court of appeals. this is all in response to president obama's comments about the supreme court being unelected and suggesting that they would be behaving as activists if they overturned his health care law. the deadline, 1 p.m. eastern. the minute we get it, we will bring it to you. in just the last hour, the fight between the president and the courts had the white house on the defensive yet again. here's press secretary jay carney. >> the president's a former constitutional law professor. one of his professors now says, in his words, the president, quote: obviously misspoke earlier this week. quote: he didn't say what he meant, and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it. i thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly he did not misspeak. what do you make of the president's former law professor saying he did? >> the premise of your question suggests that the president of

the united states in the comments he made monday did not believe that the supreme court could rule on the constitutionality of legislation which is a preposterous premise, and i know you don't believe that, so what i -- >> who knows a lot more about you or i than constitutional law -- >> what i accept and i think i acknowledged yesterday that in speaking on monday, the president was not clearly understood by some people. because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand. megyn: joining me now with more, greg jarrett in our new york newsroom, and i want to tell the viewers, gregg, as you bring us up to speed on the latest, i am just now getting the department of justice's response. actually, i've just opened it up. let's see. it does appear to be three pages, single-spaced, it is signed by eric holder, attorney general of the united states. it is addressed to the three-judge panel of the fifth circuit court of appeals in new orleans. i'm not going to go through this line by line, but let's just try

to get the gist together and we'll talk with you about it, gregg. questions to the response in the oral argument, keep in mind, this is a health care case, a case challenging parts of the president's health care law that has nothing to do with the supreme court hearing. it's an entirely different issue. they go on, hold on a second, let me just jump to the conclusion because that, that usually tells us the bottom line. he writes, the last line is the president's remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein. so they appear to be doubling down on what president obama said. they write: the longstanding historical position of the u.s. regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed and was accurately stated by counsel for the government in oral argument in this case a few days ago. remember, the fifth circuit judge said to the doj attorney to the effect of does your boss believe, does the department of justice believe that this court, federal appellate courts concern

including the supreme court -- have the right to review legislation, have the right to declare the constitutionality of legislation? she said, of course, yes, they do. which any lawyer in the country would agree with, and the president clearly misstated the facts when he suggested it wasn't the case, and that's why he came out the next day and clarified saying he doesn't mean to suggest they didn't. the department has not in this litigation nor in any other litigation of which i'm aware ever asked this or any other court to reconsider or limit that long-established precedent. well, of course it wasn't the department, it was the president of the united states who suggested otherwise. ba, ba, ba -- the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute. the supreme court resolved this question in marbury v. madison which is 1803. our viewers have been hearing that from tv pup kits for -- pundits for years now that, of course, the courts have the

final say on what is or is not constitutional. only the president ever suggested otherwise and then tried to take that back the next day. ba, ba, ba, ba -- presumptively constitutional. okay. now there's part two saying we also want to remind you that in considering challenges to legislation, acts of congress are, quote, presumptively constitutional, and they talk about the respect that the court needs to have for the legislature and for laws passed by them. it goes on from there. we'll review it more. don't want to read you the whole thing, but this is the essence. they're standing by the president saying his remarks were fully consistent and also making clear what most americans already knew which is that the courts do have the power to review and declare constitutional or unconstitutional laws passed by congress. gregg? >> reporter: well, it sounds like they're sort of saying, well, the president was kind of taken out of context because he was speaking in shorthand, but to be sure, meg, the president lit a legal powder keg when he appeared to claim that it would

be unprecedented and extraordinary for the unelected justices of the supreme court to strike down an act of congress which, of course, as you point out is the very function and duty of the high court. even the president's attorney general, eric holder, admitted that's not correct. take a listen. >> we, obviously, respect decisions that courts make under our system of government, and since marbury v. madison, i think it's back in 1803. courts have the final say. >> reporter: well, it was the famous marbury v. madison case that firmly established the right of judicial review by federal courts, especially the supreme court. something every law student learns. but the president might flunk con law now if you listen to his former law professor at harvard, liewrns tribe. tribe says his famous student, obviously, misspoke. quote: the president didn't say what he meant. i don't think anything was gained by making those comments,

and i don't think any harm was done except by public confusion. look, the public was confused, and maybe the president. the fifth circuit court of appeals was down right miffed, ordering the department of justice to submit that three-page document affirming the federal court's authority to strike down unconstitutional laws. indeed, the supreme court has done it more than 160 times. now, the white house continues including today to try to walk back the president's unprecedented remarks saying, well, he was just referring to cases involving the commerce clause, but when it was pointed out that those cases have also been overturned by the high court, recently in the morrison and lopez cases which, megyn, you pointed out, the white house then parsed it even more by saying those two cases did not involve major economic activity like health care. and so now we see even more parsing in this three-page document submitted moments ago to the fifth circuit court of appeals. megyn? megyn: just want to add a little

bit more for our viewers now having reviewed the whole letter. again, as i say, they make clear they believe the courts have the power of judicial review, they acknowledge it's been in existence for 200-plus years. then they say that power may only be exercised in appropriate cases, and the supreme court has recognized that. and then they go on to say, quote -- this is eric holder -- while duly recognizing the court's authority to engage in judicial review, the executive branch has often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of congress. these principles of deference are fully applicable when congress legislates in the commercial sphere. so, clearly, the attorney general is going on to sort of provide some talking points, some context for what president obama has been saying this week. not necessarily applicable in his litigation, but then he was forced to make comments in his litigation that he didn't expect to have to make in the wake of

president obama's remarks on monday. wow, what a morass. i hope you're following this. we apologize, because it's gotten to the point where the president commented, he commented again, his white house press secretary has had to comment repeatedly, now his attorney general has to comment in court because of what the president said initially, and i think the american public is well aware of one thing: the courts have the power to declare laws of congress unconstitutional. now everybody agrees. well, president obama's predecessor, president bush, had his own disagreements with the u.s. supreme court. but did he ever challenge the court before it ruled? and how did the bush team handle rulings that did not go their way? in our next hour, three members of the bush administration including dana perino and also some who worked in the doj will join us live to walk us through how they handled run-ins with the court. and later this hour we will get reaction and analysis of this doj report fresh off the presses and in my hands here already with my highlighting there our

constitutional scholars, jay sekulow and julian epstein. we will analyze what this means and whether this is a political or legal document coming up. while americans are struggling to keep up with rising gas prices, new figures show a startling jump in the cost of food, making it difficult for many to afford what they need to feed their families. take a look at this. chicken is up 3.6% from last year. potatoes up just over 10%. ground beef up nearly 11%, and cheese is up more than 14%. peanut butter now costs 36.6% more than it did last year. why? stuart varney is the anchor of "varney & company" on the fox business network. why, stu? >> two reasons. number one, diesel has gone straight through the roof. the average price around the country is $4.16 a gallon. truckers use diesel, so they add the cost of diesel onto their distribution costs for food and groceries around the country.

