you can learn more about the next revolution by following us online. mark levin is up next. see you next sunday when the next revolution will be televised. mark: you are widely regarded.

you served as a federal appellate judge on the tenth circuit from 2002 to 2009. your bona fides are quite significant. there are a number of topics i would like to touch on this hour. we hear impeachment being discussed. here is the impeachment clause in the constitution. the president, vice president and all civil officers of the united states shall be removed from office on conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. i hear it said in the popular culture that that pretty much

means it's a political decision. if the house of representatives has the votes? >> i don't think so. the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors is specifically chosen to be a high bar. our framers wanted the president toe be independent to congress. one of the main functions of the president was to be a check and balance against congress which they thought would be by far the most of powerful and most of dangerous branch of government. they did not want congress to be able to toss the president out on the basis of any low standard at all. they deliberately chose the phrase high crimes yo -- high cd misdemeanors. it referred to misdeeds of a

public nature regarding abuse of power. you read the impeachment clause to us, but you didn't mention the fact that when the senators and can congress are judge an impeachment,t, they are on oath which tells us this is not just a political vote, they are engaged in a serious matter where they are swearing to do justice at the time. and with the chief justice of the united states there to preside and make sure the entire affair is being done as a court of law and not just as a matter of low politics. mark: if it is pursued as a matter of low politics, would it be your point it's not what the constitution provide for? >> that's right. >> it's an illegitimate use of

the impeachment power. >> that's right. that isn't to say it could be overturned. the senate is the sole judge of impeachment. but the senators are on oath to comply with the constitution. mark: these words as you point out, they have meeting, common law, they debated it fairly extensively at the constitutional convention. and there were things they dismissed to make sure the bar was relatively high. what did madison say about that. >> george mason proposed that the president be impeachable for maladministration and madison objected to that saying that would effectively make him serve at the pleasure of the senate. meaning they could get rid of them any time they wanted to and that would destroy his

independence. it was clear madison at least believed the president needed to be insulated from impeachment for anything that isn't a truly high crime or misdemeanor. mark: we have a slew of subpoenas being issued by a slew of committees. these subpoenas cover among other things, the president's taxes, his bank records, the president's communications with his accountant. the president's financial records. members of his family, his businesses, his associates and so forth. is this something new? >> actually it is. to hear much of the discussion you would think these inquiry go back to the beginning, but they don't. there is actually nothing in the constitution that gives congress

the power to issue subpoenas at all. they do have the right to request of the president information regarding the state of the union which presidents back to george washington have complied with but only after first declining to provide information where they thought it would be con prairie to the public into the pro -- would be contrary to the public interest toto provide it. subpoenas and invest today tory powers are not there. there was c a proposal that congress have the power to punish individuals for contempt of congress, but that was voted down by the constitutional convention. beginning, 1827 may have been the first year this happened, congress has

subpoenaed private individuals to come and provide information with it is necessary for the legislative duties of congress fairly narrowly understood. this did not extend to executive branch officials until relatively recent times. i believe the first time congress ever attempted to enforce a subpoena against the executive branch where the president had invoked executive privilege was i under richard nixon. the first time an executive branch official was held in contempt of congress in connection with a subpoena where the president invoked executive privilege was 1982, the mother of supreme court justice neil gorsuch. that only happened a few times. it's never been approved by the

supreme court. this is a matter of political dispute between the two branches. mark: so half a dozen committees, literally hundreds of seenas now. allegations that if the president doesn't comply with these subpoenas he's obstructing congress and they are even arguing obstructing justice. the president is taking them to court to litigate this issue. how can it be obstruction if he's litigating the issue on separation of powers grounds and also on whether the house of representatives has the original authority to demand these records from the president or from any citizen given the point you just raised. if there needs to be some legislative purpose? >> i think we have to understand words like obstruction are thrown out, they are political rhetoric rather than serious legal arguments. the only way the house of

