whole life. >> and you still do it? >> you can check my feet. i was doing a kick flip the other day. it was a few month ago. i want to escape park -- to a skate park. jenna mendoza great program. i went to a skate park. i started doing it when i was really young. i'm still doing it now. >> i can imagine the number of skateboarding congresspeople is low. >> really low. maybe i should start a skateboarding caucus. >> starting next week watch c-span's members of congress series where we speak with both republicans and democrats about their early lives, previous careers, families, and why they decided to run for office. on monday at 9:30 p.m. eastern, our interviews include democratic congresswoman janelle bynum, the first african-american ever elected to congress morgan. >> my mother graduated in 1970 from one of the last segregated high schools in the state, the

country rather, in south carolina. i i think about all the opportunities not afforded to her coming out of segregation. i bring that perspective to oregon, saying my mom did not have a lot of opportunities, but i will make sure i bring that forth for all the children in oregon. >> watch the new members of congress all next week on c-span. we are back with david super who is a law professor at georgetown university's law center to talk about the trump administration and legal challenges. there are several lawsuit, and legal questions about the following, revoking birthright citinship, it doge's access t personal and financial records, reinstatement of schedule f for some federal employees, establishment of doge and the

funding freeze. just your reaction overall to of the legal challenges. guest: this administration has made an unprecedented move to disregard long-standing clause and it is not surprised they are being challenged. host: why? guest: most of these are flagrantly illegal and only valid if many acts of congress are unconstitutional and in one they are rejecting a part of the constitution itself. host: explain more about flagrantly illegal. guest: for example, the administrative act says when the government makes regulations, it has to put out a draft for public comment and consider what the public has to say to that. in reinstating schedule f, the same idea to strict civil servants of protection against arbitrary firing and political

coercion. they simply canceled and disregarded a rule already in place that gave workers rights and didn't seek public comment out draft and they disregarded the administrative procedure. >> "washington journal" continues. the white house press secretary karoline leavitt responded and held a briefing with reporters. [video clip] >> many outlets in this room have been fear mongering the american people into believing there is a constitutional crisis taking place here at the white house. i have been hearing those words a lot lately, but in fact the real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch where district court judges and liberal districts around the country are using power to unilaterally thwart the basic effect -- executive order. we believe the judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law

and have issued at least 12 injunctions against this administration in the past 14 days, often without citing any evidence or grounds for the lawsuits. this is part of a larger concerted effort by democrat activists and nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against president trump. quick news flash to the liberal judges supporting these efforts, 77 million americans voted to elect this president and each injunction is an abuse of the rule of law in an attempt to thwart the will of the people. as the president clearly stated in the oval office yesterday, we will comply with the law in the courts but we will also continue to seek every legal remedy to openly overturn these radical injunctions and ensure president trump's policies can be enacted. >> "washington journal" continues. david super, respond to karoline leavitt. guest: that is a gross exaggeration. all the judges are doing is enforcing laws on the books and

the american people absolutely voted for mr. trump to be president but under the law as the constitution says he shall take care of the laws faithfully executed and they have every right to expect the courts will insist on that if mr. trump does not. host: what do you make by the injunctions of these judges? why do they take the step? guest: because the administration is refusing to follow the law and effectively disregarding statutes that say we need to spend money on senior meals in service for the homeless youth and things like that and they are taking the position that they are not bound by the law. with anyone, you, me or the president of the courts will join us. host: and the washington times, ben cline is a rebel --

republican. he said must and doge are doing exactly what trump told voters they would do and says i am fed up with the scripted outrage and the blizzard of lies. he writes, the left has stopped its collective feet because it claims doge is working in secret, however it fails to acknowledge it is subject to the requirements of the presidential records act and that the president has issued regular declarations of its progress. each executive agencies doge team works in coordination with agency heads to ensure the implementation of the mission did indeed, treasury secretary scott bessent has improved doge's lawful access to unclassified records and systems to facilitate this integration. despite rants from democrats and media figures, no evidence supports the allegation that mr. mosk or anyone else has unlawfully accessed or seized sensitive data grid any access is strictly regulated and the role of doge is focused on modernizing outdated systems, not compiling private

information. the real threat to americans' privacy has come from unchecked bureaucracy that is missed manage data security for decades. the performance -- reforms proposed by mr. trump and implemented by mr. muska are -- musk are to prevent overreach and not overspending. guest: that is cold comfort to people whose personal information, banking data, social security numbers are being by all accounts transferred to insecure at laptops and are available for cyber criminals or russians and chinese and iranians to easily hack in and potentially empty out our bank accounts. host: what evidence do you have of that happening? guest: that has been asserted by the career civil servants who have managed these accounts for decades, under democratic and republican's and has never been political officials in charge of that.

