines the three branches and a look at what is going on in

politics and in policy. three separate, equal and dysfunctional branches. by the carl holtz who writes "the continuing breakdown seems to spread like a contagion through all three branches of government. the dysfunction managed to reach new levels --" "mr. obama, who saw to aggress thenations -- address nation's immigration crisis was unable to achieve one of his major goals which please republicans but left the president angry and disappointed -- "

shooting while destroying the decorum of the house. our issue first up is the impact of that sit-in of the democrats over the 25 hours. we would get your calls momentarily. house speaker paul ryan in a briefing after that sit-in ended said it was a publicity stunt. here's what he had to say. speaker ryan: one of the things that makes our country strong is our institutions. no matter how bad things get in this country, we have a basic structure that ensures a functioning democracy up and we can disagree on policy. but we do so within the bounds of order and respect for the system. otherwise, it all falls apart. i'm not going to dwell on the

decorum of the house here today, other than to say we are not going to allow stunts like this to stop us from carrying out the people's business. why do i call this a stunt? well, because it is one. let's jsuust be honest. here are some facts. yesterday, the house appropriations committee considered its bill for homeland security spending. at the committee, democrats offered in committee and amendment offering the gun measure they say they want. that amendment failed on a bipartisan basis. so, just yesterday, the democrats offered this gun measure they claimed they want, and it failed on a bipartisan basis in committee. there was a vote. it was in the committee. through regular order. the vote failed. that is a fact they did not want to talk about here is another one. democrats -- if democrats want to vote for a bill, there is a

way to get one. it just takes 218 signatures on a petition and they can have a vote. it is that simple. that is how the house works. it is a well-known process. but they are not doing that. they are not trying to get this done to regular order. no instead, they are staging protests,, trying to get on tv. they are sending out fundraising solicitations like this one. "house democrats on the house floor. your contribution will go to the dccc. $15. this one says try giving us 25 bucks, but if you want you can send us 50, 100, $250, $500, $1000, because look at what we are doing on the house floor. send us money." this is not a political stunt, why are they trying to raise money off this, on a

tragedy? ryan,house speaker paul yesterday's briefing. all of that available at c-span.org. reaction from the chair of the dnc, debbie wasserman schultz. tweeting, " paul ryan calling showst-in a publicity sun how little republicans care about safety for our kids and communities. the impact of the sit-in on the house floor. jimmy on our republican line. good morning. -- jenny in our republican line. caller: i really like paul ryan. i thought it was silly for them to sit on the floor like that. they got up and said they were cold and hungry. order a sub if you are hungry. it was silly. it was a plane stunt. alilain stunt. caller: i can't believe they call it a stunt.

they never mention that 90% of the american people want something done about these murderers, these mass killings. it is about all of these guns. we have 5% of the population of the world and 50% of the guns in the world. of fed up looking at all these television shows of people dying in the streets. and republicans have yet to come up with with one piece of legislation, just one that addresses gun violence. they will not do it, and it is because of the nra. we all know that. and the reason the democrats have to pull a start like this is because we need to get people to vote these people out of office so the government can move. look what happened yesterday. we do not even have a supreme court because the republicans will not move on anything. host: a caller in bethesda mentioned a poll. there is one from "usath.

87% favor preventing those people from getting guns. people who are on the u.s. and no-flyatchlist list, 85%. all americans, only 9% favor preventing certain people from getting guns. baltimore, maryland, sandy on the independent line. the impact of the democrats' sit-in this week. caller: i'm only calling to comment i was surprised and disappointed with c-span in the fact they were taking sides by breaking the rules of the house and televising the sit-in. can you tell me why you did that? host: those are the house rules. those are not our rules. our rules are governed by our mission. our mission is to show the liberations -- deliberations of the house and senate no matter what form they present themselves. those cameras in the house are

controlled by the house. we made the decision to try to get that discussion -- caller: exactly. you are no longer impartial. and i think that, was the sit-in that the republicans, i can't remember if it was 2006, i can't remember the year, that they did? that wasn't televised. what was the change in making you decide to televise this? i count on c-span to be impartial and i'm upset about it. host: i hear what you ares saying. i think you are referring to 2008, when the democrats were in power. when then house speaker nancy pelosi, during the august recess, they were talking about oil drilling legislation. and the cameras again were shut off. the ability toe,

stream video out was really in its infancy. i think the only thing we had from that is something that was videotaped by john culberson of texas. our decision is we are not governed by the rules of the house. we are not a government organization. we are private, nonprofit company founded by the cable industry. at the top of our mission, sandy, is covering public policy debates. ours is to provide audience proceedings of the u.s. house of representatives and the u.s. senate and two other forums where public policy is discussed and debated and decided without editing, commentary or analysis and with a balanced presentation and points of view. i appreciate your calling this money. let's hear from glen bernie, maryland, on our democrat line. dave, good morning. caller: good morning. how you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: i am so sick and by our government. it is ridiculous.

we can't get anything done. i support gun control. the people not getting the guns. everyone does. everyone supports it. and they're not doing anything at all. host: a reminder, c-span radios and listeners turn down your set when you call in. louisiana, john is on the republican line. caller: good morning. i support c-span in their streaming that. i like, if i as a consumer do not want to watch it, i turn it off. what i want to talk about. i think what we saw yesterday was a total disregard for the rule of law by a group of people that in essence became a mob. a mob no different than the mobs we see rioting on the streetse. they were a mob that ignore the rule of law, as the speaker

pointed out. that legislation had failed in a conference. voted down. and there was a way to bring it to the floor of the house. they could have forced it, the 281 signatures, -- the 218 signature. but they didn't. i applaud c-span for broadcasting because i think it let the american people just see exactly what happens when you go away from the rule of law and resort to mob rule to try to get your way, i guess. it is kind of a childish thing. host: let me ask you. if you were paul ryan, if you were the speaker, what would you do? how would you react? we heard him react, but what you think long-term is going to be before, for relationships between democrats and the speaker? caller: that is kind of hard to say. i think he did exactly what he should do. he was the individual and

responsible. i spent 28 years in the military. comew laws and regulations on how things work. he did what he needed to do. there was no sense and him trying to confront it. to try to confront a mob, they are not going to do what you tell them to do. he withdrew, let them have their time. and then he explain to the american people, me, exactly what had taken place. you can follow that. all you have to do is look on the .o websit-- and you can see who voted yes and who voted no. he outlined the procedures that were not followed. i applaud him. it would have been the same the other way around. it is not a republican or democrat issue. this is a rule of law, follow the regulations like the senate and house. host: just a reminder, the house coming in briefly at 9:00 this morning for a pro forma session. the speaker today will be

unveiling, along with kevin brady, the ways and means committee, their latest in their better way platform plank they have been talking about issues of regulation and health care. at 10:00, we will have live coverage from capitol hill of speaker ryan talking about their proposals for tax policy. here is the front page of "the washington times" on the democratic sit-in. " democrats house sit-in ends with no vote on guns." "house democrats wrapped up a thursday without winning concessions on gun control, leaving town empty-handed -- "

next up is joe who's in indiana on our independents line. mount vernon, indiana. good morning. caller: yes, hi. i would like to say that first off, thank you for taking my call. in my opinion, what is going on here is every time we have a terrorist attack like this, we end up with them wanting to make gun laws, which is a really ridiculous idea when the gun itself is not the problem. it is the terrorist. but the obama administration and the democrats want to lame republicans. ame republicans.

and ask like the republicans doing the attack, rather than to put down the terrorists. and the persons doing the attack. and i really do believe it is a stunt, because it's an election year. they are actually trying to push a gun law through like they are trying to do something. and that way the voters will think, well, the democrats are trying to do something and republicans aren't. you have the president going on tv, putting the republicans down, actually blaming them for the attack. the democrats doing the same thing. like your last caller just said, we believe they are taking over the house and going about it in completely the wrong way. it is a travesty. on we the people who elected these officials for office.

they are not willing to do their job. and they're going to blame the other side, instead of coming together, doing it properly, just like paul ryan said they should, which is the right approach, and as a veteran, that is why i agree with him so much. i understand how you have to follow the rules, whether you like them or not. they are there for a reason. host: the u.s. senate tried to come together in a couple ways. twodemocratic remembrance, republican amendment failed to move forward. the proposal by susan collins and several senators did survive a test vote yesterday. sere is what senator cowallin had to say. senator collins: not miss this opportunity to make a difference, to get something done. let us listen to the heartbroken families in orlando, in san bernardino, in other terrorist

attacks. this is common sense. on upon thenfringe second amendment rights of americans. all it does is say that if you're too dangerous to board a an airplane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. host: asking you about the impact of the democrats' sit-in running 25 hours. jerry in huntsville, alabama, on our democrats line. caller: thank you for having me. i listen to you last couple of callers. and i am a retired military, almost 28 years. i disagree with them, you know. the second amendment has it place. but when you start taking assault style weapons to the

streets in civilian has, that is a recipe for disaster. i don't believe the senate will work. work. sit-in will when we talk about the big lobbyist. we say that banks are too big to fail. why is the nra to be to fail? instead of busting up big banks, i think somebody should take the opportunity to take down the nra, because they're controlling the congress. host: how would you do that? one ofhe fact that their hundreds, if not thousands, of organizations that are in washington and elsewhere trying to influence legislative decisions? talking about taking down the nra. what would that look like? caller: -- the american people get these guys, get those congressmen and representatives out of there that circle back to the nra

because that is not the voice of the american people. host: appreciate your comments. this is hope in secret and a look at the spending of the spending of the national writing association -- national rifle association. it we look at the most recent, the total receipts for the 2016 summer. let's look at 2016 -- total receipts, $14,162. the total they have spent is $2.5 million. tom's in malibu, california c. tom, on our republican line, your thoughts of the impact on the democrats' sit-in? caller: it was a puppet show, stage for political reasons. it has nothing really to do, anything substantive. my baldheaded congressman was there, yelling and shouting. i will be calling his

office today. basically i think they -- they're not paying attention to it. the nra, i joined the nra. i do not even own a gun. i joined because there are constitutional protections. the nra saying, leave us alone. guns are not the problem. we have a lot of scary people. they are the problem. and i want to thank you guys very much for what you do. andairing this out presenting all points. host: absolutely. here is kathleen next up on our democrats line from michigan. caller: good morning, bill. i supported the sit-in. when i think of guns, i think of when the second amendment was, became part of the constitution. and the laborious effort that had to be put in to firing a gu n. it was a lot of work. and you had to keep the powder

dry. and the, whoever was going to be even the animal, at least had a chance to get away. children could not fire them. it would be very difficult for a young child. we read all the time toddlers picking up a gaun and accidentally shooting their siblings -- picking up a gun. that is something we have to think about as a country, is that, is the availability along with the ease of firing a bullet, it changes everything in terms of, you know, the destruction that is cost by-- caused by a bullet in the guns and then this business of this rapid firing. it just makes me sick to my stomach. it is not necessary to shoot like that. it just isn't. host: appreciate your call. brett in searchlight, nevada.