representatives or its committees can enforce these subpoenas is by going to court. this has only been done three times in american history. it's never gotten past the district court decision. it's not entirely clear that the courts even have jurisdiction. but this ways the house will need to do fit wants to enforce these subpoenas. but those are civil cases asking for a declaratory judgment or injunction requiring the executive branch to provide the particular materials if such a case was brought and the courts hold that the executive branch need to provide the materials, i'm confident they will be provided. mark: what kind of precedent does this set for future kongs and future presidents. >> it seems to me the house democrats are being sort

tsighted. do they think when they do this against president trump that future congresses will not do it against future presidents? it's hard for me to believe they think this is the proper way to do business. >> in terms of oversight activities, subpoenas, legislative purpose. what would the legislative purpose be to have the president's tax returns? >> i think there have issued 81 subpoenas. i think some are much more related to legislative purpose than others. but the claim about the president's personal tax returns they need to investigate whether the internal revenue service is properly auditing the president, not clear to me why that requires looking at his tax returns from before he was even president. that's an unusual case with that

particular one subpoena. i think it's the only one:pursuant to a pick statute passed by congress authorizing a subpoena. and it does not limit the inquiry to legislative purpose. it seems on its face to allow the chair of the ways and means committee to demand the tax return of not just the president, but of anyone. mark,en if the chair of the ways and means committee wants to see your tax returns, according to the current chair, he can do it, that is what the statute seems to say. i think this is a bit of a civil liberties disaster. it's never been done in this way. of course, they are using it just against trump. but the statute is not confined to the president. it's any taxpayer.

and i think it's exceedingly unlikely the court is going to order this when the congress has no apparent legislative need for it. mark: the department of justice said you don't get the tax returns. the opinion from legal counsel they said because the statute doesn't trump the constitution. you don't have a legislative purpose. you are focused on one individual, one president, your point being back to tax returns before he was president of the united states, and they say we have scores and scores of examples of your real purpose which is to make them public. the department of justice says thatat is not a legislative purpose. so that's where this litigation is head. don't forget to check us out on levin tv most of weeknights. levin tv. call us on state 44-levin tv.

and don't forget, the hottest book in america written for you "unfreedom of the press." (ding) hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪ ♪ run with us. on a john deere z500 series mower. built to mow better, faster. because sometimes... when you take a look around... you notice... your grass is long... your time is short... and there's no turning back.

♪ ♪ nothing runs like a deere™. run with us. visit your john deere dealer today, to test drive a z500 or z700 series ztrak™ mower. the first survivor of ais out there.sease and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight.

we like drip coffee, layovers- -and waiting on hold. what we don't like is relying on fancy technology for help. snail mail! we were invited to a y2k party... uh, didn't that happen, like, 20 years ago? oh, look, karolyn, we've got a mathematician on our hands! check it out! now you can schedule a callback or reschedule an appointment, even on nights and weekends. today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'd rather not.

professor michael mcconnell with the tenth amendment of the constitution. the powers not delegated by the constitution, no nor prohibited by, is that true? today? >> it's nominally true, but all, what really matters is how broadly we interpret the grant of powers to the federal government and when those words were written, the assumption was those powers would be interpreted fairly strictly. today there interpreted very generously so the amendment amounts to very little. >> and amendment amounts to very little and that's the result of what? judicial decision? >> it's a result of decisions by the representatives of the people in congress passing expansive laws that have been upheld by the supreme court. let's not blame the court,

these are laws passed by congress. >> although the court, in part, is to blame, right? they take a look at the bill of rights so basically, to my way of thinking is the federal government does not benefit from the tenth amendment. there's the legislative branch, the executive branch or the judicial branch, they interpret it in a way that is very destructive of federalism. you have bureaucrats in the bowels of the protection agency that have more powers than states in some cases. is that a post- constitutional type of problem? >> let me just say, people, left and right do not believe in federalism when push comes to shove.