farmers use diesel in their tractors. that makes growing the food more expensive. reason number two, the u.s. dollar is down. when the dollar goes down, up goes the cost of basic food stuffs like wheat, like soybeans, like corn and, of course, like oil. that's what happens. dollar down, basic commodities go up. and, megyn, i have to tell you that this drives people crazy. the government says the official inflation rate 2.9% over the past year. try telling that to a consumer who's just spent $100 filling up their gas tank and $7 on, say, a small piece of cheese. it doesn't wash. they don't believe the figures. megyn: how significant are those percentages? >> oh, that's huge. that is a very significant percentage. and you're talking about the kind of food items that all of us buy very, very frequently, if not every single day. so, yes, it's taking up an increasingly large share of people's spending power when you combine gas and food together, a

very large share. and one of the results of that is we are saving less money. we're still spending the same amount, but more of it on food and gas and, therefore, saving a whole lot less. megyn: those are real, real pocketbook issues that americans can feel and understand. >> they are. megyn: stu, thank you. well, president obama getting a glowing introduction at a luncheon two days ago, and the high praise did not come from a fundraiser, but from the head of the associated press, the widest-reaching news service in the country. media bias? we'll have a fair and balanced debate. and a big employer has a message for the overweight: lose that spare tire or find a job somewhere else. the unusual policy at one hospital just ahead. and god bless the usa may be one of the best-known songs celebrating our country, so why did one elementary school try to change the words and then ban it from the program altogether? is don't go away. ♪ and i'd gladly stand up next

to you and defend her still today. ♪ 'cuz there ain't no doubt i love this land, god bless the usa ♪

megyn: well, some comments at a big media event two days ago now raising new questions about the mainstream media and president obama. the comments were delivered by dean singleton, chairman of the board at the associated press, the most widely distributed news service in this country. here is his welcome in part to the president at a gathering of the american society of newspaper editors. >> as president he inherited the headwinds of the worst economic recession since the great depression. he pushed through congress the

biggest economic recovery plan in history and led a government reorganization of two of the big three auto manufacturers to save them from oblivion. he pursued domestic and foreign policy agendas that were controversial to many highlighted by his signature into law of the most comprehensive health care legislation in history. megyn: joining me now, alan colmes -- >> where is he wrong? megyn: and mike gallagher, syndicated radio host and a fox news contributor. >> and he's handsome and powerful, and he wears a pretty tie. >> you're jealous because you want him to say that about you. >> well, he never will. megyn: news busters was comparing that to the marilyn monroe -- ♪ mr. president. >> it's a liberal-bashing web site. megyn: are they wrong? let me start with you, alan, did

you detect any bias in there? [laughter] >> i understand when we are reality-based and we are the reality-based community, i know that upsets you, but i don't see what he said that was wrong. look, he's entitled to have an opinion. [laughter] this is a narrative being set up to say you see the media loves obama, hates the republicans, hates mitt romney -- >> true. megyn: well, bill o'reilly was suggesting that last night. >> mitt romney ought to really worry about getting republicans to like him, never mind getting the media to like him. megyn: this is a very powerful organization, the ap. we cite their or reports a lot, their content appears in tens of thousands of newspapers and web sites around the world, and that's the guy heading it up. >> that's the problem. they're the definitive news voice in america that everybody cites. alan, come on, he can't even pretend to be objective. liberals drop a pretense of fairness when they do things like this and, of course, it's not just a narrative, this is what romney and republicans are up against. >> poor romney. >> listen, brent bozell the oh

night on -- the other night on fox news, he called the trayvon martin judicial malpractice. megyn: he inherited the headwinds of the worst economic recession, and he goes on to say he pushed through congress the biggest economic recovery plan in history. >> yeah. big, all right. megyn: and goes on to praise the -- >> look -- megyn: does that sound like an objective journalist? >> yes, because it was true. >> it does? >> he's allowed to have an opinion. the issue is, is the product he puts out biased? that's really the issue. >> but he's setting the tone -- megyn: but he hits on an interesting point because all journalists probably have political views. >> of course they do. megyn: they're not required to not have political views, they're not required to not vote on voting day, on election day. but it is extraordinary to see one stand up like that and introduce the president with

such characterizations of controversial matters. >> it'd be nice to have a pretense of fairness. and these guys, listen, alan, the supreme court at an address before congress, the supreme court never claps for the president. they are feigning neutrality -- megyn: nor do journalists clap. >> i've never seen journalists clap. >> do they feign neutrality when the supreme court members don't actually even attend the state of the union address? how that's that -- how's that for neutrality? >> why is it hard for the head of the ap to give a neutral -- megyn: alan, by the same token -- it may be extraordinary to hear the guy describing very controversial things in this way, but as you point out, does that make him unfair? you can be the most biased to the right or to the left guy or gal in the world as long as your news product -- >> i'm guessing that everybody in every news organization, including this one, probably has people who have opinions, and whether -- the question is whether or not those opinions

infiltrate into the product that gets put out. >> you're being obtuse. he's obtuse because everybody want toss please the boss. -- wants to please the boss. you've got scores of reporters who are accountable to this guy. don't think they're not hearing him say, ooh, listen to our guy. let's -- >> is fox news biased because some bosses may think a certain way? >> i don't -- i think everybody has a bias, but at least fox news journalists aren't going to fawn, reporters and news anchors aren't going to -- megyn: but listen, it raises an interesting point about whether, you know, we see it on the sunday talk shows, journalists go out and offer opinions. and is it, do you have to say i have no opinions -- >> yes. >> megyn: -- in order to be the head of the ap? >> i disagree. bosses have opinions, our bosses have opinions. you look at the product, and you judge it by the product. >> do you hear your boss' opinions? i don't. i suspect they have -- >> of course, nobody's neutral. >> but they don't stand from front of a -- in front of a

podium and express those publicly for all the world to hear. >> the issue is what the product is. if you can detect bias in the ap, that is the -- megyn: the product speaks for itself, and then the viewers or the readers get to decide. >> influenced by the boss. megyn: all right, guys. thank you both so much. very interesting. well, you expect potential employers to take a close look at your resumé, but what about your waistline? the growing controversy surrounding one employer reportedly ready to reject applicants based on their weight. did the mcdonald's employee who says she will not share her jackpot with her coworkers ever even have the winning ticket? we heard a bit from her lawyer yesterday, now we're awaiting a news conference from maryland's lottery director. >> i cannot say with any certainty that this ticket exists, and i would caution anybody until it's presented to the lottery commissioner for processing that it does exist. [ barking ] i'm your dog,

holding down the fort while you're out catching a movie. [ growls ] lucky for me, your friends showed up with this awesome bone. hey! you guys are great. and if you got your home insurae where you got your cut rate car insurance, it might not replace all this. [ electricity crackling ] [ gasping ] so get allstate. you could save money and be better protected from mayhem like me. [ dennis ] dollar for dollar, nobody protects you from mayhem like allstate.