good morning. independent line. caller: how are you doing? host: well, thank you. caller: yeah, i don't know if willemocrats sit-in actually do any good but i do believe something needs to be done. as a vietnam vet, i know what .223 will do to a body. we do not need that. it is not for hunting. those weapons are made for one reason. not everybody needs to have one. if you are on no-fly, you're no-fly. if you're on the terrorist list, you do not have the right. as far as speaker ryan is concerned about due process, he lost that due process when you became on the terrorist watch list or no fly, no buy. i believe that everybody has a right to own and berar

arms, but these are not arms people need to have. these are just made for killing. and the republican party needs to understand that we voted them in, not the rn. c. the rnc didn't appoint them to their offices. we voted them in, and we can vote them out if they do not want to run this country. thank you for your time. host: we'll show you a bit of video. some of the video that we showed from people like scott peters, democrat of california. and a facebook feed up as well. here is one of his tweets. "it's fitting our sit-in ended by joining outside with a force that motivated us to start it: you." dan is next, republican caller in grapevine, texas. democrat'sof the sit-in. caller: unfortunately, it is

politics as usual in washington, d.c. think most people realize that according to public records, the no-fly list contains 100,000 individuals. all those 100,000 individuals, u.s.than 1000 are citizens. they are trying to pass a law that affects less than 1% of the individuals on the list. sthat would even be affected by the law. i think this is nothing but a stunt. d periscope yesterday. i did not hear anything but talking points from the democrats. the right to bear arms is given to us to stop the government from trying to take over. semi automatic weapons, if they want to ban those, i got a 12 gauge shotgun.

it is a semiautomatic. are they going to take that away? i've got a .22. are they going to take that away? a 2-2-3. everybody is talking about the .223 and how deadly it is. a .223 projectile, the ballistics of it, they don't know what they are talking about. they have no idea what they are talking about. it is a high velocity caliber, given that, but it is not the gun that people are purporting it to be. it's a sporting weapon. host: given your familiarity with firearms,then how would you suggest we keep people like this shooter in orlando and other people like that from being able to get access to firearms they can do great damage obviously? caller: well, that is the dilemma. and i don't purport to know the answer to that question.

there is evil in the world. he's been investigated a number of times by the fbi. he slipped through some cracks. that is something that needs to be looked at. i am not placing the blame on the fbi because we do not have enough information. as citizens, we are only given the information. that is filtered out to the media,ent or the news which unfortunately, in today's times is always slanted one way or the other. you have to kind of piece it together. it is a big puzzle. and that is what is so sad. we're citizens of this great country. and we are not able to get the information we need to build to e able to make a decision on daily life that affects us because it is tilted in such a way where it is always politics. either left, right, centrist, whatever it might be. away fromkeep a gun

an individual like that is hard. i'm an nra member. host: yep. caller: i'm a father, a grandfather. there is a dilemma, but we live in a free society. we are not like every other country. we are a democracy. and by being a democracy, we are going to have to put up with some things that some people might not like. host: i appreciate your input and your insight on this. headline this morning and "the wall street journal." " democrats vow to push gun issue in election." a picture with john lewis and house democratic leader nancy pelosi. "after almost 26 hours, house democrats on thursday ended a sit-in on the chamber floor harking back to segregation protests in the south without achieving their stated goal of securing a vote from gop leaders on new gun restrictions."

\ in a briefing, nancy pelosi was asked what is next in terms of gun legislation. pelosi: we will finish year and then we will have our activism for all of next week. we cannot finish. let me be clear about this. we cannot stop until we get a is passed. a law it is not about politics, it is not about elections, it is not about campaigns. it is about the safety of the american people. we want this off the table. we want this issue, the values -- and hope the republicans could agree to that. we are watching carefully what is happening on the senate side

now. so, again, we're a very shall we say, democratic with a small d and members will decide what manifestation position to the status go and positive initiative. tuned.o home, stay nancy pelosi after yesterdays wrap up in the u.s. house. there back for a short session this morning, asking you the impact on the democrats it-in on gun legislation. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. (202)-748-8000 the democrats. independents and all others, (202)-748-8002. also on twitter, send us a tweet @cspanwj.

the fallacy of the no-fly list is anyone can be put on it with no due process from edwin. old one says, those mean guns. by they are out the killing of a one. what will stop government from putting everyone on the terror list? robert francis saying guns are made to save lives more than putting food on the table. you can send us a tweet @c spanwj. back to your calls on the democrats it-in. news overnight that the u.k. voted to leave the european union. british prime minister david cameron announced that he will step down following the vote. [video clip] cameron: i fought this campaign the only way i know how, which is to say what i think and feel passionately. i held nothing back. i was absolutely clear about my belief that britain is stronger, safer and better off inside the european union, and i made clear

at the referendum was about this and this alone, not the future of single politician, including myself. the british people have made it very clear decision to take a different path, and as such, i think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction. i will do everything i can as prime minister to study the shift over the coming weeks and months, but i do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our .ountry to its next destination this is not a decision i have taken lightly, but i do believe it is in the national interest out of stability and new leadership is required. a preciseo need for timetable today, but we should aim to have a new prime minister in place by the start of the conservative party conference in october. david cameron announcing

his resignation following the vote overnight in the u.k. to leave the european union. on c-span, we are joined by michael geary, a fellow with the global europe program at the wilson center. michael geary, tell us why this vote happened in the first place. guest: good morning. it is quite a shock to see that britain actually has voted to leave the european union after 43 years of membership. this particular referendum issue emerged in 2010, when david cameron became prime minister and in the conservative party, you had about 100 you were very much eurosceptic, and they had a lot of pressure on david cameron to renegotiate the terms of the deal. david cameron said if he got reelected last year in the conservative majority government, he would hold that

referendum and that is where we are now. a deal withkind of brussels in terms of renegotiation with europe and the british electorate today have rejected this. host: which political party in the u.k. winds up the winner on this? guest: i suppose the u.k. independent party led by nigel . it has been the main goal to leave the european union. one of the main policies of the party. i think they are the only party because the labour party, there have party been calls for the leader to resign, along with david cameron submitting his own resignation, so i do not think the mainstream parties are going to and from this because of the mess that has now emerged with the decision to leave. host: of the many headlines this morning on the vote in the u.k., britain has is that

voted to leave the eu, what happens next? michael geary, what does this ,ean for europe's relationships burton's relationships with the european country? the honest answer is we simply do not know. the next stage will be for the conservatives to collect the prime minister and then the party will presumably start exit negotiations in brussels. what those negotiations will look like are anyone's guess leftse no country has ever the european union except greenland in the 1980's, but it is not like this case. they will be a process where untangle 43 years of rules and regulations and that will take between two years to five years, so a lot depends on the goodwill of the eu and

the remaining 27 member states in terms of how generous they want to be the britain. the markets overnight are not reacting very well. how about politics in the u.s.? what happens to that special relationship between the american government and the u.k.? guest: as you know, i think the british probably always considered the special relationship more special to them then to the americans. tois a big blow anglo-american relations, largely because obama had pushed for this. i think president obama's intervention might have been aunterproductive by promoting particular side of the campaign, but you will see now that britain's stature in the world will diminish. the world's biggest trading block. scotland is are you talking about a second independence referendum, and it scotland goes

independent, it will look for the eu membership and it will raise questions about whether or not britain should continue to the un'sase on security -- a seat on the un security council given the reduced international position. host: michael geary with the wilson center. he is with their global europe program and you can follow his observations on this issue today and in the future, gearymj on twitter. thank you for joining us. guest: a pleasure, thank you. host: here on c-span's "washington journal," we continue with our look at the democrat sit-in in the house, the 25 hour sit-in that ended thursday and we our question asking you about the impact of that sit-in. in colorado, rick on the democrat line. caller: i would like to commend c-span for airing this sit-in. i think it was a good gesture. ui bipartisan -- you are

bipartisan and i think you need to be committed for letting it be aired, also, i called my congressman and commended him for participating in the sit-in. i am 64 years old. to me, this is not the democracy learned about in high school. you think about it. if you want to go back in history, we had a ban on assault rifles for 10 years and the republicans would not bring it to the floor to renew it, and this is the result of it. to stand up and get money out of politics in this country. that is the root of all of this. it drives everything, big oil, and gas, insurance agencies getting away with murder. it drives everything. if we do not get money out of politics, nra is just a lobbyist

for the gun manufacturers. when they found out they could make no assault rifles for the public, what a shot in the arm for them. host: here is green bay, wisconsin. independent line. hello to betty. caller: good morning. i really agree with the gentleman from colorado. paul ryan, i that lost all respect for him even though he is from my state he was defending the due process for law-abiding citizens. well, these law-abiding citizens are being killed and some of them are killers. he calls this sit-in a political stunt. my version of a political stunt is this, he did not deny the fact that he received $38,000 from the nra, even though 80% to 90% of the people still deny the people's voice.

paul ryan and other employees of me, their second amendment is protect guns, not people. as far as paul ryan and the rest, do not spend your 30 pieces of silver in one place. host: here is the republican line in buckeye, arizona. elvin. little concerned, quite concerned about some of the weapons. weapons are tools. the idea that this is going on with the sit-in and excursion of laws and the rest of the stuff going on, each and every one of those people that are talking about this, we have an existing series of laws that are not managed well. it makes it quite difficult when people have demonized ways or

abuse of weapons. everybody talks about the musket , well, that was the assault rifle of the time. need equalrce and we protection. each one of these weapons have not been you devised -- have not been you allies properly. those in orlando, san bernardino, they are criminals. criminals will get weapons of any type and use all kinds of different weapons of mass distraction, and it creates a greater issue. the continued weapons ban and all these people who are proposing to military veterans, i spent 24.5 years as an trainedman, and i am with firearms. i press on that people need to be trained with weapons. people who just go out there and ok, look down the barrel because they don't know any better or have no training, that is a little silly. what we have got to do is quit

humanizing the weapon because it is a tool. hammers our next? machetes? what are we? host: that was in arizona. you can tweet us your thoughts, too. speakeron tweets that ryan speaks strong on guns but wimping out on texas. 33% is too much to the drawing board, boys. they will unveil that plan live on c-span today. find outguess we will what "voice of american people" is in november. don't be shocked if little changes since gerrymandering of the house. -- i supportnoss can control in a plot to spend for historic coverage, but concerned about inactive [indiscernible] and then this one, amazing how easily nra duped republicans into allowing terrorists to legally buy a assault rifles.

the republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. really had no affect on me. i am a gun activist and have been for years. the facts andt figures of the fbi statistics, guns only cause about [indiscernible] and two thirds of them were actually shown to be suicides, so when they talk about gun violence, they ought to know how we purchase. they say we purchase a gun online, well, there's no regulation. yes, there is. it has to go to the dealer and then to meet, so a background check is done, which is always normal. as far as closing off the loophole in this country, we could have a national kerry. -- national carry, and that would shut the gun hold off. host: how would that do that,

scott? everybody has had a national concealed carry and they would get checked out and they would use the concealed carry law and it would be hard to be able -- and they would use the card to be able to purchase a weapon. host: it sounds if you go to gun shows regularly. caller: yes. host: as an attendee, some of the dealers are federally registered and some are not, correct? caller: no, they have to have a license to be able to sell at the gun shells -- gun shows. we have good gun laws in this state for people who want to have weapons. license.ave to have a when you do buy one online, it is shipped to a dealer, which when you go to that dealer, you actually have to go through the

background check to be able to pick up that gun. host: what does that the abbreviation stand for? caller: federal firearms license. host: scott, thanks for phoning in. we have your calls and comments coming up on the democrat sit-in . front page of "the washington post" looks at the immigration decision in the supreme court. robert barnes there in the supreme court reporter, about 4 million could face deportation. he writes that president obama suffered the biggest legal defeat of his administration thursday, when a deadlock failed to revive his plan to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation and give them the right to work legally in the united states.