so, certainly the new deal with progressives, they paid no attention to federalism go but frankly conservatives don't care much about it either so take immigration and whether the sanctuary cities question, here you have left liberals who are rediscovering the virtues of federalism but the other side of the coin is conservatives are forgetting them. >> immigration in the constitution is largely a federal activity, right? >> there are federal activities. >> we can have a whole hour of discussion of this. the constitution only gives congress power over naturalization. immigration was actually left to the states for the first hundred years. >> should be left to the states now? >> i think not. it seems to me perfectly reasonable to interpret powers

over commerce and naturalization to include immigration, and i think it is something that logically should be dealt with at a national level, but i don't think that means the national government is the only unit that has any authority to legislate. >> do we have a constitution going? how you interpret the constitution? i know we have precedent, we have, you make the point, you say hey, look, it looks like the ends justify for the political spectrum. federalism gets you where you want to go and you support that. if the national government gets you where you want to go, i would dispute that somewhat, i think at least constitutional originalists are little bit more clear about what they believe regardless of the outcome and i think the left is which is. [inaudible] but, what do we have? >> let's not exaggerate.

we do still have a constitution. the skeleton of this government, the bare-bones of the government are elected congresses, elected presidents, limited powers, division of power between the national government and the states, due process of law, independent courts, we stick remarkably to the constitution. it is true there are a number of provisions in the constitution where i think, and perfect trim perhaps you think the courts have strayed and congress has straight, but that doesn't mean. [inaudible] >> the new deal is simply president roosevelt's description of this program. he was elected president. >> we had a number of supreme court decisions that really had to turn the constitution on its head. i'm not saying good or bad, whether it social security or

a number of other decisions that were made throughout that time, the fact is, it's not in the constitution, but there is an adjustment that's made over the course of time, correct. >> the word commerce is in the constitution and we know what that meant, it didn't mean an explosive bureaucracy, it meant congress. >> this is true, but as we become a more integrative national economy, i think it is only logical that the ability to regulate that national economy has grown in scope, but we could argue about any individual or provision. i do think. those, there was a period of time in our history when the courts paid much less attention to what the constitution said then they should have and we have a lot of precedents that were set in those periods. i also believe in the last 20 or 30 years, we have begun

moving back toward court that is more attentive to the constitution, and i don't just mean the conservative justices, i think even the liberal justices on the supreme court are much more attentive to text in the history and the actual legal justifications for what they do than their predecessors 50 or 60 years ago. >> why do you think that is. >> i think there has been a big debate nationally among lawyers and law schools, to some extent, even out in the political campaigns over the nature of the judiciary, and i think that debate has been one on the merits by those who say that if we are going to be a constitutional republic that means we need to pay attention to the constitution and not just to treat it as whatever the supreme court wants it to mean. >> all right, we'll be right >> all right, we'll be right back.

♪ i want it that way... i can't believe it. that karl brought his karaoke machine? ♪ ain't nothing but a heartache... ♪ no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. ♪ i never wanna hear you say... ♪ no, kevin... no, kevin! believe it! geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

"i got it!" so bookers are booking a one, two, three, that's a four day weekend "awesome" and with getaway deals on accommodation starting from 15 percent off, you can be a booker at booking dot com

but i'm more than a number. when i'm not teaching, i'm taking steep grades and tight corners. my essilor lenses offer more than vision correction with three innovative technologies for my ultimate in vision clarity and protection together in a single lens: the essilor ultimate lens package. so, i can do more of what i love! buy two pairs of essilor's best lenses and get a $100 back instantly. see more. do more. essilor

is this ride safe? i assembled it myself last night. i think i did an ok job. just ok? what if something bad happens? we just move to the next town. just ok is not ok. especially when it comes to your network. at&t is america's best wireless network according to america's biggest test. plus buy one of our most popular smartphones and get one free. more for your thing. that's our thing. [♪] aishah: live from "america's news headquarters." i'm aishah hasnie. the u.s. supreme court begins its last week of cases for this term monday. two issues remain. one has to do with gerrymandering and whether the court should rein in district shine drawing. and whether a citizenship

question should be aloud on the 202 -- should be allowed on the 2020 census. sunday night high over new york city's times square. nick wallenda and his sister. i'm aishah hasnie. professor mcc, progressive movement is not all, that concerned about the constitution. when you read woodrow wilson or john dewey or all these other fellows at the end of the 1800s, early 1900s and they viewed the courts, in particular, as a change agent and they would be