they managed them for four years under the trump administration. host: we are asking you to join us about president trump's first 100 days and actions he has taken by executive orders as well as the efforts by elon musk and the doge commission. your thoughts, questions and comments. steven in california, republican. let's hear from you. caller: good morning, greta. how is marriage treating you. back to business. have you looked into the rights of those who seem to be behind the laws for trump's vision of laws that have been attacking every institution that they are against? such as the food aid program because they are giving food to palestinians and the education

program because of the bob jones university was trying to not segregate in schools and was forced to? i will take my question off line. host: david super? guest: i don't know the origins of this. i am a lawyer not a political scientist but i know many of the assertions that he made about the law in the media and defense of this have been plainly wrong and this does take us away from a world governed by laws and towards one governed by individuals which is disturbing. host: explained that a little more. what are you referring to? guest: when congress passes the love that they will spend money on it, the president is obliged to carry out but he has been having contracts without authority to do so because he disagrees with the program.

if you can do that, every president can do that and we will have no stability in government, no confidence in laws, and frankly our congress want to that important. host: here is the opinion section in the new york times, trump dares the courts to stop him. the editorial board writing this, the u.s. constitution established tree branches of government designed to balance power, serve as checks on one another. the constitution order suddenly appears more vulnerable than it has in generations. president trump is trying to expand his authority beyond the bounds of the law while reducing the ability of the other branches to check his excesses. it is worth remembering why undoing the system of government would be so dangerous to american democracy and why it is vital that congress, the courts, and the public resist such an outcome. are we facing a constitutional crisis in your opinion? guest: yes, we are. we have one branch of government

increasingly regarding its self as unchecked by either of the others. they are following only those laws that they see fit sidelines congress and they are savagely attacking the courts, suggesting judges are enforcing laws and they should be impeached or disregarded. this is a constitutional crisis. host: how do you respond to the president and republicans who say, the american people elected us, gave power to the republicans for the white house and on capitol hill and they are doing with the american people elected them to do and passing the agenda? guest: if congress wants to amend these laws to allow the president to do things, that is entirely appropriate. but the president is disregarding the laws. if they try to amend the laws, that will get public attention, members will have to go on record and vote for it. the public elected congress as well as the president and they

elect the previous congresses that passed the laws. no one voted for the president thinking he was going to be a king. they voted for him to be a president as part of our system of checks and balances. host: one reason why the president is acting the way he is through executive action is because of the filibuster rule in the senate and such razor thin majorities means it takes more than 60 votes to get his agenda through. in his arguments, he has no choice but to do this by executive action. guest: he has a choice and that is compromise which every president has done since george washington. the filibuster is still in place in the senate because every republican senator who was sitting a few years ago said it was important and mr. trump may disagree with that but in his party overwhelmingly feels it is important that we have a filibuster so we can have compromise. host: why do you think

republicans and democrats for the most part are standing by the filibuster? what role does it play? guest: the filibuster make sure that all interest in society are considered, the thin majority, mr. trump did need to get a majority of the popular vote. he came close but didn't get it, and should not completely control everything in the country to the disadvantage of others. the reason we need continuity, businesses need continuity. they don't want it changing every four years wildly. host: roy, republican. caller: my question for your best this morning and good morning, by the way. i am calling from florida. back to the education system. i see he is from georgetown university and my question to him, well actually, my answer to