host: in reaction to that, that decision coming down as the house sit-in was wrapping up and speaker paul ryan reacting to the supreme court immigration decision. [video clip] ryan: i want to say a word about the supreme court ruling that halts the president's executive amnesty. this is a win for the constitution, a win for congress, and a win in our fight to restore the separation of powers. residents do not write laws, congress rights laws. this is a case that the house weighed in on because of the fundamental check system of checks and balances. congress rights are laws and today, the supreme court validated that core, essential and fundamental principle. on that will have more issue later on this morning on "the washington journal." we continue asking you about the impact of the democrat sit-in on gun legislation, reaction from house republicans, and members

of the pennsylvania delegation, bill shuster says or treated that democrats have sent out numerous fund-raising e-mails over the political stunts, which are do nothing to stop radical islam. also from pennsylvania, mike kelly republican says, americans what rights protected, terrorists defeated, house democrat publicity-fundraising stunt the choose nothing. jeffrey, democrat in new york. good morning. good morning. thank you for c-span. i appreciate your coverage of the sit in. i think that both sides, democrats and republicans have missed the mark on this issue, the issue that is the crux of the gun debate to me. problemspsychological with the killers, the perpetrators are criminally insane, psycho killers. guns in the hands of psychotics, manic depressed people,

schizophrenia, this is more the of those lawsome need to be changed so that the privacy rights of your medical treatment for psychological damage, which is the brain is an disease, subject to and these mentally diseased people that get a hold of guns ,nd commit an unthinkable act and everybody that witnesses this act says, he must of snapped, he must the psychotic, neurotic or depressed, whatever the symptoms are, doctors and family members have clues. this shooter in orlando was watched from the time he was in third grade. he had psychological problems all those years, and people knew he was a ticking time bomb. the laws that protect the privacy of psychologically damaged people need to be changed, and i believe sheriffs

departments around the country b auld be allowed to maybe doctor's order or family ordery, say, my child is acting a little deranged, i wanted to come and temporarily confiscate their guns so they do not hurt themselves or others. i have a personal connection to this. i have been a hunter from the time i was 13, and i was depressed when my marriage broke up. i was smart enough not -- to know that i was having suicidal thoughts. i give my guns to my father to myself i would not harm or my spouse, but you hear every day in the news summer in the country, unmanned goes and shoots his wife, kids and himself, and if you are depressed, somebody recognizes the signs of depression. patients that in, say, hey, my friend, family member has the depression issue and there went

the sheriff to come and get his guns before he does something the range. host: how are you doing now, jeffrey? caller: i am fine, dude. this has been 20 years. 20 something years ago my marriage broke up, and it was a lot of turmoil emotionally. i am ok. i went through counseling, zoloft, prozac and the whole nine yards, but my daughter is happy, i am is happily divorced and everything is right, but when you are not in the right state of mind, this is when people kill people with guns. host: how old were you when you gave your dad your guns because you are concerned about yourself? about 38 andld say i have not hunted since, but i feel no need. i lived in a rural community and everybody hands, but i have never felt threatened enough to buy a pistol or an ak-47, and i'm a military veteran. need to protect

myself with my second amendment rights, but i think psychologically damaged people should suspend -- their second amendment rights for mental health reasons. host: we go to stephen in louisiana, republican line. caller: a lot of people make the mistake, there is a french town in alabama -- host: it is my mistake. it says al and not la. it is alabama. go ahead. caller: i have two comments this morning. this issue and all other issues. , the failure of the left to accept that the people on the right have the right to representation, no matter what the issue, they will not workople with us and did this, but they

are working, they are doing it for their constituency. the other issue is the disingenuous conversations. when you say, no fly, no buy, everybody could accept that, but when you tie on the universal background checks, people say to background checks, well, we have background checks, but it is disingenuous to say 90% of people want to universal background checks because they don't understand what universal is. universal means a person of my age, 74, over my hunting career, i am not a collector, but there is no such thing as the perfect gun. i hunt many things. to pass on and decrease one of my guns to my , which i have

eight, under universal background checks, if i die, my wife would become a felon if she gave those guns to my grandchildren because we would have to say, may i? america is tired of saying may i? host: if you want to give those to your grandkids, they would have to get background checks, correct? caller: first, my wife would have to get the background check to even keep them in the house. that is what universal background checks means. it is disingenuous to say. i am sorry. i am talking over you i guess. host: no, we hear you loud and clear and we appreciate your input. stephen from alabama. back to the political side of this and the impact of the democrat sit-in. this is a headline this morning, to many liberals, this gun vote is not worth a sit-in. even those who favor

gun control think it is a bad tilted that on. they plopped down on the floor of the house chamber wednesday and stayed put. some remained on lyft into thursday morning, giving speeches on the mass shooting and the need for a vote. some ardent gun-control supporters say the amendment is very weak and it will make little or to no impact if enacted and other people call it a violation of due process and likely to country of a target muslims. lewis, the former civil rights leader who led the sit in, complained he was stuck on the no-fly list in 2004, as was former massachusetts senator edward m kennedy. demsneversat was treated to express surprise that the democrats would use there must the ethical tactics on such a flawed effort that is unlikely morecceed rather than on

consequential measures for the continue with the comments and calls in pennsylvania, sean. democrat line. caller: good morning. democratice the efforts because at least they are trying. it seems to me that the media always says that it is a mutual thing, but not to place blame, but i feel the republicans always say no. they say no sense president obama has been elected twice. the blackof guns in community is terrible. you talk about semiautomatics, but the handgun is killing my people every single day. it is a massacre in the city every day. someone is getting shot every day and people act like it is ok, and if it was any other product, any other product decides a gun, people would be in an uproar if it was happening every day. if the product was killing someone every day, i just do not

understand. and they say the second amendment, ok, say if the government do decide to take our guns, what are you going to do? if we fight back, we are going to lose and i am sick and tired of people tearing down the government is us. we are the government, and the government grows -- host: where are you in pennsylvania? caller: it is on the border of western ohio. it is by pittsburgh, five minutes north of pittsburgh. issueurgh has again the of violence every day. -- has a gang issue every day. chicago, the shooting every day and people act like it is ok to walk around with guns. it is not cool to have a gun just to have one. ok, you like to hunt. you do not need a semiautomatics issued a duck and if you do need a semiautomatics issued a duck you need to go get practice. host: here is news from another

front page in "usa today," the cop who drove freddie gray concluded. prosecution's case and they write that the baltimore judge found a city police officer not guilty of all charges in the death of freddie gray. a verdict that dealt a severe blow to prosecution efforts to hold police accountable for the young black man's death while in custody last year. officer caesar goodson faced the most serious counts, second-degree depraved-heart murder, leveled against any of the six officers charged in the case. goodson, 46, was acquitted of manslaughter, two counts of the regular manslaughter, assault, reckless endangerment and official misconduct. onddie gray was arrested april 12, 2015, after he caught their eye and ran. he was shackled and driven in a van by goodson but was not in a seatbelt and suffered a spine injury in routes and died one

week later. his deck set off lock lives matter demonstrations across the nation and sometimes violent protests in baltimore. goodson, who is black, waived his right to a jury and went to a bench trial. the fraternal order of police called on the state attorney in maryland to drop the malicious prosecution of the officers. mosby torts expect continue pursuing convictions. we continue with your comments about the democrat efforts on gun legislation and what impact did that have buried in massachusetts, matt. -- did that have? in massachusetts, matt. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple of things i would like to share. criminals and the the bad guys so to speak, the terrorists, they already have all the weapons that they need or want.

what they are trying to do is stop law-abiding citizens from weapons or guns or whatever gun they choose. if they are a law-abiding citizen, they have the right to do that. people, caller said my guns are killing my people. the guns are not killing your people. your people are killing your people. the big point i think a lot of what this country in general doesn't even look at is hollywood. on and on to tv see his violence. other people watch

.ill people on tv they go to the movie theater, they pay to watch it. that right there to meet i do not understand it. not like watching violence, i do not understand how people can call it entertainment. scary. itself is pretty kidsne that killed the done connecticut, he watched -- he was online playing a videogame called "kindergarten killer," were little kids are coming up on the screen and you shoot them. host: that was the name of the game he was playing? caller: yes, the nra pointed it out. it was one of the games that he was playing online. my rights, why should my rights

be taken away? i have arrived to defend myself and my country -- i have a right to defend myself and my country. all these people are out there, believe me, they are here already, they are stockpiled. host: we mentioned earlier that paul ryan talked about the we pointed out in the clip earlier, democrats using the 25 hours as a fundraising effort for the democratic congressional campaign committee. a tweet from would be who says the gop set the bar on fundraising, senator cruz and senator paul ryan broke sent fundraising e-mails all filibustering on the floor. i think heanwj, and means look on my because we do have all of those speeches .nline at www.c-span.org on the speaker paul ryan reacting to the british vote on u.k.u, or members in the

voting yesterday to leave the european union. here is a paul ryan's statement saying "i respect the decision made by the people of the united kingdom. the u.k. is an indispensable ally to the united states, and that special relationship is unaffected by this vote." here is ringo, new hampshire, jake on the republican line. what are your thoughts on the democrat efforts on gun legislation? caller: good morning. andink it is baby-ish shameful. i think every one of them should be reprimanded by the house, but my other point is the gun control started with bill clinton going after hunting rights. to rememberve got it always goes back to the clinton and it starts at ruby ridge. line inre is our washington, d.c., dave. -- er:

host: dave, are you there? we move on to the independent line, michigan, russ, your thoughts on the impact of the democrat sit-in on the legislation? yes, i would like to thank c-span for taking my call. the other day when the democrats did a little sit-in, that was the biggest disgrace i have ever seen. i won't tell you right now that nancy pelosi and her clan, this is the start of taking the second amendment away from us. i am a hunter, i enjoy target shooting, i love to hunt. after i have seen them using that sit in, it was just a scam for them to have -- host: that is russ in michigan. (202)-748-8001 the number to call for republicans.