dismissive of the declaration and the constitution and they wrote about it this constitution comes from wilson talks about, as you know, you can have separations exists in the federalism stuff is quite an interesting but now were an industrial power and a superpower in the different body parts have to work together. it's like a living organism. they don't seem to be all that worked up about the constitution in terms of complying with it. >> the progressives were openly contemptuous of the constitution. woodrow wilson was a critic of the constitution. we do not hear that very much today. modern-day progressives are not the same as woodrow wilson. in some ways better or worse but i think the respect for the constitution as a text that needs to be authoritative is alive and well among modern

progressives and, in some ways, donald trump has made it ever so much more so because when there's a president that they dislike and distrust where do they go? they immediately go to screen to the constitution and i don't mean screen and an insulting way but we all should scurry to the constitution for protection when our government is going awry so i think on the left that there is more interest in the actual content of the text and history of the constitution that there has been at any other time in my professional life. mark: what about the attack on the electoral college? that seems to be rather progressive and i don't think there's a candidate on the left that says but that goes to the heart of our republican system which is the national popular vote which specifically they

rejected a national popular vote. that changed the entire makeup of the government, it doesn't? >> it's an important feature that our constitution would survive a constitutional amendment to move toward a popular vote. what i don't hear the left saying we should ignore the electoral college but what i hear is a interesting work around that they are proposing for a compact among the states where a state constituting a majority of electoral college with promise and advanced to cast their electoral votes in accordance with the winner of the national vote but that is not to ignore the electoral college but that's to work around it. mark: i am not saying their lawless and i don't know how you would ignore the electoral college is a practical method

but could not the argument be made -- let me try this, could the argument be made that they've knocked down most of the obstacles that were problematic? as you said earlier there's no dispute anymore over the new deal and no dispute on immigration and it's a political dispute where the power is but there's no dispute about most of these things anymore so just a matter of exploiting. >> well, we have disputes over different things at different eras and we have plenty of important constitutional disputes. today it is true that when something has been thoroughly hashed out and the american people seem edified by the resolution that tends to be regarded as solid. mark: i think they've done a hell of a good job of turning the constitution inside out and it scares me because i hear the arguments come out about taxes

and arguments now about all kinds of proposals that i'm sure the framers of the constitution would have found absolutely appalling. and yet, i find, very little argument from the public debate, in the media, about is that constitutional or is there an obstacle to that? there are political arguments and economic arguments but i'm not finding constitutional arguments. >> i think this is true. on the other hand i think among our political classes we don't see very serious arguments at all but it all seems to be posturing and i don't mean all but there's much more posturing than there is substance whether constitutional argument or otherwise. one place you have not mentioned and i know from the book you care about where i think there's a very dangerous lack of regard for the constitution is freedom of speech where dangerously

large minorities of young people are now saying they do not believe in freedom of speech for people within with whom they fiercely disagree, various egalitarian ideologies trump freedom of speech especially on campus and i think that is one of the more frightening things going on. today, it's interesting because this is happening at a time when the courts are as protective of freedom of speech as they have ever been and maybe even more than they ever have been in so there's a huge disjunct between the protection for freedom of speech that is to be found in the courts versus the lack of regard for the values of freedom of speech that found on college campuses and a lot of other places in america.

mark: how is freedom of the press doing in your opinion? >> i think it's a legal matter and it's extremely strong. i think the press is an institution is, in very bad shape, i think it has economic problems with the advent of the internet but i also think that the political -- anytime an institution becomes heavily overwhelmingly of one political side or the other it ceases to do his job properly. i'm in academia and certainly universities are this way. they suffer from this but the process as well and when universities and the press is overwhelmingly of one political ideology they forget their job is truth telling and begin to think their job is i don't know, resistance or whatever the catchphrases of the day but we what we really need is the press that fearlessly goes after the

truth whether it's left or right and does not see itself as having a mission of supporting one political side of the argument. mark: we'll be right back. when you're not able to smile, you become closed off. i felt withdrawn, alone... having to live with bad teeth for so long was extremely depressing. now, i know how happy i am. there was all the feeling good about myself that i missed. i wish that i had gone to aspen dental on day one and not waited three years. at aspen dental, we're all about yes. like yes to flexible hours and payment options. yes to free exams and x-rays for new patients without insurance. and yes, whenever you're ready to get started, we are too. call now at 1-800-aspendental. ♪