him is what is going on with the trump administration? he knew ahead of time through the attorneys he hasn't backing him what has taken place where he is being rejected because it is being sent to the lowlife judges and in mostly liberal states like rhode island and so on and so on. there are several are that -- that are but he knew ahead of time with the orders what he is trying to do to help america get back on track of the way it is supposed to be. host: so what is your question? caller: my question to your guest, everything i have heard from him so far is that what is his opinion on the biden administration and all of the

things that he tried to do knowing that they were unconstitutional for forgiving loans and all of that? host: so we are talking about biden's executive orders. what is the difference? guest: president biden made many executive orders that he thought were illegal. some of which he was right and some of which he was wrong. those cases were challenged and very conservative states, so we have rhode island challenging the trump and texas challenges for biden. some of what biden did was held to be legal in some of it not. in one of the cases that your guest mentioned about student loans, the supreme court said that literally the law would support this but wait think it is just too big a change. so there was strong reason in the language of the law but the court didn't think it was enough , which is the court's prerogative. but it is very different from most -- what mr. trump is it

which is largely regarding the laws as not binding in any way at all. host: where do you see the supreme court stepping in? guest: i think we will hear from the supreme court soon because we will start seeing appeals from the trump administration within two weeks. those appeals will vary rapidly get to the supreme court and we will learn i think by the end of april whether they are willing to let this go or not. host: in the new york times opinion pages, the top appropriator in the house democrat writes congress, not trump control the money. i want to get your thoughts on what she argues here. she says it took aim at supposing presidential impoundment powers in clinton the city of new york same president nixon, gandhi and all and ponders asserted in a press

conference in 1973 that his constitutional right to impound appropriated funds was absolutely clear. justice scalia noted that two years later, the court proved nixon wrong. it is a fanciful attempt to give the president the powers of a king and it will be a disaster for our republic. guest: justice scalia is right about that as he is about many things. the constitution's system of checks and balances gives the power of the people's money to the people's representatives in congress and the president is not free to overrule what congress has done. he can veto bills and this president has veto bills and prior presidents have as well and that gives them influence on spending. once something is enacted into law, the president is bound by law. host: so where do you think this administration has violated the impoundment powers? guest: by freezing money across

the board that congress has directed to be spent. host: joseph, flint, texas, independent. caller: i would like to hear the guests's opinion on the risk of civil unrest as a result of the executive branch violating the laws that the judiciary has passed. i would also like the guest's opinion on how this lawlessness is going to affect our international standing with international partners on the laws that we have as it results to nato and everything else. it seems like a complete collapse of rule of law which is really concerning. guest: i think there is not likely to be civil unrest.

i certainly hope there isn't because we do have courts and a congress. this is not the first president who has overreached in the courts have arraigned them in the past and i suspect they will this time. in terms of the international standing, close our laws passed by congress and those are also binding on the president. i have not seen the kind of clear illegality in the president's actions and some of these areas but i will confess i have not been following that as closely. host: mary in orangeburg, south carolina, democratic caller. caller: i have three questions i would like the best to elaborate on. the first one is, the young man going into private information, the ages are from 19 to 25, i believe. they are the ones they hired to go into our information.

and i would want you to talk about that. the other is to talk about the fact that he hired these men that work for a cybersecurity that are hackers. that is one thing i want you to elaborate on. the next one is, as an individual citizen and they are allowing them to go into our personal information. as a person concerned about my personal information given to these young people and hackers, do i have a right to sue? those are the three things i would like you to elaborate on. guest: the career civil servants that have managed the treasury department's checkbook, as it were for decades and decades including under the first trump administration are subject to extraordinarily severe security clearances. they are checked all the time, closely monitored and heavily trained in cybersecurity.

the people that are being brought in we know nothing about them and all media reports suggest they are quite young and quite inexperienced. it is not indication they have received training in data security and this makes many, afraid. what everyone feels about the policies that mr. trump and mr. muska are pursuing come they don't need access to sensitive information to do that. knowing my back account number will not help them resolve anything about government spending. if there is a program that needs to be shut down, ask congress to shut it down but don't go into the personal information. there is a privacy act that provides some protection against mishandled data. i would say in some instances there may be litigation. host: david super a law

professor joining us at georgetown university law center. marti, you are up next in albuquerque, new mexico, republican. caller: i was just calling, they are complaining about people getting our personal information and people from social security work from home and they can do my application or whatever you want to call it sitting at the kitchen table with all of my personal information in their house and that is not a big deal . finish your thought. the people in a secure place they are worried about. i am more worried about some and at the house doing it. host: do you have any thoughts, david super? guest: i don't know the detail of their work from home procedures. my understanding is they are -- there are substantial cybersecurity in these instances.