(202)-748-8000 for democrats. .or all others, (202)-748-8002 we're asking you the impact of gunhouse democrat sit-in on legislation and keeping our eye on reaction to the vote overnight of the u.k. to exit the european union. one says -- the french president saying that the brexit vote is a tucked test for europe, saying it challenged the european union and adding that he would take initiatives to jolt the block back on track. said the eullande must focus on key priorities like security and defense, border protection and job creation, as well as reinforcing the eurozone, while leaving member states to and what falls to them. we will show you the british express, angela merkel urges eu leaders to maintain close relations with the u.k. in the wake of the brexit.

she calls for brussels to maintain close future relations with britain, saying that we are "living in the world of turmoil" and urges europe to remain "calm and composed" in the wake of the xit votes.re this headline from abc on the financial impact overnight as we head into this friday morning, tocks crash as u.k. both quit eu shocks investors. back to our calls on gun legislation and the democrats effort this week. virginia on the republican line. -- don is in virginia on the republican line. caller: good morning. can you hear me ok? host: just fine, go ahead. sit-in i think there was kind of ridiculous. he acted like a bunch of kindergartners. it is ridiculous the way they act in congress.

gee, that's grew up. these are supposed to be people we look up to. there was nothing there to look up to. as far as our gun laws, we need guns. there are so many guns out there, even not be able to count them all. i want to be able to protect myself, just like anybody else. if you do not have a weapon to protect yourself, what are you going to do? play dead -- you might as well lie down and play dead like opossum. host: are you a gun owner? caller: i have a pellet gun. that is about it. i have always protected myself with my hands, but nowadays, you have got to have the weapon if you're going to be out in the public. you have got to be able to arm yourself. you have got to put it in the right hands. you cannot have mentally ill people using guns. there should be some kind of test, like a driving test, you

know, you cannot go up this way because it is one way. people need to understand that you cannot put a gun in everybody's hands. you have got to have an evaluation done on them. i think that is where they need to start, but letting people in our country and you don't even know who they are, they could get in here and get weapons from a relative, friends. they do not go to a gun shop. we are taking all the blame on the gun agon shopowners -- or gun shop owners for their not the ones responsible. view let's get a democrat next in pennsylvania. hello, john. caller: thanks for having me on. i was just wondering why they that areddress guns not supposed to be on the street, illegal guns? it seems crazy. i live just north of philadelphia about 25 miles. they have killings just about every day.

just because of illegal guns on the streets. they are doing things backwards. i have always been a democrat. the liberals have hijacked the party. you do not want to enforce immigration, they do not want to to cause this but they want to blame the instrument and not blame the person. i said it 1000 times, guns do not kill people, people kill people. they use the gun. you can set the gun on the table loaded, with a room full of people, and it will not kill anyone in till someone picks it up and points it at someone. host: a couple weeks work in the democratic convention in philadelphia. headline this morning says bernie sanders says he will vote for hillary clinton. he was asked what they would vote for clinton in november and he responded yes. the vermont senator, who has not yet formally ended his 2016 campaign, said stopping donald trump from becoming president must be the overarching goal. senator bernie

sanders earlier this week, and that was aired this sunday on c-span. next on independent line in illinois. yes, i have a question about why is neither side addressing the black market? host: kind of what our previous caller talked about, illegal guns on the street. what would you suggest they look at? caller: it is like the obama administration lost all those guns around mexico, you know most of those ended up on the block market. they are trying to take law-abiding citizens guns away from them and disarm them, and do another going to get the guns off the street as long as the black market is there. you can buy anything you want on the block market. -- on the black market. host: on the republican line in

newcastle, pennsylvania. hi, tony. caller: good morning. have no trust on any of these further legislation against controlling guns. i have a story, i am in my 60's, i w [indiscernible] i found out they cannot buy a gun because they had a misdemeanor arrest in my 20's, my early 20's for marijuana, and this kind of backlash against me. host: how old were you when you went to apply for the gun permit? caller: i was probably in my 50's. host: 30 years later and that is still on the record. caller: yes, and they put that

against me to buy a gun. is like us no-fly think, people are going to get thrown on there who are not really eligible to be against. it just seems like it is always some kind of loophole to take some of the rights away from guns, so i do not trust that one bit -- i do not trust the government one bit. host: thanks. we are starting the morning looking at "the new york times" is on not just the gun legislation but the immigration decision, the failure congress to move forward on the supreme court nomination and the headline is "three separate people and this functional branches of government."

they write that there could be repercussions in the form of ethics complaints or other actions against democrats. host: mr. ryan showed that he can still command a majority really rules the house, even during the protest. that is from "the new york times." this is tennessee, democrat line with mary. good morning. -- with larry. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. what tooknd watched place in the house of representatives.

their individually and spoke against speeches one right after another, different congressmen and different democratic congressman, and they sat down, they set down in the process, but to label this as a sit-in was i think didn't reflect what actually took place in their. when they gave their speeches, they told why they were doing what they were doing, and what they were doing, talking about , if you are on the terrorist watch list, then you should not -- if you're on

terrorist watch list, he should not be able to buy guns. that is one of the main points of what they are talking about, and they talk about that over and over again. they got off a little bit on different topics, but they talked about that, and then they point was the other [indiscernible] on getting guns that did not have to go through a background the loopholes that when someoneo brings up this topic and they that wast sitting in, the label. that was a label that people talked about. that does not reflect what took place there. they were trying to educate the

werecan public, those that tuning in and keeping an open mind, on what they represent and what what they were trying to do . they were open in their speeches ways peoplebout mistakenly got on the terrorist watch list and how to get off. they were working -- they were willing to work with the republicans on this, but that does not get talked about. paul ryan did not talk about that, he talked about the sit-in like it was a demonstration. was their attempt to get their point across, and i think what it shows me is that the action that the republicans did is they are not willing to communicate are willing to talk about the issues. they are willing to make it look

like a fundraiser. speechesre was no talking about raising money during those hours, those 24 plus hours that they got up and talked. there is no talking about fundraising. this because's point was a dream that, they were some fundraising e-mails that went out. concerned -- is when the republicans allowed session to stay in the -- host: we are losing you a little bit and breaking up. we appreciate your point, tennessee on the independent line. in ohio.go to randall

caller: yes, i have been looking back at the records as far as i can about gun violence and how many people were killed and the to go back to 1969 or nine years ago, you have seen that in that time, people were breaking and the schools and shooting people and there are always one or two people, student or teacher they keep blaming it on people with mental issues, but when have they been people who were not mentally ill? there is ever been a shortage of people who are mentally ill, but we have never had those mass killings because we have all the guns. that is the only difference from 100 years ago. the mentally ill people where they are percent raise, always have been, but now we have the ability, whether you are mentally ill or not, to kill massive amounts of people with assault weapons.

another aspect to think about, why aren't these terrorists or whoever, terrorists from sandy hook, columbine or the people who are killing everybody, why don't they use m-16s or fully automatic weapons? people say, if we ran ar-15's, well, the criminals will [indiscernible] why are they getting m-16s and fully automatic rifles for killing? host: we have 15 minutes or so of the house democrat sit-in on gun legislation and what the impact will be, but another story this morning in a number of papers and news sites, a photo of iwo jima misidentified in the "new york times." historic image and an internal investigation by the marine corps has concluded for that more than 70 years, a ground identified one of the men in the iconic photograph of the flag being raised over iwo jima during one of the bloodiest battles of world war ii.

the inquiry found that private first class eric schultz was one of the six men in the photograph, which received the pulitzer prize, and it determined that the navy hospital john bradley, whose son wrote a best-selling book about his father's role in the flag raising that was made into a movie and directed by clint , whoood and mr. schultz died at the age of 70, never publicly acknowledged that he was in the photograph, according to his stepdaughter. he discussed it only once at this family, mentioning that briefly one night during dinner in the early 1990's and they talked about the iwo jima battle. "my mom was distracted, not listening and harold said, i was one of the flag raisers," his stepdaughter said. i said, my gosh, you are a hero. he said, no, i was a marine. the book "flag of our fathers" covered on book tv and a number of discussions on

that book and other issues relating to the regime and you can find those on www.c-span.org . let's continue with your calls and comments. charles in cincinnati. democrat line, good morning. caller: i had a question for you , if the house does not make of vote, can they take it to the people and put it in eight city to have them vote on certain things? that is one question i have for you. host: ok. caller: the next question i had economy -- of the how much effect of the economy have in our country on the deal with the eu? explain that to me. host: they are above my pay grade, but the first question in terms of a referendum, certainly, there have been state and local referendums, but a national referendum is very rare. you are talking about something along the lines of what the u.k. just did in terms of the eu

boat. caller: i am listening, yes. host: that was a national referendum in the u.k. very good question. i'm not sure the last and we had a national referendum vote. that is pretty much done on the state and local level. we get a national referendum this year in the presidential race, but thanks for your questions, charles. because our public in line and bob in south carolina. good morning. good morning. i appreciate you taking my call. i thought it was kind of childish what the democrats were doing. they think they know a little bit more than republicans do in my opinion. i remember seeing nancy pelosi walking around the capitol building after the approval of obama care, and they took andcies and penalize people find them with insurance policies they like.

[indiscernible] it is all about power. that is all it is. iran but the story by robert court.bout the supreme all they did was identify and then nullify and that is what they are doing now. i appreciate it. host: back to the reaction of the u.k. votes to leave the eu, the financial times and how the markets are reacting and how global markets are reacting to exit votes. the headline, pound and the ftse plunge, but treasuries and cold sore in investor flight to safety. those are the headlines. it is possible that we may hear from president obama about the possible market reaction. he is speaking today at the global entrepreneurship summit. we will have live coverage of that.

he is a facebook in california at this event at 1:40 five eastern live on c-span. here is minnesota, jennifer on the independent line. your thought of the impact of this sit-in by democrats? caller: i think it is pretty childish. and i thought, this is supposed to be the place that is the house of the people, and we have one party who is not even in power and there was a reason why they are not. the american people put the republicans in power to stop certain things that the democrats were doing. so they are not respecting the will of the people who have the madeity in power, but it me think, ok, they are trying to make this like 1960 and that era is over. lewis is old enough to know better. iey say, these people, but

can remember when nancy pelosi and her party when she was speaker. at least 75% of the american people did not want the yet, bute care act, were they have done if the republicans had done something childish like this? no, the republicans respect the house, and i expect that of each party. if they want to do it out in the streets, that is fine, but congress, the house, the senate, they are there to do their jobs, not have childish protests. that is so over and i am so sick of it. i remember they would complain about how everything was shut down and the republicans went home. nancy pelosi turned off the and leavingaving the republicans in the dark with what they wanted in 2008 or --ething and when they were

when they thought something was very important, so i do not understand where they are coming from. whenever they are not in power, all of a sudden, the voices of the people are not been heard. actually, the voice of people are being heard in the majority of people do not want them to reflect on guns, they want them to protect us from the people who are doing this. yet, we have an administration who is trying to get in as many refugees, and of course, they need to seek the hybrid, but they're attracted as many refuges in as they can before he leaves office, and he is taking them from europe. host: jennifer mentioned the 2008 6 in. we have video -- 2008 sit-in. we have the deal and we will show that in the next half hour. it did happen in 2008, but that was before the days of facebook

and reallyperiscope, before twitter was being used very widely as well. a couple more calls in the moments. the headline in the lead editorial in "the wall street journal" is lives matter about the democrat sit-in and they write that thank you john lewis for leading in gun violence and "wall street journal" writes that most u.s. murders are committed by street drugs not islamists.

host: next is don in minnesota on our democrat line. did you say john? you? yes, is that a gun owner i am and collector and not a hunter. the sit-in that the democrats did was a vote, which the republicans would not allow. the vote was on the no-fly, no buy list. people on the no-fly list cannot buy a gun, and for background checks on mentally ill and terrorist, that was the one in orlando that shut all those people, he was already on the fbi's list.

than threed more days, they would have caught it. they had longer than three days. in mexico harder for mentally ill people to buy guns, and the republicans are afraid of the nra. most of the republicans have gotten donations from the republican party, so they are in the pockets of the nra. what the problem is that i see is the end result of all of this is that when enough people get killed by terrorists in this country, the republicans will not stop buying guns, especially the assault weapons. that is when we will all lose our gun rights. it will be the democrats -- it will not be the democrats that make us lose our gun rights, it will be the republicans.