megyn: the act to mom is back in the news, the mother of 14 is now collecting welfare in order to help raise her children. it is a cruel twist for a woman who vowed last year she would never do such a thing. she is getting $2,000 a month from the state of california, tmz getting its hands on her welfare card. he qualified because her income is less than $119,000 a year. they base that on an average of just under $8,000 for each member of the household when they're determining whether you qualify. she insists the welfare is temporary. well, if you want to work for the citizens medical center in texas, you may want to hit

the gym first. the hospital's getting national attention after reportedly instituting a hiring policy that excludes overweight candidates. ha means -- that means if an applicant does not fit the mold, they can lose out on a job they are otherwise qualified for. trace gallagher has more. >> reporter: but the good news, megyn, is if you get the job, you can get as fat as you want to because they're not going to fire you. this is only for potential employees what the hospital is saying if your bmi is above 35, that you can't be hired. that means if you're 5-10, weigh 245 pounds, you don't stand a chance which means this guy does not stand a chance because he shouldn't even apply, he's 5-9, 245 pounds. bmi can be a little misleading. the hospital says, and i'm quoting: an employee's physique should fit with a representational image or specific mental projection of the job of a health care

professional. who knew that being fat was distracting? now, employment lawyers say this is not illegal, in fact, only michigan and a handful of cities actually ban discriminating against fat people. but other lawyers say that, look, a disability is protected and some courts have ruled that obesity is a disability, so the medical center could, in fact, face some legal problems, but that wouldn't be anything new to the citizens medical center because three indian doctors are suing them, they're cardiologists, for discrimination because the ceo of that hospital sent this memo saying, quote: i feel a sense of disgust but am more concerned with what this means to the future of the hospital as more of our middle eastern-born physicians demand leadership roles. it will change the entire complexion of the hospital and create a level of fear among employees. do you really want to work here anyway? we should note that if you do apply for a job there and your bmi is above 35, that they'll

help you lose weight to actually get the job. so there is that, megyn. megyn: where does it stop? then they can test all the doctors and nurses and technicians to make sure they don't smoke cigarettes and then to make sure they don't drink too much alcohol and to make sure even if they're thin, they have healthy diets. if they're supposed to be setting such nondistracting a examples for us, how far could they go? >> reporter: right, exactly. megyn: sounds like a case for kelly's courts. well, some democratic lawmakers and liberal groups have launch add boycott against some of america's biggest companies claiming they're providing financial support to a group that promotes voter id laws. one major company has already folded. we'll speak live to the people really being targeted by this. plus -- ♪ to be living here today because the flag still stands for freedom, and they can't take that away -- [cheers and applause]

megyn: it is one of the most popular appeals to patriotism in the american songbook, but a school sees fit to remove "god" from the lee greenwood hit, "god bless the usa." the controversy and reaction from the parents today. and we just got big, new developments in the showdown between some federal judges and the white house over the power of the federal courts. two constitutional scholars three minutes away on the doj response. >> you're quoted about the president saying monday a strong majority of the democratically-elected congress, as you know, the house passed the health care bill 219-212 -- >> [inaudible] here we go with the facts, imagine that. [laughter] >> it was not a strong majority. the republicans just pushed through the ryan budget with republican votes. you guys would not call that a strong majority, would you? [ female announcer ] philadelphia cooking creme.

a simple way to make dinner fresh and new again. just stir it in. now it only takes a moment to make the moment. ♪ spread a little joy and see ♪ need a little happiness to be ♪ ♪ living the life

megyn: new trouble for the federal agency accused of spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on a lavish vegas bash. following the resignation of the general services administration chief, martha johnson, we're also learning that xsa -- gsa also spent $250,000 on a workplace incentive program at taxpayer dole. mitt romney campaigning today in pennsylvania speaking as the republican nominee in waiting saying that winning rick santorum's home state in

november will win him the white house. what he says. well, japan's nuke plant leaking tons of radioactive water again. the company that runs the plant says they were eventually able to stop the water leaking into the ocean from are a purification unit. fox news alert, earlier this hour the justice department did as ordered, produced its written response to the fifth circuit court of appeals and its request that the doj explain the obama administration's position when it comes to judiciary powers. the letter is, as directed, three pages, single-spaced. it is signed by the attorney general himself, eric holder. it reads. at no point has the government suggested that the court lacks the authority to review legislation. that's not a direct quote, the direct quote says the department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which i'm aware ever asked this or any other court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent

concerning judicial review of federal legislation. it cites a number of cases as precedent, and it ends with, quote, the president's remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein. joining me now to discuss it, julian epstein, former legal counsel to the house judiciary committee and a democratic consultant who has worked on several high-profile campaigns and jay sekulow, chief counsel to the american center for law and justice, and he has argued several cases before the high court. jay, is this what you expected? >> yes. the department of justice complied with the demand of the fifth circuit court of appeals for a postargument brief dealing with the authority of the court to strike down an act of congress. the attorney general wisely said that, of course, congress has that right and tried to cover the president at the same time by basically saying the president's statements were consistent with that. you heard that from eric holder yesterday. what the reality is here, megyn, this was a self-induced error by the obama administration, and i think when you see the presidential campaign unfolding

between mitt romney which is apparently the nominee now and barack obama, the supreme court is now front and center because the president basically laid down this gauntlet of a challenge on monday, and here we are on thursday still dealing with the fallout from it including a letter brief. so in layman's terms, the department of justice is trying to cover their client, their client's the president, but they're saying, yes, marbury v. madison still applies and acts of congress signed by the president that are laws can be declared unconstitutional which, gee, is exactly what our founding fathers intended. megyn: i think everyone here realizes the president started an argument that he didn't mean to start on monday, what he said on monday was not constitutionally sound. it's clear the courts do have the ability to review legislation, but he tried to clarify the next day julian by saying, look, of course they do, but i'm talking about how unprecedented it would be in the economic sphere. and he suggests that it's been 70, 80 years since they have

overturned a law enacted by congress that attempts to regulate commerce in particular. first, what i really want to ask you, julian, is, is that relevant? because even if it's been 70 or 80 years, if health care law's unconstitutional, then this'll be the next time. >> well, there's a lot that you packed in there. let me try to unpack it. first, remember, this was in the middle of a press conference with leaders of foreign states x this was kind of an off-the-cuff question. and i think what the president said, certainly what he intended, what the justice department clarified is nobody questions judicial review to review this. what the president is questioning is how you can square the argument that the health care reform does not effect commerce given all decisions? i think that was the point the president was making, and he was saying if court now says this doesn't impact interstate commerce, that would be a departure from decades and decades of precedent. and he's not the only person to

say that. you have very esteemed republican scholars are saying this is not even a close call. so he is not the only one, and his view is joined by many very revered conservative scholars on this. megyn: but it's also been criticized by many conservative scholars. [inaudible conversations] megyn: but the point is, i mean, he's going to get criticized and supported as any president, any law will. the president i'm asking you, jay, does it matter if court -- and i think all of us also agree the courts are and should be deferential to the congress when it comes to passing law. they are required to do that, jay. but does that mean they need to do it here? >> of course. there's a presumption of constitutionality in a sense but, look, the court has declared acts of congress unconstitutional. and president obama's own law professor, lawrence tribe -- not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, but someone that's well respected especially at the supreme court, he's done a lot of cases there -- said the

president was wrong bringing this up. and julian's trying to argue the merits of the case. that was last week's news. this week's news is the fact that the president compounded the error of last week's lousy oral arguments. now, that doesn't mean -- we still don't know how the case is going to come out, but the solicitor general clearly had a rough time. the issue we're dealing with right now is should the president of the united states while a case is pending before the court start lecturing the court about how unelected judges making these decisions and this would be an act of judicial activism which is the exact opposite definition? judicial activism is when the court creates a right out of nothing. in a situation like this, the court does exactly what it's supposed to do. if they determine it's constitutional, they have the right to do that. they determine it's unconstitutional, they have the right to do that. last thing on this point, it seems to me that a lot on the left, not julian, but a lot of people on the left are saying if court agrees with me, it's fine, but if they disagree with me, they're judicial activists, and that's not the way the court is

set up. >> let me respond to that, if i can. megyn: go ahead. >> first of all, again, the president's