♪ how far you travel is up to you. how comfortable you travel is up to us. fly emirates. fly better. how comfortable you travel is up to us. with moderate to severe ulceratiyour plans... crohn's, can change in minutes. your head wants to do one thing... but your gut says not today.

if your current treatment isn't working... ask your doctor about entyvio®. entyvio® acts specifically in the gi tract, to prevent an excess of white blood cells from entering and causing damaging inflammation. entyvio® has helped many patients achieve long-term relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. ask your doctor about the only gi-focused biologic just for ulcerative colitis and crohn's. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach. for making bucket lists bookers know summer is for booking it like booking a beachside resort, and ordering two more tacos than you need to. check.

showing the deep end who's boss! check. starting a scooter gang with the fam. check. "awesome" bookers know summer won't last forever. "you're gonna thank me" so be a booker at booking.com. the world's number one choice for booking accomodations.

♪ mark: professor mcconnell, first amendment, it says a lot of things about the first amendment but congressional make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free ask exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. i want to focus on the establishment of religion which is the sister to free exercise of religion. separation of church and stat

state -- we hear this phrase all the time but is it in the constitution? where does that come from? >> the word separation of church and state are not in the constitution but as a shorthand version of what the establishment clause means and does have a deep history because there were in the 18th century prominent writers who ultimately advocated for a union between church and state is a famous essay by one of the bishops in the church of england by that very title and our framers did not believe in a union between church and state. they wanted them separate and the main thing to understand about the church of england and the established church is that this was the government control over religion and what our founders were most opposed to was having the government to be able to control religion.

this did not mean that the framers believed the american people should be any less religious than they choose to be and did not mean the culture and there was anything wrong with having religious elements in the culture but it meant we were not have a system in which government was able to tell us what to believe or control churches and decide what their doctrines were and who their personal would be and so forth. for example, we had a recent case in the u.s. up in court unanimous decision in a case called [inaudible] in which the civil rights laws of employment dissemination laws were used to tell a religious organization that they cannot fire a particular person who is in a position of the minister and the supreme court, held quite

correctly, that it's an establishment of religion for the government to decide who will be a minister in a church. of course, church here means not just christian churches but means synagogues and mosques and temples in any religious organization the government simply has to keep out of the business of telling them what to believe, who their leadership will be and essentially what they will do. mark: what about school prayer and manger scenes? we see these battles going on -- my father used to say to me we are jewish and we used to go to school and we would pledge allegiance and say christian prayer and do not bother me in the least. the one told me i had to become christian. or i had to change my face. for a long part of our history that was the case so it's unconstitutional or not and when did this happen?

>> i think the school prayer decisions are, in fact, correct. it is true that there was a school prayer in the public schools going way back but not to the founding, by the way, because of the founding we do not have public schools and public schools, as we now know them, are a phenomenon of the 1830s and thereafter. from the beginning prayers and bible readings in the public schools were controversial all along. just as an example in philadelphia in the 1830s the school board decided voluntarily to allow catholic students to read the bible from their own translations rather than the king james cancellation and when that happened the protestants of philadelphia rioted and it was an anti-catholic riot, very ugly thing. it was set off by this problem

the supreme court did not address this issue until the 1960s but i think it is quite reasonable interpretation of the establishment clause to say that the government should not take upon itself the duty of teaching our children what prayers to say and how to say them. from a religious point of view this is quite important because from -- if the government will do this is not going to do a very good job. what is it that the government does a good job of and the prayer that was written against the tally in the case and thus up in court was written by a committee and when i teach this case i like to tell my students that the prayer i read them the prayer and it's like to whom it may concern is completely bland and contentless prayer and for our government to be taking a

serious thing like a prayer and making it into this bland thin thing -- does not do anybody any good. mark: don't forget to join me almost every weeknight on live in tv. sign up at place tv .com -- mark or give us a call at three and one and join our wonderful conservative community. by the way, did i mention? four times "the new york times" number one bestseller. i know it's killing it. get your copy, on freedom of the press. we'll be right back. people, our sales now apply to only 10 frames. a new low! at visionworks, our sales are good on over 500 frames. why are you so weird? see great with 2 complete pairs for $59. really. visionworks. see the difference.