more and more people watch it every day and i getting afraid to turn on the tv in the morning and find out how many more people have been killed by a assault weapons. in minnesota.dawn roger in texas. -- next, roger in texas. go ahead with your comments. caller: first, i am a constitutional list, right down to my bones. i was born that way and i will die that way. bring a billan to to the floor that simply states to remove all in fringe men's from the second amendment of the constitution, period, 10 words. they will not do it. both parties have to make money off of gun rights. die, i will be

[indiscernible] for america's constitution. host: a couple of headlines before we wrap up this headline on the issues that are bubbling up this morning. arizona republic, we will not give up. the high court blocks obama on immigration. a look at the daily news about the immigration decision. "the boston herald" this morning. it the headline says it all, "brits quit." romney in wisconsin. independent line. -- ronnie in wisconsin. theer: the problem with democrats in congress is they should be given a timeout for what they did. that is not the kind of behavior

you want at your congressional level or legislative level nationally. that is a poor example. the other comment i have is about gun legislation. the problem with that and with a in this country is inconsistent application of the rules and the loss. -- the laws. think about how far that goes and how unequally people are treated. if you are very wealthy and can -- it isat attorney inconsistent application of the rules and laws. that's all. host: we will continue with more about this discussion. "washington journal" continues, we will talk to david hawkings about what happen this week and the historical precedent on action in the u.s. house in particular.

we will also talk about the potential political fallout on capitol hill and elsewhere. we will take a deep dive into yesterday's supreme court ruling with lawrence hurley, who covers the supreme court for reuters. lots more coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> i am pleased that the senators have come to this conclusion. the senate will undoubtedly provide citizens with greater access and exposure to the actions of this body. this access will help all americans to be better informed of the problems and the issues which faced this nation on a day by day basis. during the election, i had

the occasion of meeting a woman who had supported me in my campaign. she decided to come and shake my hand and take a photograph. a wonderful woman. she was not asking for anything and i was very grateful that she took the time to come by. she was born in 1894. her name was margaret lewis. louisiana,n born in born in the shadow of slavery, born at a time when lynchings were commonplace, born at a time when african-americans and women cannot vote. >> and took our country from the time of its founding until the mid-1980's to build up a national debt of $850 billion which was the size of this so-called stimulus package when it came over here.

we are talking about real borrowed money. >> 30 years of coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span [applause] -- on c-span2. >> you realize, this is something i would not only left to do, but something that could be really different from the kinds of books written about macarthur in the past. a way to rethink and reevaluate who this person was, what his real significance was. his virtues really were what made him the most adored and angela did figures in american history and what were his flaws things thate his made him unpleasant and even hated by millions of people. , arthur herman&a takes a look at the life and career of u.s. army general douglas macarthur in his book "douglas macarthur: american warrior."

future more often than he saw the present. whether it was america's role in , the the rise of china split between china and the and the fate of domestic american politics. "> "washington journal continues. host: david hawkings is senior editor with rollcall. we continue our look at the democrats it in this past ek. the 25 hour protest. really surprised at all when they began this action? i was peered i did not know what was coming. members of the democratic leadership were only told it was coming a few hours in advance. we did not have much word. we do not have worried about how

long it was going to last. that's word about how long it was going to last. democrats and we will be here as long as it takes. they said such things before in these protests have petered out. like it had ad flavor of the making it up as we go along a little bit. guest: i think that is fair. you talk to the most prominent members on the floor for this, they would concede as much. yesterdaying around for a comprehensive roster of everyone who has spoken. we doswer i got back was not know what was going to go long enough to have a comprehensive list. if you look at www.c-span.org, look at the closed caption of that, it has a

pretty good roster -- guest: all but 11 members participated in some way. there were 188 at the time of the protest. there were a couple who were attending to family emergencies, couple who were out of town for long scheduled trips with of the reasons and only a handful of members who are democrats who are also aligned with the nra, including the only two members, one from texas and one from georgia. host: your piece on the sudden title "inside the

house's first social media non-filibuster." why aren't there filibusters in the house? guest: the fundamental difference between the house and wherenate -- the house is there is proportional representation and each state has a delegation to the house that is relative to its population size in the country. the idea is it is majority rule. all the rules you and i think about everyday when we pay attention to the house are designed so that the majority can run the place and get what it wants unless they misunderstand what they want. be ahave designed it to regular routine march through the legislative process. that'sganize how much how many amendments will be up and how long the debates will last.

the whole system is designed to protect the rights of the minority in the senate and that means extending the debate. host: is there anything like this in the house history that has approached this in terms of duration and magnitude? guest: only a few that have been around in the last half-century that i could find. ago,as only eight years the last time we were in the summer before an open presidential contest. nancy pelosi was this because the house and republicans were in the minority. they had a different idea of what the top legislative issue -- was.ed they were about lifting a moratorium on offshore drilling nancy pelosi at the start of

the august recess gavel the place to a close around 11:00 in the morning and the republicans refused to leave. hostage. the floor and stayed for about five hours that night. point the democrats which the lights in the chamber off dishes switched the lights in the chamber off. republicans came back the next week and use the floor to make speeches. didn't speaker ryan do some thing like that? guest: the only way to get more attention for this protest by the democrats would have been for speaker ryan to send his own law enforcement team in there to break it up. you have john lewis leading this protest command icon of the civil rights movement. you have elizabeth warren, tim

kaine, harry reid, nancy pelosi herself. to send the police and there to break it up would have raised the public's awareness of this protest. is with us,hawkings the senior editor with rollcall. we are talking about the house democrats in -- house democrat sit in. we welcome your comments and calls. republicans --r for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. all others, 202-748-8002. first call is our republican line in buffalo, kentucky. good morning, james. caller: thank you for taking my call. here's the whole scenario --

first of all, they are a bunch for the most-- part, they sat there and talk about we need to secure our guns -- the need to secure the borders and stop letting all these people in. with all thelicit we just had an illegal kill three people. you don't hear them on tv talking about we need to secure our border. they are two-faced. they want to secure our guns and place sono-fly list in control -- they will put everybody on it and nobody will be able to carry guns. if they don't want to be independent in this country, moved to russia. if we get invaded right now and

we've got guns, we can protect ourselves. we can meet them halfway out in the fields. host: he talked a little bit about immigration. by the supreme court yesterday, reaction from both the president and speaker ryan appeared where is that issue in congress? guest: it is nowhere in congress. the republicans were delighted at the outcome come this nine were decision by the supreme court. decision by the supreme court. a tie in the supreme court means the most recent appeals court ruling stands. the most recent ruling said the president could not move forward with this. is an issue that is on hold through this presidential election. the president has now stymied and it will be up to the next

president to propose an immigration agenda. host: his nominee is on hold as well. guest: merrick garland is definitely on hold. some people on the hill suggest should the presidential election be won by hillary clinton and should the -- the senate be one back for the democrats, the republicans would move to nominate merrick garland during the lame-duck session. you mention this, going back to the issue of the house floor -- 2008, then speaker pelosi shutting down the debate. this was during a pro forma session for it back then, there was no facebook streaming, only some video we got from john

culberson of texas. as the pro forma session was ending. [video clip] >> historic day in the united states congress. republicans have taken the floor and have continued to debate after the house is adjourned. the democratic leadership has adjourned the house, turn out the lights on the mic and yet, the republicans are still talking about the need for an energy plan so we can drive down the price of gas. can tell, this has never been done before. let's all speak out on behalf of the american people and get .hese prices down all we are asking for is a vote.

the speaker will not even allow a vote. he has a plan to cover all energy sources. down.ive us a vote up or they are the majority. if all their members feel so strongly, they should not have -- many of our democratic colleagues also want a chance to vote. the cameras have been turned off. television cameras have been turned off, the microphone has been turned off. the only way we are able to do anything is through life streaming video through twitter accounts of people in the gallery. the technology has improved, but the tactics have not changed.

host: it's remarkable to hear them say all we are asking for is a vote. guest: language you heard hundreds of times during this week's protest. the republicans did get what they wanted -- there was a ban on domestic oil and gas drilling in the republicans wanted an end to that moratorium. the republicans got there up and vote.- up or down the ban was lifted and they won. that's what has happened the other two times, in 1995, before there were even the most visualve -- there was no could newt gingrich was the new speaker. they got into a big budgetary standoff with bill clinton.

the government shutdown. felter gingrich famously slighted by the president on a trip to israel for a funeral on air force one. the daily news made a famous cartoon of him as a crybaby dressed in an effort -- dressed in a diaper. the republicans gaveled the place closed for the evening, the democrats formed back on the floor and turn on the lights and got all the intention that attention of the print reporters turn ongot all the -- the lights and got all the attention of the print reporters. host: here is house democratic leader nancy pelosi from thursday from the overnight

wednesday. this is the periscope video from scott peters. [video clip] pelosi: mr. speaker, turn on this microphone. [applause] what is happening on the floor of the house -- i have a for --from jim begin i don't wantfford to read her letter without it being heard by everyone in the gallery. -- whats, our guests would be the reason the republican majority in the house are saying we will not turn on the microphone?

[applause] there a rule that members cannot take pictures or video on the house floor? guest: there absolutely is. smoking --ntions there can be no smoking or use of any electronic devices that might demean the decorum of the house. even when the house is not in session, which come as we know by now, the house was not technically in session. once in a brave while, members will bring their families onto the floor for a tour or hometown mayor and they will be allowed to take a quick photograph. even then, it is frowned upon. what speaker ryan did here by allowing the social media ing of this event was a

more relaxed response then perhaps some speakers in the past. carolinais of north said yesterday that if he had been back in the north carolina state house, he would have shut this down but quick. host: does it open the barn door for more of these types of things to happen? guest: the theme of our conversation this morning, turnabout is fair play. turnabout will eventually happen. time, we were talking my supreme court nominations, the someday the democrats will be back in charge and the republicans will be the minority and there's no reason to think otherwise that the republicans will take this tactic and try to ramp it up yet again. host: adam on our independent line. caller: thank you for taking my

call. this vote on the house is just a distraction. with the democrats don't want people to know is that violent crime in the u.s. is at a 50 euros low. -- 50 year low. thousands account for of deaths every year -- there are more people killed by clubs and other means. they are using this as a passed --n to get there are 30 million people out of work. we have a ballooning budget. we have all these other problems. they want to distract us and talk about guns are the major killer in the u.s. when we are having 50 year lows in violent crimes. that is my point. thank you very much.

i think that it's interesting you say they are trying to distract -- this is a diversionary tactic -- i suppose it may be, but it is certainly not from an issue that was in the american psyche since what happened in orlando a couple weekends ago. yes, the republicans have no interest in this discussing gun control what happened -- interest in discussing gun control before what happened in orlando. if nothing else, they were able to put back on the national political agenda and legislative agenda an issue that the majority did not want to talk about. diversionary tactic, but it has succeeded in changing the conversation in washington.