. >> but remember also when obama referred to -- >> [inaudible] >> well, okay. i think that's a quibble, but fair point, jay. i think, also, when obama referred to unelected justices, he was saying -- judges, he was saying that for years conservatives have rallied against unelected judges. he was paraphrase what he interpreted conservatives to be saying for many years. [inaudible conversations] megyn: i gotta leave -- >> it's not a -- megyn: i gotta go, but there is a difference, and it's good to have the liberal and conservative lawyers, there's a difference in how the two sides define liberal activism. jay's side defines judicial activism as judges who invent laws on the bench. the right thinks roe v. wade was judicial activism. finding a right to abortion in the constitution when it's not explicitly in there. the left thinks judicial activism is striking down laws passed by a

democratically-elected congress, so you've got a real difference in definition there, and the president used the liberal definition. >> i disagree with that, and if you've got a second, i'll tell you why. megyn: i don't. >> okay, next show. megyn: thanks, guys. [laughter] you know, that's not just me, that's something we heard a lot during the supreme court confirmation hearings, but it's an interesting debate, right? taking your thoughts on it, follow me on twitter @megyn kelly or e-mail me at kelly@foxnews.com. president obama has done a lot of clarifying. what if president george bush had criticized the court before it made decisions on a case? did president bush do the same thing? or did he handle court controversies differently? we will speak with three former members of the bush administration and ask them those questions in just a bit. and a woman loses her beloved pet, but when she posts signs around the town like any good pet parent would do, she's

told you better take those down or else. >> they're not just a dog, they're part of your family. with placing these signs i'm hoping, just hoping, that somebody will know something about my dog, will have seen her, knows somebody who has her. [ male announcer ] drinking a smoothie with no vegetable nutrition? ♪ [ gong ] strawberry banana! [ male announcer ] for a smoothie with real fruit plus veggie nutrition new v8 v-fusion smoothie. could've had a v8. arrival. with hertz gold plus rewards, you skip the counters, the lines, and the paperwork. zap. it's our fastest and easiest way to get you into your car. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz.

♪ proud to be an american where at least i know i'm free, and i won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me. ♪ and i'd gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today. ♪ 'cuz there ain't no doubt i love this land, god bless the usa ♪ [cheers and applause] megyn: well, we have a god bless

the usa alert for you now. a massachusetts elementary school touched off a firestorm when students were asked to sing we love the usa instead of "god bless the usa" at an upcoming school concert. when the parents start today complain, the school pulled the song from the show altogether. but moments ago this musical drama took a dramatic new twist. drum roll, please, as we get the update from radio talk show host michael graham of boston's wtkkk 96.9. michael, now what? >> it's amazing. the message yesterday was it's absolutely unacceptable for the children to sing you know who at this concert. but suddenly the superintendent has announced it's absolutely fine to present the song, he never meant it to be disrespectful by pulling all the music, and here's what he's going to do, megyn. the kids themselves, the fourth graders, can choose whether or not they want to say the words

"god" and "bless" when they sing the song, that's their solution. megyn: did somebody come to them and complain that children were going to go and say the words that our president says every time he signs off on a speech? did somebody call and say we object to our children saying "god bless the usa"? >> that's the most disturbing part of this, it's precensorship. no one complained. on my show yesterday afternoon when the story broke, we had people calling in from billing ham, no one could find anybody who was bothered by the song. it appears, and the superintendent says, quote: political correctness is certainly a k, and i think what we have happening is that people, they censor themselves in advance of giving offense. they won't even give me a chance to be offended, they just go ahead and stop the activity, take away the fun, insult everybody and go home before anyone has a chance to get

offended. megyn: so now the compromise after the outrage over this is not -- first they said, forget it, we're not singing that song -- >> in fact, they said no songs. megyn: first they went to the kids and said sing we love the usa, don't sing god bless the usa. then parents and others got upset, then they said, forget it, we're dumping that song. now they say, okay, you can sing the song, but we're going to alert all the fourth graders, so the little 8 and 9-year-olds who are wrestling with i don't feel comfortable, god bless the usa, how can i let those words come out of my mouth, they've gone pa to the superintendent's statement and said you will be allowed to sing or not sing. >> exactly. megyn: those really difficult words. >> look, i have a third grade daughter, and it would never occur to her to be bothered or not bothered by singing god bless the usa. t not because of some burning faith, it's because, hey, it's a song, and i've heard it before. i was a music major in college, i vebt to a evangelical song in

college where we sang a song by a jewish composer to be performed at a jewish ceremony, and we were invited to sing, and of course we sang it. it was someone else's faith, but it's part of singing. people learn music across faith and cultural traditions. the problem is the people who are paranoid about political correctness somehow think if i say the words, that i'm affirming them, or i'm going to switch my religion or start campaigning for rick santorum or something. i don't get this paranoia. megyn: well, i think children of atheists and otherwise are usually told by their parents you can sing or not sing if you get to a word you don't believe in, you can do it or not do it, others who make these challenges. but it's interesting the initial response was no one's going to sing those words period. >> and it's interesting they couldn't find anyone who was upset in the first place. they live on a hair trigger up here. we had a school near billingham who had o' green day instead of

st. patrick's day. megyn: some lawmakers have launched a boycott against some of america's biggest companies claiming they are providing financial support to a group that wants voter id laws. [ kate ] most women may not be properly absorbing the calcium they take because they don't take it with food. switch to citracal maximum plus d. it's the only calcium supplement that can be taken with or without food. that's why my doctor recommends citracal maximum. it's all about absorption.