there is no clear information as to how this data is being handled. we are hearing reports in the media that things have been copied onto laptops or otherwise moved around so it may not be in secure locations. as troubling as it is to have one person's information out there, to have millions and millions out there is troubling. i don't get social security but i sometimes do over pay my taxes and get a refund sent to my bank. so my banking information is in there as well and i didn't choose to have that made available to a 19 year old with an online handle. host: we will go to john in massachusetts, independent. caller: i was wondering if you were as outraged when john kerry going around the world. he wouldn't appear before congress when subpoenaed. i also wonder while the democrats and bite and opened

the border and the supreme court was controlled by democrats and didn't have any problem when you won every case. i'm just curious how all of that happened. biden didn't follow, it was different. when biden went against the law over and over trying to do his student loans and getting struck down by the supreme court, he just kept going against it and yet when they told him he couldn't do something on the border he didn't try again and it was clearly a lie. as for doge, you are worried about that, it started under obama and he had tech pros and kids working for him that were 25 years old so stop talking about young people not doing things. host: we will get a response. guest: in terms of the supreme court it has had a republican majority since 1969 so i'm not

sure what the 50 years you are referring to our but it has been public and controlled for a very long time and currently has a 6-3 republican majority. as far as the student loans, the student loan act legislation is quite complicated. he invoked one part of it to forgive student loans. the supreme court said literally he might be right but that it was too big a stretch for the provision he used or too expensive an action for the provision he used. the then used a different provision and didn't defy the court and went lower courts raised questions about the new provision be used, they obeyed the court orders and did not make forgiveness. host: clay, a republican. caller: i believe biden and the administration and democrats want political decisions and not

constitutional decisions. that is why they promised to pack the court or overrule the filibuster. the difference between the student loan forgiveness, the supreme court deemed it was congress's right to spend that money, not the president and the president continued to go to the supreme court. like i said, he doesn't want a constitutional decision. i love the fact that trump is questioning and driving some of the way some of these institutions are paid for and hopefully the supreme court will decide some of these in the near future. guest: just to be clear, i have never supported getting rid of the filibuster. i have written in the washington post and other places about how stupid i thought the democrats

were to undermine the filibuster and how delighted i was when they failed to do so. if your point is the filibuster is important, i could not agree with you more. host: we will go to puerto rico, democratic caller. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my question is, should be -- should we be worried if president trump will in fact try to undermine the three branches of the government with more executive orders. he said, come and try and stop me. should we be worried? guest: i have a great deal of confidence in our supreme court. i think at the moment we have nine serious justices who are trying to do their jobs as best they understand it. they don't always agree with one another and with me but i think

courts will take the matter very seriously and with the president is violating the law or the constitution, i believe they will win. host: richard in brooklyn, independent. caller: i have a question, two questions for the guest. what i want to know is, is this a democracy or a constitutional republic? the last time i checked, this is supposed to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy. in the second thing is, is it lawful for the doge agency to do what it's doing to delve into people's personal information allegedly from what they have been saying? is it lawful lose -- lawful for these individuals to do this and what kind of recourse can the people take if it is not lawful? host: david super? guest: there is potential

recourse and there is already litigation about access to the personal information. the courts can absolutely require that all copies that have been made be deleted. that is a fairly common order in privacy cases. we can hope they will get it done in time. we don't know. we don't -- but i am confident we will have resolutions in the courts that will bring back the power of the law. as to the first question, we are a constitutional republic with democratic selection of our officials, but part of being a constitutional republic is that we have laws and we don't simply go with whoever won the last election but we go through an orderly process of lawmaking and discourse. host: we will go down to tampa, florida, tom is a democrat watching there. caller: my question is,