week to doan unusual this because it is a busy newsweek in washington. the last few days of the supreme court plus term. the vote in britain yesterday. and yet, they were able to get front-page coverage everywhere. host: it was a surprise to democratic leadership that they learned at that caucus meeting the other morning. guest: there was even a best miss of the clark and mr. lewis and the others organizing this thought actually keeping it from the leadership and they decided that was a bad idea. the leadership bought into it and said have added -- have at it. host: the senate did have a test vote on the susan collins proposal. guest: technically, the amendment survived. the motion to table her eminent. -- her amendment. 52 senators voted against

tabling it. senator collins and this had made good on best the republican leadership had made good on the promise to have this vote. 52 is short of 60. it is still alive, but it does not have the votes to get all the way through the senate. host: they will have to work hard to get those eight additional votes. guest: that is a lot of votes to move in the senate. host: david hawkings is our guest. in five minutes or so, we will break away from here for what we expect to be a short pro forma session in u.s. house. linda from texas on our independent line. caller: i support what the democrats are doing on the floor.

when you could turn something into a constitutional amendment don't i wonder why they do that and turn the boat over to the people. i guess what you're saying is the advocates of gun control could somehow propose a constitutional amendment that would alter the second amendment? that would be a much taller order than what is being discussed now. to get a constitutional amendment added to the constitution, two thirds vote in the house and senate. 37 of the states. the legislatures of the states. a constitutional amendment is not voted on by the country. it is voted on by elected officials, voted on by congress and the two thirds of the house and senate go for a constitutional amendment, it

goes out to the states and 37 states have to ratify the amendment. host: lewis on the independent line. -- the nra for having all the gun ranges -- i have to be a member of the nra to join any of these gun clubs. i disagree with their politics. i did that one year. host: how many gun ranges did you visit? caller: i called all the way from brunswick to portland to augusta. they all come of the criteria was you had to be an nra member

to join the gun club. it takes money to be in the nra. i get their calls during political seasons telling me who is going to take my gun away from me. it makes me mad because i know nobody is try to take anybody's gun -- it is a smokescreen to scare the american people. that's all it is. can you name any time in history that guns have been taken away from us? host: you can talk a bit about the impact of the nra on capitol hill. a couple of democrats did not participate in the incident -- in that sit in. guest: the nra is one of the most influential advocacy groups in congress.

as the color just mentioned -- haver just mentioned, they an extreme narrowly well organized not only fund-raising operation but also around -- also a ground game, a great ability to get her message out and spread it around. more -- inecome a part because of the membership of congress has changed, but they have become more partisan in their political giving. the nra gave time paying contributions to more than a dozen, two dozen members and now, only two democrats this time have received campaign money. you the graphic from opensecrets.org.

you can find that at opensecrets.org. the house is gaveling in momentarily here for what we expect will be a short pro forma session. but it is the house of representatives. you never know what could happen. [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. 2016]

and case received in washington in some time. although he was considered a reformer when he was elected in 1994.adelphia he rose quickly through the democratic ranks of the appropriations committee, a top democrat on the appropriations committee. he left a relatively small footprint and amazingly this case got almost no attention. it was a relatively -- it got attention in philadelphia. it was a dramatic case, 22 corruption charges, racketeering, bribe taking. he was essentially trying to pay off his political and personal debts with all sorts of schemes. he was convicted of all of them. his initial decision after the jury verdict came down was to try and time his resignation to

be the day before he had been sentenced. the speaker said that's not good enough. we're not going to have this hanging over our heads. they put pressure on mr. fattah to leave earlier than that. there was talk that the republicans would use their parliamentary tactics to essentially expel him during the protest. there was actually some talk that a republican would stand up and make a privileged motion to expel fattah during the so-called sit-in. at one point mistakenly majority kevin mccarthy sent out a press release saying he had been expelled. they call it back. all that by way of saying, mr. fattah's leave taking was more awkward and publicity generating than either his career or trial. host: david hawkings, senior editor at roll call our guest. nor comments and phones. largely focusing on the democrat sit-in. back to your comments. to stowe, ohio.

go ahead with your question or comment. caller: yes, mr. hawkins. thank you for being there. however i don't know how old you are but 35, 40 years ago there was an influx of people retiring in florida and people who -- they were instigating all people to go to florida, how wonderful it is. it worked. they had an influx of so many people going down there. however, the rate of costing these people, stealing, and sometimes even shooting had risen so far, so high, that the governor of the state then, which i don't remember, made a law that others, the regular people, of the united states were allowed to carry guns in florida. after that was instigated and all the rules that went with that law, the attacks, the shootings stopped. slowed down and stopped.

i like some opinion on that, but i also want to say that everything is orchestrated from above the president and below the president, things are planned. if we did not respond to the attack from japan on american property and nazism in europe, if we had this government in place then, we would all be speaking japanese and german. -- german. host: jerry next in tennessee on our republican line. you're up next. caller: yes. good morning. i want to say something real quick here. the reason people didn't hear about shacka fattah is it didn't make the news media. believe me, if it was a republican it would have made the news every night, and probably c-span several times. my main point is how the democrats talk about if we can save one life. if we can save one life.

kate's law, who was murdered almost a year ago by a mexican in this country who was here illegally, he was convicted five, six, seven times, and he should never, never been released. yet he was. he got a gun. and he was walking on the when -- on the pier when he killed this young lady. and the democrats, they would not even vote for that. yet they are so worried about saving lives. it was amazing watching them the other day. i'm surprised they didn't have their rivera t-shirts on. host: back to the issue of shacka fattah for a second, you mentioned, our producer tells us, it's july, 2002. you mentioned those hearings we covered, those ethic hearings on james traficant. why wasn't shacka fattah brought up on ethics issues. was the trial in effect? guest: that's a great question. what is the very, very

regularly observed custom is that the house ethics committee does not get in the way of the justice department. if the justice department says we're looking at a member of congress for criminal prosecution, the house ethics committee backs down. sometimes they will even announce we're not continuing our investigation of congressman jones because the justice department tells us that they are. essentially the house thinks that a criminal prosecution is trumps their own interest. that having been said, the house takes seriously its constitutional role as the governor of its own membership. so they do not automatically take a conviction as meaning that a member should leave. in this case it was pretty clear-cut they would have expelled mr. fattah had he not gone. host: as this democrat sit-in was getting under way on wednesday, the house speaker was unveiling their alternative to the affordable care act,

obamacare, part of the packages of things that the speaker's been unveiling, his so-called better way platform, bloomberg business has the problems with ryan's reforms and their analysis of regulatory reforms, it was announced by paul ryan -- last week. today, the speaker's going to unveil their tax plan along with kevin brady. what's behind all of this effort in terms of where the speaker wants these policies to go? why is he announcing them now? guest: he promised that he would do this right after he became speaker, last fall. and he was asked why are you doing this, won't you be stepping on the agenda of your presidential nominee, who at the time when we asked these questions, we had no idea who it would be. and he made clear that he wanted even then to sort of reassert the legislative branch's role in setting the agenda.

he is a policy wonk as we call him, a thinker. but he also has an institutional interest in restoring the house of representatives and congress as an agenda setter not a responder to what the president says. he's been following through ith this he has used this as one of the reasons he said he has come around to supporting mr. trump as the republican candidate for president because he says, he's talked about this agenda with mr. trump and he agrees on more issues than not. all of that by way of saying paul ryan, no matter who the president is next year, wants it known that he wants to be an idea driver. host: to moses lake, washington, greg, independence line. caller: yes. good morning. i'd like to give you a quick story about a sad day in my family's life. we lost my 13-year-old sister a few years ago. she was at a friend's house. got his father's gun out and was playing with it. pointed it at her as her hand

was on the door telling him to put it away or she was leaving. pulled the trigger and it went off and killed her. the saturday i seen the other day with the democrats using this as a point. no gun has ever jumped up and shot someone. there is always someone behind it. i, myself, am a gun owner. will never stop owning a gun. we just need to use the laws that are on the books to take care of this stuff. that's all i got to say. host: thanks for sharing that story, grelling. david hawkings. guest: yes, thank you for sharing that story. i think what many members of congress who favor gun control would say in response, is that they would agree with you that people -- it's people using the guns that are the reasons for the gun violence, but that if there were fewer guns

available, there would be less violence because people would have less access to firearms when they felt impulsive or angry, and keeping the number of guns down helps reduce violence because it just denies the angry or unstable people, the ability to carry out their violent impulses. host: i want to see if we had available, we had some video the other day that was all democrats speaking. we did hear from one republican and that was louie gohmert. i don't know if you saw this. i think we have this ready that he came on to the house floor. i wanted to get your thoughts on that. louie gohmert from the other night. >> radical islam! you don't think -- >> no fly, no buy. no fly, no buy. no fly, no buy. o fly, no buy. >> getting a gun.

why do you want to let terrorists buy a gun? why do you want to protect terrorists from buying a gun? why do you want to protect terrorists from buying a gun? why do you want to protect errorists from buying a gun? inaudible] >> don't let terrorists have a gun. don't let terrorists have a gun. don't let terrorists have a gun.

>> no bill, no rights. >> no bill, no rights. host: some of that facebook video from the other night. quite a different scene from the opening of the pro forma 15 minutes ago. guest: truly. i don't mean this flippantly. it was the one in a sense, it was the one moment of bipartisan exchange in the entire 25 hours. there were a few other republicans who came out to watch. but they held to the background. there were actually a couple republicans, to be fair, who came out on the floor to try and talk about maybe finding some bipartisan compromise. but they didn't take to the podium, to the floor the way mr. gohmert d there's actually some of those republicans who were sort of in the periphery of the house chamber during the protest are unveiling some

legislation this morning with some democrats. there's actually supposed to be bipartisan announcement on the house side to mirror something very close to what senator collins has been proposing this week. while mr. gohmert made a profoundly passionate point about what in his view and view of many conservative republicans was the real meaning of what happened at that orlando nightclub, which has become a rorschach test was radical ay rights, islam? gun control? hate crimes at home? domestic terrorism? isis? it's become the rorschach test of the year. host: thanks for hanging with us longer. one more call. danny in ohio. hi. caller: good morning. i have a couple comments. if i'm following the news right, the government let him buy the weapon. for not doing their job right.

if someone's on a list like that, i mean maybe three days isn't long enough to wait. maybe 10 days would be better so they could do their job better. it wasn't a gun haven't act, it was a terrorist act. and they flipped it over to the gun side of it. host: let you go there. we're about to wrap up. on the background check, what's been proposed. you just talked about the democrats' bill coming out, or this bipartisan bill on the house. what would susan collins' measure do? why has that got bipartisan support? guest: to be honest it's become a little bit of a blur her here. i do know what the house folks are proposing is if you're -- the government keeps more than one of these watch lists. i think one of the things that's in this bipartisan house bill is if you're on two different watch lists by two different agencies, then there is a restriction on your ability to buy firearms. obviously what the opponents of this are saying is that the

government should not be able to essentially take away your rights with the presumption of guilt. it's your right to due process is being taken away. if you're stuck on one of these watch lists, even while you're contesting t. you should be able to buy a gun. i think this is the middle ground that they are trying to look for. i do think that as father conroy said during the invocation, that during this 10-day recess things may calm down and some members may go back to their districts and find that they have judged it wrong and that maybe the country's attitude towards this and their encouragement to try to find a middle ground have gone up, gone down. we haven't seen. it will be fascinating to see what we learn on july 5. host: we appreciate hearing your input as eals always. david hawkings, senior editor at "roll call." thanks again. "washington journal" ahead,

we'll talk to lawrence hurley, supreme court correspondentent for reuters. joining us to look at a couple major decisions yesterday at the supreme court on imgration and also on affirmative action. -- on immigration and also on affirmative action. more ahead on "washington journal." >> on american history tv on c-span3. this saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history. >> by the end of the 1880's, upsurge, dramatic tremendous surge in veterans organizations, in the membership in these organizations, and in the

statues that they create. >> university of georgia professor, scott nesbit, discussions the ongoing debate over confederate war monuments and memorials, and how many were the result of campaigns by southern women during the reconstruction era and into the late 19th century. then sunday morning at 10:00, on road to the white house rewind -- >> back in 1976, mr. carter said, trust me. and a lot of people did. and now many of those people are out of work. >> the republican alternative is the biggest tax give away in history. -- i call it one americans cannot afford. >> the 1908 republican and democratic conventions with former california governor ronald reagan becoming the g.o.p. nominee. and president jimmy carter, accepting the democratic nomination. on july 1, the smithsonian's

national air and space museum will commemorate its 40th anniversary. sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on american artifacts -- >> in 1976, we were wrapping up a golden age of human exploration with the apollo missions to the moon and we were launching into the first golden age of planetary exploration with the missions of the 1970's to mars and to the outer planets. we're now in another golden age of planetary exploration, particularly on mars. >> we tour the museum with valerie neal, head of the museum's space history department and learn about the story of human space exploration from the moon to mars. and at 8:00 on the president presidency, james rosebush, former deputy assistant to president reagan, and author of the book, true reagan, what made ronald reagan great and why it matters.