megyn: well, losing a pet is every owner's worst nightmare. one distraught ohio woman covered her neighborhood with signs searching for her lost, missing pup. that is until city hall said take those down or pay a fine! trace gallagher has or more. trace? >> reporter: it's funny, because if you go on to the international canine web site, they specialize for searching for dogs and humans, the first tip they give is plaster signs all over your town, right? so judy gardner lost her dog

back in the december, and the first thing she did was went and plastered signs all over town. here she is, listen. >> they're not just a dog, they're part of your family. with placing these signs, i'm hoping, just hoping, that somebody will know something about my dog, will have seen her, knows somebody who has her. >> reporter: now, judy claims that she did file for a permit from the city. the city says that she didn't, but it doesn't matter because the city says she needs a permit for each and every sign she puts up. why? well, because the signs are considered promotion alter. here's the city engineer. listen. >> found signs, you know, right next to the curb of a street, at intersections. actually, some of them were mounted sort of on stop signs which is, which is against the regulations here. >> reporter: so because they were against the regulations, they went and they took a lot of the signs down. some of the signs did stay, but

judy says without those signs she's not getting nearly as many sightings of flower as she did before. that, by the way, is her with a different dog that looks like flower. here's judy again. >> when something that is living is gone, either a person or an animal, you just don't think about stuff like that. and to go down and do paperwork for each sign was something that i didn't even fathom. i certainly don't want to break the law, but i'm desperate to find my dog. >> reporter: so here we are four months later, and the dog is still missing, and the city and judy are trying to come to terms to get those signs put back up. megyn: poor judy and poor flower and, you know what? before the show is every -- over, i'm putting flower's face on this screen for free, and i'm not going to charge judy a dime! >> reporter: good for you, megyn kelly. megyn: that's a different dog, don't show that dog, people are going to get confused. [laughter] thanks, trace.

coming up, we're waiting to hear from the maryland lottery about the $100 million mega millions ticket, we don't know who holds the winning ticket. was it this woman? is her lawyer doesn't seem to think so. stay with us. if you're one of those folks who gets heartburn and then treats day after day... well, shoot, that's like checking on your burgers after they're burnt! [ male announcer ] treat your frequent heartburn by blocking the acid with prilosec otc. and don't get heartburn in the first place! [ male announcer ] one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. 8% every 10 years.age 40, we can start losing muscle -- wow. wow. but you can help fight muscle loss with exercise and ensure muscle health. i've got revigor. what's revigor? it's the amino acid metabolite, hmb

to help rebuild muscle and strength naturally lost over time. [ female announcer ] ensure muscle health has revigor and protein to help protect, preserve, and promote muscle health. keeps you from getting soft. [ major nutrition ] ensure. nutrition in charge! that's going to have to be done by a certain date. you always have homework, okay? i don't have homework today. it's what's right here is what is most important to me. it's beautiful. ♪ ♪

megyn: a fox news alert from washington. the white house trying to defend the president's controversial comments monday about the supreme court's consideration of the healthcare law as the justices weigh that law. welcome, i'm megyn kelly. the political fallout continues as white house spokesman jay carney used a big chunk of his briefing to explain yet again the president's controversial remarks on the supreme court. >> the premise of your question suggestions that the president of the united states in the comment he made monday did not

believe that the supreme court could rule on the constitutionality of legislation which is a preposterous premise and i know you don't believe that. what i accept and way think i acknowledged yesterday is in speaking monday. the president was not clearly understood by some people. he is a law professor. he spoke in shorthand. megyn: chris tires walt is with us. chris, where does this stand for this administration. here it is thursday and it's still dominating the news cycle. >> you heard jay carney talking about the president teaching law at the university of chicago. it goes on and on. here is what it amounts to. wasted time. it of the wasted time for the president.

the story continues to be big because they underappreciated the significance of having a president do that. from a political perspective it's just wasted time. he's not talking about what he wants to be talking about which is attacking mitt romney. he can't do that because he's still trying to crawfish his way out of his error he made monday. megyn: i would guess that the people who like president obama don't think he did anything wrong. the people who don't like him don't like what he did. and the people who are in the middle are watching with open minds trying to decide whether this was appropriate or inappropriate. hugh does this wind up work for him. >> not everybody who supports the president thinks this was okay. and that's why they are in this position. that's why they are in a defensive crouch on this. some folks on the left have said

it's fine and good to argue your position. but it's not good if the executive is seen as taking a heavy hand with the judiciary, the weakest of the three branches. the president should have been more careful. so that forced them into this cycle they are in and having trouble getting out of. last week it was hot mic with medvedev about flexibility after the election. this week has largely been given over to the president doing this. these are unforced errors. these are things he didn't need to do, and he's burning up valuable moments as the republican team is getting together after a long and bloody battle. megyn: one of the questions is why this has spun so out of control. sometimes legal stories have a great interest, sometimes not so much. but this one seems to be resonating with some people. i don't know why it is.

but i looked at the numbers from rasmussen and it showed 72 per of those asked had at least an opinion that the supreme court behaved in a fair way. vast majority suggested fair. and 72% said fair, good or excellent. is this the body -- is this the body you want to pick a fight with? >> no, and i think you just nailed it. the supreme court still has the most -- it is still held in the most esteem. but then there is this other problem. this is an issue people care have much about. this is the case of the century because it has see much to do with the way the federal government functions. for the president to weigh in on this and do it in this fashion catches a couple waves of public

interest. megyn: is there a responsibility to bring the country together to say no matter what the ruling is, we are bound to go about it rule of law and i'll say in advance of that decision that i respect this court and i'll respect its decision either way and i urge americans to do the same. >> he's involved in a reelection campaign predicated on being a populist lawyer. he wants to look tough. he may have gone the carried away and gotten himself into trouble. it's hard for the president who ran in 2008 as a uniter to adopt this new footing of this more belligerent like a brawler. it's tough for him. megyn: chris stirewalt, thank you, sir.

got an alert on the mega millions mystery. did you buy a ticket? maybe you are the winner. we are still waiting to hear from the maryland lottie director -- lottery director about the ticket that that was sold. we don't know who hold the ticket it's worth $100 million after taxes. after you pay out everything you will get $100 million. all we know is this woman is a mcdonald employee. she claims that she bought it. but she says she hid it. somewhere at the mcdonald where she worked. but she won't tell us where. no one has seen the ticket. the mcdonald boss says it's impossible because she never returned to mcdonald after she bought the ticket. not even her lawyer, the man you see here with her says he snows she bought it.

thanks a lot for that, counsel. he is going to join us live. he agreed to talk to me. that ought to be interesting with, in 30 minutes. if you had to decide between your finance or values, which would it be. that the question people in hermosa beach, california will have to answer at the voting booth. this environmentally sensitive coastal community must either support a new oil drilling plan that will enrich it or risk going broke. that put a lot of people in a tough position. william lajeunesse live in hermosa beach. >> reporter: this is one of the nation's largest sources of oil off the pacific. yet there has been no new well in southern california in almost three decades. hermosa beach where gas prices

are $4.40 a gallon. they can change that but to do it they have to get in bed with an oil company. 2 square miles of sun and sand. if there is controversy in paradise, do residents vote their environmental conscience and go broke or approve oil drilling on city land and get rich. >> this is an opportunity for $400 million. >> sheer greed that this situation ever started. >> reporter: 15 years ago officials agreed to permit drilling from government land but breached the contract. approved drilling in the city gets 15% and the school district earns 20 cents own every barrel pulled. or turn turn it down and pay $57 million in damages. >> it will provide badly needed funding for the school district. >> we should put an oil derrick