especially in light of what you just said about some of the executive orders of broken the law. if they go to the courts and go to the supreme court, who is going to enforce the laws, because it seems like just what happen in new york last night, he has completely taken control of the justice department and the justice department is the one engage with enforcing the laws if someone breaks them, and how are we going to resolve that if he refuses to listen to the courts? guest: the courts have a number of means of taking care of this if necessary. no president has ever defied a court order there have been some presidents have failed to comply

because of incompetence in the courts have doubt that -- with that very severely at one point. executive agency wasn't allowed to use the email until it came into compliance. the justice department is now loyal to the president, as they should be since he is the president, but there are officers of the court sworn to uphold the law and i am confident they will honor the oath when the court orders, not against them. host: let's hear from dominique in germantown, maryland, independent. caller: my question is generally in regards to what are the legal ramifications and guardrails if he continues to decide to attack everybody and everything that goes against him as far as

judges are concerned and to the judicial check of power that is supposed to happen. and does and how might the ruling that came last year from the supreme court saying that he has immunity that are four things done while in office. are there legal ramifications that could possibly happen? could he do anything or ignore a ruling in any way that might trigger that because in normal circumstances there would be something he could get in trouble for and he has this freedom to do what he wants to do and act like a king. guest: throughout this country's history, we have never prosecuted a president for

things they have done in office. we came close with mr. nixon but president ford pardoned him and that ended the discussion. we have never seen criminal -- and with cap the government stable without it. i don't think the supreme court decisions last summer although i think it was bad the reason, it is not a factor in all of this. the question is whether the president is going to be ordered to comply with the law and if he is those orders will extend to the people working for him as well in the courts will i'm sure it not take action against mr. trump but actions against officials that defy court orders. host: on the injunctions put forth, mike lee, a senator from utah, republican said i am thinking about ways to hold the judicial insurrectionists accountable. perhaps we need a law providing that when someone seeks a

nationwide injunction against the government, it must go to a three-judge district court a direct appeal to the supreme court. what do you think? guest: i don't think that is a bad idea. i think getting this to the supreme court on major constitutional questions is a good idea. these are obviously important cases and the district makes a lot of sense. host: give us some history. guest: for a long time, we have three judge district courts for any challenge to the constitutionality of the law of the united states. if you filed that kind of case, it would go to a three court case and could appeal directly to the supreme court. there were too many of those cases so we cut it back and now it applies to only certain voting rights cases if you have a very specialized things. that will lead to the point that these are important cases and deserve more treatment. host: joseph, point pleasant

beach, new jersey, republican. caller: i have a couple things to say. i don't want to insult your best, but it is people like him from georgetown and that city where you are that think everybody else in the country is stupid. you are talking about people's rights being violated because they are looking for fraud and abuse and possibly criminal kickbacks. two years ago they were going to put the guy i voted for in jail for bookkeeping error. that was ok. they went through melania trump's closet for documents that he had every right to be because he was president after he left the white house and he was going to declassify them but that was ok. what elon musk is looking for our abuses and criminal kickbacks possibly. congress approved money to go to usaid but did not prove money going to people in guatemala.

host: i am going to jump in. your response to that caller. guest: i don't think it is useful to relitigate the trump legal matters that happened before. mr. musk does a huge business with the government and is not the right person to be looking for conflicts of interest because he has them himself. there are mechanisms in place and unfortunately president trump has fired 18 inspectors general whose job it to look for waste, fraud and abuse and have the expertise of the staff to do that. i am not persuaded this is a search for fraud because president trump is -- has disabled the best mechanism to get at it. host: we will leave munich secuy conference this morning. if you want to hear what he is saying you can go to c-span 2. joining us is stephen moore, the county -- the committee --

let's begin with the that happened on capitol hill. the house budget committee passed the budget, which is the framework for a reconciliation proposal, meaning a simple majority in the senate. they passed their version of it. it differs from the senate. compare the two. guest: thank you for having me on c-span. i love c-span and the job you do. this is going to be a long process. we are just getting started because congress has to pass both a budget in terms of how much they spend and all -- also accommodate the trump tax cut that he wants to make the trump tax cuts permanent. there is a big debate and i am sure a lot of your viewers have been following whether it would be one big beautiful bill like trump was talking about or two bills. that