>> i have come to see that, this relates again to president nixon, that a great leader of character is a person who has the ability to discern the future and lead a people to it and through it. >> for the complete american history tv weekend schedule, go to c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: big decision day on the supreme court yesterday. we're joined by lawrence hurley, who is with thompson reuters, supreme court correspondent for thompson reuters. the headline this morning in financial times, the supreme court deals a heavy blow to obama's immigration legacy. tell us about the case and what the court decided. guest: this was president obama's bid to try and revive a program that would protect up to four million immigrants from deportation and allow them to work in the country that had

been struck down by lower courts. the supreme court took up this case, they actually didn't reach a decision. they deadlocked, 4-4. so there's no -- for us reporters trying to get the news out, there was no written opinion like you normally get in the cases. just like one sentence saying the court was equally divided that means the lower court decision was upheld. kind of on a technicality. host: what was the president's plan that was tested here by the court in the lower courts? guest: this was obama's 2014 executive action that was aimed have -- g people who who have been in the country a long time. who have children who are u.s. citizens or permanent residents. who don't have criminal records. it would allow them to stay in the country and be protected from deportation and also give them work authorization.

that would affect up to four million people. it's a large number of the estimated 11 million or so people who are in the country illegally. and it was obama's last effort to try and do something big on immigration before he leaves office. host: in that financial times piece they write about that, mr. obama who campaigned as an immigration reformer in 2008 was later stymied by congress, unveiled his unilateral plan in 2014 and was immediately castigated by republicans as an imperial president. they write the case will now be sent back to the lower court in texas for the legality. it will take several months. it will not be over by the time a president takes office. a new president could decide to pursue the case. drop the obama plan enthrire, or modify it to make it more legally palatable. are there any other immigration issues pending before the supreme court?

guest: not before the supreme court. the deissue here on the court actually not ruling in a decisive way on this is it does leave the legal question unresolved. even though the lower court decision was upheld, that's not really binding nationally. it's not binding on any future president. if the -- either if a future president such as hillary clinton continues to try and fight to revive obama's plan, which is probably a long shot, or if they try something different, there could be some possibility of doing something on immigration. depending on what happens at the supreme court, obviously where it's currently one just as short because of the death of justice scalia. host: lawrence hurley is our guest, with thompson reuters covering the supreme court. we look forward to your calls and comments on the immigration case and a couple of other decisions that came down from the court yesterday.

202-748-8001 the number to call for republicans. 202-748, 8,000 for democrats. and for independents and all others, that's 202-748-8002. c-spanwj.tweet at the president reacted to the news yesterday, short briefing at the white house. president obama: although i'm disappointed by the lack of decision today by the supreme court, a deadlock, this does not substantially change the status quo, and it doesn't negate what has always been the case which is, if we're really going to solve this problem effectively, we've got to have congress pass a law. i have pushed to the limits of my executive authority. we now have to have congress act. and hopefully we're going to have a vigorous debate during

this election. that's how democracy is supposed to work. and there will be a determination as to which direction we go in. host: the president talked about the limits to his executive authority. this is not the only case where that's been tested over the past eight years, is it? guest: no. republicans have constantly been complaining about obama's use of the executive powers. a lot is in terms of interpreting government regulations. particularly in the environmental area. such as the administration's efforts to deal with climate change, which they have had to push through administrative action through the environmental protection agency because congress didn't pass any climate change legislation. host: to our callers, katherine is waiting in new hampshire. for -- on our independents line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a suggestion.

and it might help in the future. instead of nine supreme court justices, there should be a 10th. there should be 10 supreme court justices. nine of the justices would hear and rule on cases. the 10th would not sit on the court and would only be a substitute if, sadly, one of the nine became really ill or died. this way there would always be nine justices and there wouldn't be this 4-4 deadlock. and a lot of things have substitutes. football games, basketball games, schoolteachers in schools, and why not the supreme court? host: on this case in particular it's an 8-8 tie, the united states v. texas, a great little resource at reuters.com in terms of the cases that were just announced, was this case

heard by antonin scalia? guest: not this one. the oral argument was in april after he died. there were -- there was a couple of cases that the court did hear before he died ended up being 4-4 splits. i think three in total so far. we still have three more rulings to come. certainly his death has affected the court's ability to decide some cases. host: another case that was reported out yesterday, the decision handed down in the affirmative action case, this one fisher v. university of texas at austin, a 4-3 decision, here is the graphic at reuters.com. what was the case about and the decision? guest: this was a case where the court ended up upholding the admissions program at the university of texas, austin, which allows for the limited consideration of race as a form of affirmative action to try to increase the diversity in the

student body. a little bit of unexpected decision because it was a 4-3 win for the university, with justice kennedy cited with the court's liberals. justice kennedy is a conservative who sometimes is the swing vote on the court. he previously has not been supportive of such programs. in fact, this very case was at the court a few years ago and they sent the case back for further litigation. at that time it wasn't clear whether he was willing to uphold it. it's been a surprise. host: we hear from barbara in ohio. democrats line. caller: yes, good morning. i just wanted to applaud john lewis and chris murphy for their efforts to try and get something -- some legislation to control this gun madness that this country is experiencing. host: we appreciate your call. moved on to another topic,

barbara. to joe. we're talking about the supreme court decisions. notably, particularly on immigration yesterday. and on affirmative action. this is pritchard, west virginia. joe, good morning. caller: good morning. i like c-span a lot and i truly thank god there's a c-span so people can call in. i'm a democrat. i was a republican. i'm a retired coal miner. our area is rampant with unemployment. our -- we're at the bottom of every list in america. i live in the tristate area that surrounds west virginia, kentucky, and ohio. and we have more people here in the last five years that cannot speak english. they are of mexican or spanish descent. they are taking up all the odd jobs. we have a serious unemployment problem here, major, major,

major. but there is no jobs because these people have filled the vacuum that these laid off coal miners and other people could -- jobs that they could have taken. the president and the democratic party are wrong on this issue. they need to cut or hold on immigration. donald trump is right on this and hillary clinton and the democratic party are wrong because if we don't stop this, britain is a good example of what happens. britain is being overrun and the middle class is being destroyed in the united kingdom. the middle class is being destroyed in the united states and it's all because of corporate interests. you look at everything that happens, if i default on my loans, i have to do bankruptcy or i have to do a prison term, or i have to pay my bills. if i don't pay my medical bills in the state of west virginia, then the state of west virginia

bankruptcy is caused by medical payments higher than any other issue in the state of west virginia. host: joe. thanks for that comment. go back to the oral arguments made on immigration and how do the administration defend their actions? guest: the administration said that they were merely doing something that they were already allowed to do under immigration law, which is to defer action on deportation, which under the immigration law they can do if they are on a case buy case basis. simply for one reason being they don't have the resources to actually deport everyone who is here. and they also have priorities for how they determine what to focus on. they have chosen, as the president reinforced yesterday, the emphasis is on deporting people who have criminal records and who are not -- who have not lived here very long. so a lot of the stuff that the administration wants to do in this order was things that they can already do.

the challenge was the scope of it. the fact that it covered so many people and that it was a kind of uniform action. which states like texas, which challenged it, didn't like. one point worth mentioning is that congress would have to pay for the people to be deported because it costs money to do the process. and congress has not done that. so there are only a limited number of people who the government can deport every year. host: lawrence hurley is our guest, supreme court reporter for thompson reuters. we welcome your calls and comments. tweets as well. reaction on twitter yesterday from the likely nominees, hillary clinton. here's what she tweeted yesterday after the supreme court decision. today's heartbreaking immigration ruling could tear apart five million families facing deportation. we must do better. and from the donald trump campaign, donald trump tweeted,

south carolina -- supreme court has kept us safe from executive amnessy for now but hillary has pledged to expand it. taking jobs from hispanic and frican-american workers. red oak, texas. illa, hello. caller: how are you? host: fine. you're on the air. caller: i would like to say something about the immigration. i think president obama is working to solve the immigration problem and i would also like to say that anybody that would vote for donnell trump is not -- donald trump is not using their senses. that man is psychotic and i don't understand the christian people that have laid their religion down that would vote for donald trump. now, if they send all the hispanic people back, who's

going to pick the peaches? who's going to cut the cucumbers? who's going to work in the hotels? who's going to put that hot tar on top of the houses to fix the roofs. the white people aren't going to do it. and the black people aren't going to do it. so who is going to do it? host: this is a case brought up according to "usa today," excuse me, the "washington times." a total of 26 states sued the obama administration over the executive order on immigration. the supreme court affirmed an earlier ruling blocking the order in a split decision. a tweet from swrim who says, i heard the lower court ruling was binding nationwide. who knows what the reality is. guest: the injunction that was issued is binding nationwide. and the -- that was upheld by the appeals court. then the supreme court was deadlocked. so that leaves that decision in place. host: albuquerque, new mexico. next up. eddie on the independence line.

caller: thank you for having me on. quick question with regards to ffirmative action. i doubt there is any kind of real test for many of these people who are checking off the boxes they are african-american, others, others. of course saying who they are. but we're taking them at their word. what is the sense of using things like ancestry.com, actual fluid tests to test these people some of the benefits that they'll be receiving in terms of admissions, maybe possible scholarships, are we too far away from that? is that something that you think people might start to implement? there's a lot of people trying to get in to these colleges. we can go back to elizabeth warren. people say they are 132nd chairee.