and bottle of vodka because that's what you will need. >> reporter: this well is unique. built on land the pipeline would siphon oil from under the pacific without ever touching water. >> i would be for it because it's on land and going underneath. it seems that would be easier and not having the eyesore. >> reporter: most people don't want to see an isle rig from the beach. and the risk of a spill would be real. but this well will be drilled five blocks inland. so it' not even near the water. so they can access the oil with virtually none of the risk. and it worth $300 million to $400 million to the city. it would be a big vote because it goes against their conscience but it's good for the pocketbook. megyn: big fallout for the

biggest names in corporate america thanks to their ties to a leading organization that's backing voter i.d. laws. wait until you hear what just happened to koch and what happening to walmart. in three minutes the organization they supported responds. courage in the face tragedy. an 80-year-old woman without a pilot's license forced to fly her husband's plane after he suffers a heart attack. president obama taking heat more making comments about the supreme court. some suggest they were meant to be intimidating. what if president bush made these comments. it's not necessarily what you say but where and saw you say the. >> ultimately i'm confident the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented

extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a dem gottically elected congress. [ male announcer ] if you think tylenol is the pain reliever orthopedic doctors recommend most for arthritis pain, think again. and take aleve. it's the one doctors recommend most for arthritis pain. two pills can last all day. ♪

megyn: we are expecting the president to come out and seen it jobs act. a package of jobs, bills aimed at helping small businesses and startups raise money. the house passed this with a 390-23 vote. the president praising the show of bipartisan support. when he starts the event we'll show it to you live in just a bit. the latest fallout over the push for voter i.d. laws. there is strong support for them but there is also fervent

opposition. two of the biggest names in corporal america found that out the hard way. democrats hammering coca-cola and walmart to their ties to the legislative exchange council. it's one of the organizations facing voter i.d. laws. they are facing coca-cola and walmart facing the boycotts. coca-cola decided to cut ties with the group. so far walmart standing firm. the communications director for the council. kaitlyn, thank you very much for being here. coke has bailed in response to the pressure these gripes. walmart not yet anyway. what do you make of the threats of boycott? >> the entire debate needs to be

reframed. it's a bipartisan association of state legislation towards coming together to talk about the most critical issues facing the states, including things like voter i.d. we have all different kinds of people coming together trying come up with the best solutions. megyn: your point is it's not a partisan legislation. but to get the things you want enacted you have to get the word out and you get that from donors and walmart. but now no longer coca-cola, some groups have organized to not fund you because they don't like your push for voter i.d. laws. what do you think of that? >> members from the private sector don't necessarily agree with all the policies alec has. they are interested in policies that are decreasing tax burdens,

increasing jobs and economic growth. they are not necessarily going to agree with every policy alec promotes. but our membership has increased the past couple years. megyn: that's what walmart said. they said we don't necessarily agree with every position the entities we give money to support but we are not going to bail on this group. but the group going you have a and your supporters said many leading corporations have left your organization and i quote as it moves to the extreme right. your response. >> that's factually inaccurate and that would be my response to that. the legislators that are part of alec are united over common principles of free enterprise, limited government and federalism. i think those are principles most of america agrees with. voter i.d. in particular was just passed in rhode island in a

democratically controlled legislature and it's supported by a majority of democrats and americans. megyn: they said by funding alec coca-cola is supporting an effort to dis10 franchise african-americans. an advertiser * who was pressures for supporting rush limbaugh. >> they called the women in our company. they told me tens of thousands of emails, most of them positive. they toilsd we are under surveillance. the email subject line says it season of the internet, your business is going to be destroyed. your people are in trouble. this is terrorism. why don't you call it what it is. you don't have to commit an act

of blood shed. you have to invoke a sense of fear. megyn: to your knowledge have any of the contributors to your organization experienced any of those tactics? >> i think in general this is not about -- this is trying to be about politics but necessity since's not. it's a difference in philosophy. alec's philosophy differs many, many in america and reexpect that. but in the end it won't detract us from our mission of limited government and free enterprise. megyn: so far coca-cola, they are out of there. coming up, a closer look president obama's comments on the healthcare law. his predecessor faced a number of dust-ups. he had major defeats before that body. our panel joins us live to

examine how president george bush handled those setbacks. plus we go inside the cockpit as a mid-air tragedy forces an 80-year-old woman without a pilot's license to take control of the plane. >> we'll give you instructions. >> somebody better get here in a hurry. wake up! that's good morning, veggie style. hmmm. fohalf the calories plus vgie nutrition. could've had a v8.

megyn: newly released audio recordings of taken 80-year-old's crisis in a cockpit. she was in the air, as the gas tank emptied and the engine

sputtered. she was forced to land this plane after her husband suffered a fatal heart attack. now we are hearing the recordings between collins and the team trying to help her land this plane safely. this is unbelievable. >> reporter: they were six miles away from the airport when john collins slumped over the controls. helen collins got behind the controls and called air traffic control. listen. >> okay, helen, is john in the cockpit in the left seat and is his shoulder harness on? >> no, it is not. he took it off when this was happening. >> reporter: she reached down and grabbed his head and she knew at that point in time he was gone. but she is up there 2,500 feet and she says, i'm in a hell of a position.

>> i think i'll run out of fuel on my right tank. >> you should climb a bit. >> somebody better get here in a hurry. i'm coming in too fast. >> go back up. i'm going to be airborne in five minutes. not a big pitch. just a little pitch. leave the gear down. >> reporter: go back up, he says. look at the video. this is her trying to come in. clearly she is too high. she is coming in too fast. she tries to land the first time, you will see she goes back up in the air. keep in mind she is almost out of gas, she hits, goes back up and has to do it all over again. here is the pilot trying to coach her. >> don't dive for the runway. there you go. power off. power off.

power off. nose up. okay, you are down. great job, helen. great job. >> reporter: power off. nose up. the landing gear did break because she hit pretty hard. but she got that thing down. she had no idea how to fly a twin engine plane. her husband did pass away from that heart attack. she suffered minor injuries. megyn: had she ever flown any sort of plane before? >> reporter: she had flown 30 years ago. but she hadn't flown in 30 years and never land a plane. megyn: he taught her and it wound up saving her life. wow. amazing. a great job not just by helen but by those air traffic controllers as well. trace, thank you. wow. president obama's controversial remarks on the u.s. supreme

court prompting explanations and clarifications. what if president george w. bush had don't same thing? next, how the former president handled his own battles with the supreme court. the mcdonald's mess at mickey d's. what the lottery director such said about this alleged winner. >> until someone walks through our doors with the winning ticket in their hand and we can validate that the ticket is the actual winning jackpot ticket we'll continue to wait for that person to come. we can start losing muscle -- 8% every 10 years. wow. wow. but you can help fight muscle loss with exercise and ensure muscle health. i've got revigor. what's revigor? it's the amino acid metabolite, hmb to help rebuild muscle and strength naturally lost over time. [ female announcer ] ensure muscle health has revigor and protein to help protect, preserve, and promote muscle health.

keeps you from getting soft. [ major nutrition ] ensure. nutrition in charge!