♪ mark: professor mcconnell, what of this religious issue, separation of church and state, and the point about what about that realism and the opportunity for local school districts and states to make their own decision because there is a rubber there? >> mark, this has been a big issue. at the beginning, there is no doubt the first amendment, including freedom of religion, applied as a matter of federal constitutional law only to the united states government. in fact, they voted down madison's proposal to extend our religious freedom protections

against state governments as well, even though he said that was the most important amendment of all the proposals for the bill of rights. they voted it down on federalism grounds and some we've been talking about but in the years before the civil war it turned out that states were using their authority to violate virtually every one of those important principles in the service of slavery so that abolitionists who wanted to make speeches against slavery were denied freedom of speech and newspapers that advocated for abolition could not be circulated and ministers who wanted to deliver sermons contrary to slavery were prevented from taking the pulpit and every single important bill of rights was violated in order to prop up this, essentially

totalitarian system of slavery. when the civil war comes and we have the 14th amendment the 14th amendment does nationalize issues of fundamental human rights that had been left to the states by the initial. mark: and ratified by the state. >> yes, ratified and there are lots of disputes about how this has done an eye, personally think the most persuasive interpretation is that it was the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment that does that and the privilege and immunities clause states, no state shall make or enforce any law which infringes or denies to any person the privileges and immunities of citizens of the united states. now, there's lots of historical dispute but there were plenty of people at the time, including the senator who introduced the

amendment on the floor of the senate who said what are these privileges and immunities because he proceeded to read from the bill of rights. there is solid historical support as well as the logic makes so much sense after the civil war that they were not going to allow the state to be able to do things that had propped up slavery in this way. i think that is what the 14th amendment which ultimately means. mark: we'll be right back. ♪ fact is, every insurance company hopes you drive safely.

but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?

but i'm more than a number. when i'm not teaching, i'm taking steep grades and tight corners. my essilor lenses offer more than vision correction with three innovative technologies for my ultimate in vision clarity and protection together in a single lens: the essilor ultimate lens package. so, i can do more of what i love! buy two pairs of essilor's best lenses and get a $100 back instantly. see more. do more. essilor

and i...was... take shocked.test. right away, called my mom, called my sisters. i'm from cameroon, congo, and...the bantu people. i had ivory coast, and ghana...togo. i was grateful... i just felt more connected...to who i am. new features. greater details. richer stories. get your dna kit today at ancestry.com.

♪ mark: what was the [inaudible] decision? >> that was one of the first supreme court decisions to hold that, in this case, the establishment clause applies against the states and every -- everything was about in the particular township there was only two schools and a public school and catholic school.

the legislator and the school board voted to treat all the kids exactly the same way and got free transportation to school and a number of people, including a lot of anti- catholic people, argued that this violated the separation of church and state because catholic schools cannot receive aid of any sort even on a neutral basis. they lost the opponents lost five-four in a very strangely worded opinion but later this principle was adopted with a vengeance holding that -- for example, in the case that i was involved in in the supreme court one of my feet in the report the court held that underprivileged kids economically and educationally deprived kids could not even receive special

tutoring in remedial math and english from public school teachers on the premise of their catholic schools. apparently, out of the worry that somehow these public school teachers would be influenced by, i don't know, crucifixes on the wall or whatever it was that would influence them to infiltrate religion as part of remedial math. i'm happy to say that case was formally overruled about 20 years later and now the supreme court takes the position that as long as the government is providing equal benefits to everyone, publics, private school, jewish school, whatever it happens to be, catholic school, if everyone is tweeted neutrally it does not violate the assessment cause. that seems to me to be a cracked homeschool. mark: it's been fascinating, professor. i appreciate it.

law students at stanford are lucky. don't forget, join us next time on life liberty and limited. you. laura: thanks for having me. leland: all right, see ya. chris: i'm chris wallace. president trump orders but then calls back airstrikes on iran for shooting down a u.s. drone. as tensions rise, what happens next? chris: what about a serious dark horse who didn't make the cut? montana governor steve bullock