there needs to be an -- cherokee. there needs to be -- we can go to ancestry.com, essentially figure out who these people are. i don't think anybody would have a problem with that. maybe not have the typical characteristics, but if they have the heritage in temples creating a more diverse background. host: eddie we'll get comments from lawrence hurley. guest: i think one university's looking at this. they care about diversity. that's the thing that they are pushing for. when they talk about diversity, they say that they are considering a whole variety of factors. not just about race. they are not allowed to do that anyway. i think when people apply to college, they are looking for anything that will add to the diversity of the student body, whether it's where you're from or economic background and your rate can be a part of that, but it's not the only thing. host: you wrote in this that the plaintiff in this, fisher,

you wrote that she said the university denied her admission in favor of less qualified black and hispanic applicants. she maintains that the program violated the u.s. constitution. the constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. was this -- did she take this case up a couple of times, in a couple of ways? had she come to court before in this case? guest: abigail fisher was a white student who applied to the university of texas. didn't get in. and the university said at the time, that she wouldn't have got in anyway regardless. she sued with the backing of a conservative group that has fought various cases seeking to end racial preferences as they call them. so this case actually went up to the supreme court in 2013 and the court didn't really decide it on the merits. they sent it back for further

litigation. then the case continued. went back to the appeals court, then came back up to the supreme court. finally we have a ruling that -- against abigail fisher so she basically spent eight years fighting this. she's since graduated from a different college and working in austin for a fortune 500 company. it's a lot of legal fighting and not much in the way of an outcome. host: was she getting legal help from other organizations? guest: she was helped by this conservative legal group. host: here's abilene, texas. good morning to matty. caller: yes, sir. i'm from texas. and unless you live in a border state, you don't understand how bad it is. i'm glad the supreme court ruled as they did. -- if they should have justice scalia had been alive,

he would have voted with the four that voted against president obama's executive order. i think he took very much leave when he actually did that. that wasn't his job. and i think that there was a lady that called a few minutes ago that was talking about there won't be anybody to make your bed and pick your peaches. that's not what they do in texas. they have their own businesses. they come across the border, they put a phone number on their pick up truck and taking obs away from people that have -- pay taxes, and pay their state tax, and they do all this for cash. and people are out of work here because of that. so i think there probably does need immigration reform.

doing it this way is the wrong way. i appreciate it. host: to larry in denver, colorado. also on our independents line. go ahead. caller: i was calling to comment on the guy from west virginia who called in and this lady who just finished, the lady from texas just mentioned about the jobs being taken. this thing's been going on for a good 40, 50 years about illegals coming up from texas -- from across the border. taking jobs. the problem that we've got, this is one of the problems we've got, is that businesses are hiring these illegals and paying them under the table and they are taking jobs. it's been going on for a while. you find ellegals are employed much better than -- in this country than the people who stay here. and unless they get this -- the companies to pay or get some kind of a penalty for hiring illegals, this thing is going to continue on.

so it's not just the republicans who got it wrong, the obama administration -- got a little bit of it wrong. they just be a little more understanding. really, there's got to be a tightening of the screws on companies who hire illegals because as long as they keep paying them under the table, this unemployment thing for american citizens is going to continue on. host: lawrence hurley with thompson reuters, their supreme court reporter. we're looking at some of the key decision that is have come down from the court. wanted to point out reuters.com, their wider image segment, nice photo display or photo site of some of the pictures of the supreme court. we're linkage showing some of those now. the court coming down with decisions yesterday and one more set of decisions for monday. what are the cases still pending? guest: three cases left that will be decided on monday. one is the big abortion case

which like the immigration case and the affirmative action case from texas, this was a law that was passed in texas a couple years ago that places significant restrictions on abortion clinics. and abortion providers caused up to half the clinics in the state to close down. and the court has to decide whether this law places an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion under the urt's 1973 case roe versus wade. so the -- again, the court closely divided 4-4 at the moment between liberals and conservatives. we don't know exactly what's going to happen in that case. then another big case they are waiting for is a case involving the former governor of virginia, bob mcdonnell, who was convicted of corruption. his appeal of his conviction. based on the oral argument we heard back in april, it seemed

like he's probably likely to win that case, but we'll wait and see what happens on monday. host: what did you hear in that oral argument, former governor mcdonnell, that would indicate that he may be -- may win that case? guest: there seemed to be some concerns on both sides of the ideological divide on the court that the law under which he -- it's unclear whether the law that he was supposed to have violated, whether he had done anything to -- whether the actions he was accused of doing, which was accepting gifts from a friend on be-- whether and his wife it constitutes a criminal act upped the federal bribery laws. host: keep you abreast here of the news overnight. a different story of the news overnight of the e.u. vote in the u.k. voting in the u.k. to leave the european union. some of the reaction to that on the financial markets. headline "usa today" at this

hour, stocks plummet on brexit is their headline. we may hear something from president obama today. he's speaking at the global entrepreneurship summit. that's coming up at 1:45 eastern here on c-span. back to comments on the court to st. louis. we hear from joy on our republican line. welcome. caller: good morning. good morning, c-span. it's unbelievable that the scorte did not come down -- supreme court did not come down 8-0 against president obama's executive order. what happened to the rule of law? crossing the border without a visa is illegal and you should be a felony. host: here's artheir in cincinnati. another view. democrats line. caller: hello. thanks for having me on. what i'm speaking on, i used to live -- i have been across this country, south, east, west, north. i have looked at -- americans,

we all came here from somewhere. and they talk about jobs, about the mexicans taking our jobs. those people are taking the lowest wage jobs that americans do not want. and if i had been in high class restaurants across this nation, i -- in most cases, it's the mexicans that are cooking our food back in the kitchen. the waitresser, either they are black or white. and the ones i tip is the ones that cook our food. a lot of people don't understand -- a lot of our food is grown in mexico. these people take the lowest -- how many americans are willing to go out in these fields and pick our fruits and vegetables? host: just to -- reflect on arthur's comments, a tweet here

says, black stone water work construction any longer. lady is so long. referring to an earlier caller. maybe if they don't want to do it for $8 an hour, but they'll do t what are the numbers in this case of the illegal immigrants that the administration would be affected by this -- wasn't an executive order but by this decision of the administration? guest: they said that they were up to four million people, maybe more, who could have applied for this program, which would give them a piece of paper saying they are not going to be deported and would allow them to work legally. one thing that's maybe worth noting is that the fact that the program won't go into effect doesn't mean those people are going to be deported. these people are already here. they have already been here a long time. so on the ground this isn't going to change much. and even the people who oppose this program admitted that the

government has the authority to defer action on deportation. so some of the rhetoric may be -- gets beyond their reality of what's actually happening on the ground. host: reaction was swift from the white house. we showed you some of president obama's comments. here's some of what speaker ryan, speaker paul ryan had to say yesterday. speaker ryan: i want to say word about the supreme court ruling we just got that halt's the president's executive amnesty. this is a win for the constitution. it's a win for congress. and it's a win in our fight to restore the separation of powers. presidents don't write laws, congress writes laws. this is a case that the house weighed on because it's fundamental to our system of checks and balances. congress, not the president, writes our laws. and today the supreme court validated that very core essential fundamental principle. host: paul ryan from yesterday, that nondecision was a 4-4 split on that case. you write about another 4-4

split. they are split 4-4 in native american tribal court dispute. what's this case about? guest: that's a much smaller case. it's another case where the failure of the court to have a majority means this legal issue which will be of concern certainly to some companies and businesses that do work on indian land because it affects whether you can be pulled into indian court or whether you can only be heard in a federal court. or state court. and this is one of now four cases that we have had where the court ended up being deadlocked which shows that the court, on occasion, not all cases, by any means, but some cases they are struggling to get a majority. host: you covered the court on a regular basis. do things feel different, out of sorts at all now that there's this 4-4 split and there's no ninth justice?

guest: a couple of differences. one in their oral arguments, which we had towards the end of the term, certainly very different without justice scalia, who was very outspoken and kind of larger than life figure. he was always the one who could make jokes, everyone would laugh at. and he would be quite caustic with his remarks sometimes. towards the lawyers or towards even his colleagues sometimes. so the tone of oral argument is different. various people who watch the court notice how it's changed the dynamic of the oral argument. perhaps some justices speaking a bit more. some asking questions they wouldn't have asked before. maybe asking the questions scalia would have asked if he was still there. we n terms of the way cover the court, it certainly led to a little bit of uncertainty from people like me who have to write about it

because we're not sure what's what's going to happen. previously when you got nine justices on the court you always know with few exceptions there's going to be a decision at the end of the day. even yesterday when we got the immigration case, there was a bit of rucking around the pressroom, people waving pieces of paper. we n.o.w. that was a possibility that would happen, it does -- we new that was a possibility that would happen, it does show we have to be ready for possibility on decision days. host: a few more calls in massachusetts. mark, independent line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. thank you very much. in response to the supreme court immigration ruling and the tie on the 4-4 tie, don't think it's going to make that big a difference. like mr. hurley just said. it's not going to say they are going to get deported immediately. especially in regards to what happened last night in britain with the referendum that has

happened in the u.k. and the shock wave that is sent across the world and the markets. just right now i just read that the pound is trading at a 30-year low as a result of this exit, to exit the e.u. just to finish, to sum it up, in the bigger picture, in my opinion, is that i think the trump supporters should lead the warnings that has happening, or happening right now to britain and their choice to basically exile themselves as a hermit kingdom and heed the warnings, thank you. host: let's go to -- any thoughts? let's go to ted who is in new hampshire. independent line, good morning. caller: how are you? my issue with the immigration is the people that get on social security and draw from

it that haven't paid into it. now, they are telling us it's going to be out by 2030. why would you deplete from a total account that's been paid in by legal people to give to somebody who hasn't paid in? if you're paying and given housing and medical, and social security, it doesn't make sense. we're kind of cutting the hole in the bag of security and i have -- and our seniors will pay for it. host: any way to tell under the president's program, among these people, are these people paying social security tax? guest: that was one of the issues in the case because the action obama suggested, depending how you interpreted it, could allow people to be eligible for social security. and a lot of immigrants in the country do pay taxes. and i think if anyone is --

does become eligible to pay social security, whether through becoming a lawful permanent resident or citizen, then of course they'll be paying into social security but they'll also be eligible to withdraw. host: mary lou on our democrats' line, california. caller: hi, i like mr. hurley what he's saying. he makes sense. i want to know if he knows about the overstay visas and vacation visas, are they doing anything about that? of cubans rillions across laredo and they don't get for thed because the act of 1966 -- get deported because of the act of 1966. when will that get changed? this country is called the united states of america because everybody came from around the world in boats, whatever kind of things they came through, ellis island.

and it's called the united states of america. host: did the president's order affect any of those visa overstay people? guest: any big changes on immigration will have to be made by congress. doesn't look like it's happening. host: we have been hearing news throughout the morning about the vote yesterday, the u.k. voting to leave the european union and the impact on the markets overseas and this morning on wall street and a statement from the president just released says that in part the people of the united kingdom have spoken. we respect their decision. the special relationship between the united states and the united kingdom is enduring and the united kingdom's membership in nato remains a vital cornerstone of u.s. support and economic policy. some of what president obama had to say. we may hear more later at 1:45 eastern as he's speaking at the global entrepreneurship summit. we'll have that live here on c-span at 1:45. momentarily we'll take you live to the capitol to hear from

paul ryan, the house speaker, unveiling tax policy today. we continue with your comments on the decisions of the supreme court. to jasmine in st. petersburg, florida. go ahead. democrats line. caller: good morning. i just get so upset. americans get so mad at undocumented workers, but really it's the companies that are hiring them. if the companies didn't hire them, then they wouldn't come. stop being angry at people that just want to make a living. host: let you go there. jasmine, lawrence herly, any final thoughts on the decisions or what you expect on monday's abortion decision? guest: monday will be a big one. the abortion case is very closely looked at. and again the court's closely divided. it could be a complicated decision if they choose to compromise. it could be some kind