departure. hertz gold plus rewards also offers ereturn-- our fastest way to return your car. just note your mileage and zap ! you're outta there ! we'll e-mail your receipt in a flash, too. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz.

megyn: new questions sounding president's showdown with the supreme court. here are the original comments. >> ultimately i'm confident the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. i just remind conservative commentators that for years what we heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial

activism or a lack of judicial restraint. that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constitute and passed law. well, this is a good example. i'm pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step. megyn: those comments spark an uproar from critics and prompting others to wonder how his predecessor, george w. bush handled the court. dana perino, president bush's former press secretary and bill mcgern, the president's former speech writer. john, the lawyer, via satellite from d.c. we have the communications

person. we have the speech writer, two people who had to deal with the communications on bad cases, then the lawyer who had to argue before the supreme court and contribute to the legal theories that the bush administration was offering. it's being suggested by the left, that -- he was just out there, he was asked, he wasn't expecting this question an made some off-the-cuff comments and used a shorthand to say something other than what he really meant. your thoughts on that. >> the media making executions for president obama once again is pathetic because of course they anticipated the question. if they didn't, everybody in the white house should be fired. they weren't going to ask about whatever they just talked about with the mexican president and the canadian prime minister. they wanted to know. megyn: if you are preparing for

that. would they do a pepper drill? >> i would assume so. look, i would imagine the a.p. is going to ask you this. let's run through what you are going to say. when he says unpress don't and extraordinary, i guarantee that was a practiced answer. so when lawrence tried the harvard law professor comes out and says the president didn't mean that. that's not true. he did might and they got it wrong. the firestorm is getting worse. because when they try to correct it they cause more problems for themselves. megyn: bill, i want to ask you, president bush suffered big defeats at the u.s. supreme court, in particular when it came to his policies on the war on terror. what was his approach in dealing with some of those that were publicly embarrassing. >> the founders anticipated there would be disputes between the president, congress and courts. and you can have a substantive

dispute. but you don't question their legitimacy and you don't do it before a decision. we never did that. the president would say we are going to do the right thing. we'll let the court decide and we'll adapt depending on what they say. this is different. it follows the state of the union snipe at the court where you have these guys sitting as hostages. it's' very ungracious. megyn: some of president obama's defenders said president bush did speak about unelected judges and he did offer criticisms of the some of the high court rulings. we chose one example where he was talking about a ruling on the clean air act. >> some courts are taking laws written more than 30 years ago to primarily address local and regional environmental effects and applying them to global climate change. under a supreme court decision

last year, the clean air act could be applied to regulate greenhouse gas he miss from vehicles. such a far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected regulators and judges. >> it's one thing to talk about a decision the supreme court has made and to criticize that decision it's a totally different thing while the case is pending for the president from the rose garden to use the bully pulpit to essentially try to send a message to the supreme court about how he thinks it ought to decide his case. megyn: i want to talk to you about how president bush did respond. he didn't comment on the pending litigation. he did lose a few times. one of the biggest cases -- where they talk about the rights of prisoners. and whether they can go to federal court to challenge their detention. here is how president bush responded after he took a big

hit at the supreme court. >> it's the supreme court's decision, we'll abide by the court's decision. that doesn't mean i have to agree with it. this is a deeply divided court. and i strongly agree with those who dissented. and the dissent was based upon their serious concerns about u.s. national security. megyn: he went on from there. that was his instinct. >> respect for the separation -- and not to rub anyone's nose tonight. it was just always good, moving on, this is the policy, let's do it. megyn: does president obama set himself up for a difficult position if he does win? >> i think he makes it bad for the people who presumably agree with him. the democratic appointees on the

court. megyn: is there any question in your mind the president misstated the law on monday? >> there is no question he misstated the law in suggesting it would be unprecedented for the supreme court to strike down an act of congress. going back to marbury versus madison that's what the supreme court has done when congress overstepped its bounds. megyn: they spent three days trying to clarify that. >> if i were jay carney what i would have said with regard to the attorney general responding. i would have said i refer you to the attorney general. by trying to explain it it made it worse. >> no one is defending what the president said as he sit. they are all trying to say he didn't say the or he didn't mean what he said. no one on his side is saying he meant what he said. we have got eric holder's

response. they affirm that court has the right to do it but says it should be done in limited circumstances when it deals with commercial matters. thank you all so much. appreciate it. i want to bring you this alert. president obama is speaking from the rose garden. he's about to join the jobs bill into law. this is one of the few examples of bipartisanship in washington. >> startups and small business will now have access to a big new pool of potential investors. namely the american people. for the first time ordinary americans will be able to go online and invest in entrepreneurs they believe in. of course, to make sure americans don't get taken advantage of the web sites where folks will go to fund all these startups and small businesses will be subject to vigorous oversight. the fcc will may an important

role in implementing this bill. i directed my administration to keep a close eye as the law goes into effect and provide me with regular updates. i want to say publicly give signed this bill it will be important that we continue to make sure the fcc is properly funded like all our regulatory agencies so they can do the job and make sure our investors get adequate protections. this bill represents exactly the kind of bipartisan action we should be taking in washington to help our economy. i always said the true engine of job creation is the private sector. not the government. our job is to help our companies grow and hire. that's why i pushed for this bill, and that's why i know the bipartisan group of legislators here pushed for this bill. that's why i have cut taxes for small businesses over 17 times.

that's why every day i'm fighting to make sure america is the best place on earth to do business. our economy has begun to turn a corner but we still have a long way to go. we still have a lot of americans looking for a job. looking for a job that pays better than the one that they have got. we are going to have to keep working together so we can keep moving the economy forward. i have never been for confident about our future and the reason is because of the american people. some of the folks beside me here today are a testimony today. day after day they are pitching investors. some meetings go well, some meetings don't go so well. that's true for me, too. but no matter what. they keep at it. who knows, maybe one of them -- one of the folks in the audience today will be the next bill gates or steve jobs or mark zuckerberg. and one of them may be the next

entrepreneur to turn a big idea into a new industry. that's the promise of america. that's what this country is all about. so if these entrepreneurs are willing to keep giving their all, the least washington can do is help them succeed. i plan to do that now by proudly signing this bill. thank you very much, everybody. [applause] megyn: there is the headline. the jobs act. we'll have more on foxnews.com. "kelly's court" is back in session. on the docket today brand-new developments in the mcdonald mega millions mess. the maryland lottie -- lottery director saying no one has come forward with the winning ticket. >> since no one has claimed the ticket, since no one has approached us, we would encourage people to look at their tickets very closely,

especially if you purchased a ticket from that 7 of eleven in liberty county it's important that people not be mistaken to think the ticket has been claimed only to have the legitimate ticket holder discard their ticket. that would be a tragedy in this circumstance. megyn: the director making clear despite one woman's claims that she bought the winning ticket. it could be out there. you could be holding it. here is the back story. a mcdonald employee claimed she has one of the three winning tickets to last week's mega millions jackpot. she is out of maryland. maryland says it had the winning ticket. she says she hid the winning ticket at this mcdonald's in maryland who claim it's their tirkt, too. she also bought tickets for a

pool she was in at mcdonald's but she claims she bought tickets for herself separately. nonetheless. no one has seen the winning ticket. no one has submitted the winning ticket. not even her own lawyer. how do we know she is telling the truth? the alleged winner's attorney makes an appearance in "kelly's court." we watched you yesterday hold this press conference. i was shocked to hear you say i have not seen the ticket nor do i want to seat ticket. why not? >> i'm a lawyer and i try to solve problems for people. i don't need to see the ticket to hear my client's explanation of why it is she has not turned in the ticket. her reasons are her own. she did not create this news media frenzy. it was not of her own volition that she had to come forward. under maryland law a person can

remain anonymous until the time they present the ticket to the maryland lottery commission. megyn: she did speak to the "post" and she claims to have the winning ticket. does she are the winning ticket or doesn't she? >> the same answer is true today as it was yesterday. i don't know. megyn: did you ask her? >> i did not ask her because it was not important to what i have to do as an attorney. megyn: is her official position that she is the wish and she has the ticket? >> that is my understanding of exactly what her official position is. megyn: is her official position that she hid the ticket in mcdonald's? >> that i don't believe is the case. when people have money at stake. both on both sides of the controversy as you have drawn it to your listeners.

sometimes they react in ways that are not logical. and are emotional. and i think in this particular instance, we are taking a lot from a person who is under a tremendous amount of pressure. megyn: a single mom with 7 kids. we are talking about $105 million after taxes. >> the kid are home on spring break. the news media who were camped out in front of her house until yesterday when i asked them to go home. i think most of them thought it out and decided that was the best thing to do. megyn: she mass $155 million coming to her, the news media has a problem. but she has a lot to celebrate. this is a great, great moment in her life. most of our viewers are watching her saying i won that mega millions. i would be running like o.j.

simpson in the airplane to the maryland lottery mission to cash it in and get my money. >> i hope most your listeners would realize how blessed they are to have children and family and more than just money in their pockets. megyn: $100 million doesn't sting either. >> i would assume for some people that might be the case. but there are more important things in this life than just having money. megyn: you are right, so why doesn't she give it to the co-workers at mcdonald's who wants it so bad. >> the fine programs that fox puts on have people that would do just that. they would give it away to charity. they could do things with it that would make a difference in people's lives. and i'm not so sure she won't. megyn: she has to cash it in first. >> i understand when that is necessary, i will be a part of that presentation to our fine

maryland lottery commission. megyn: it's a fascinating case. we appreciate you talking to us about it. we hope to see you soon. >> i appreciate you inviting me. bye-bye. megyn: how about that? joining us now our legal panel. mark eiglarsh, and mercedes colwin. how interesting was that? >> it was awesome. >> i'm not buying it. >> he did his best -- he's defending the indefensible. megyn: i don't know if it is indefensible. he seemed to be saying she is una lot of pressure. single mom, kids, overwhelmed, give her time. >> so let many hold a press conference. have your client sit back and say i never have seen the ticket. what a whopper of a tale. i think this mcgreedy is getting her 15 minutes. i don't think she has the

ticket. her attorney doesn't look at it? in one interview she said something like i don't know with all this unwanted publicity, i don't know that i'm even going to claim. you would knock over your grandmother to get to it. megyn: he does seem to be backing off of her claims that she hid the ticket in mcdonald's. people are under a lot of pressure, they say things that don't make sense. then i ask you whether mark is on to something. he's talking about how there are more important things than money. is he laying the foundation for she is not going to cash her winning ticket because she has more important things in her life than money? >> he absolutely is. maybe he didn't look at the ticket. he carried himself well during that examination. by think he has to just protect his client's interests. and many of us who have all been there. attorney client privilege

attaches, you are not going to be out there in the public realm disclosing what your client told you in confidence. megyn: she confused us all. she is sitting behind him at the press conference. what does the hat say? wheat swine pork rinds. we thought it was a promo for them. she is sitting there with her alleged $500 million, and she takes three phone calls. she is talking on the cell phone. it doesn't seem to people that she has gone the winning ticket. >> her demeanor is inconsistent with a lottery winner and more consistent with someone who got a good number at the deli. the on person getting rich is this attorney. megyn: i have got 20 seconds to the hard break. this is a question we'll talk about next. if she doesn't have it and she caused somebody who did have it to dump it, thinking that the

real -- because maryland lottery confirmed they did sell a winning ticket in maryland. could that person go after somebody? how will we ever know? we'll talk about it next. c'mon dad! i'm here to unleash my inner cowboy. instead i g heartburn. [ horse neighs ] hold up partner. prilos isn't for fast relief. try alka-seltzer. it kills heartburn fast. yeehaw! that's good morning, veggie style. hmmm. fohalf the calories plus vgie nutrition. could've had a v8.

megyn: the lottery today said one winning ticket was sold at the 7-eleven in baltimore. if there is another winner out there, that is valuable information to them. what if they no longer have their winning ticket but plays those numbers all the time. >> shame on them. the lottery ticket gives a property right when you sign it and present it. if there was a contract at

issue, then certainly this maryland woman would then could be sued. but if you have got a lottery ticket. seen it. hold on to it. they can't come forward and say i didn't know. i threw it out. megyn: how do you prove you have the winner if you don't have the ticket in hand. somebody may have thrown away their ticket. that's what we all do. maybe you do check your ticket. but i want to ask you this. could she be in trouble if she is not the winner and she put everybody through this? could she be in trouble criminally? >> no. i would be embarrassed if i threw away my ticket after learning what we learned. the ticket was a fraud and charlie kept going and he got his dream do come true. >> it was that guy in peru. he made the whole thing up.

they were only suppose to be found by children. does anyone here believe she has the winning ticket? >> no, i don't think so. megyn: no one believes it. what if she can prove she was at the 7-eleven at 7:15 in baltimore. >> she still needs that ticket. megyn: would that make you believe? >> no, not really. running for those lotteries. megyn: where is the winner. fit' not her. who is it. >> it's not about money. we learned it's all about love and happiness. megyn: we wanting my family in my $100 million. i have got to go. we'll be right back.

: mine was earned off vietnam in 1968. over the south pacific in 1943. i got mine in iraq, 2003. usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation. because offers a superior level of protection, and because usaa's commitment to serve the military, veterans and their families is without equal. begin your legacy, get an auto insurance quote.

usaa. we know what it means to serve.

[ male announcer ] at amway, we use the best of nature, science and research to develop and manufacture our products to the highest quality standards. ♪ in fact, amway offers a 180-day satisfaction guarantee. because amway believes the aces our products ome from... are just as important as the places they'll go. amway conveys quality. to learn more, contact an amway independent business owner. your doctor will say get smart about your weight. that's why there's new glucerna hunger smart shakes. they have carb steady, with carbs that digest slowly to help minimize blood sugar spikes. [ male announcer ] new glucerna hunger smart. a smart way to help manage hunger and diabetes. >>megyn: city officials would not let g