it is not only the framers of the 14th amendment. it is the ratifiers. what do they see as important? how do they understand the first, let alone the second, of the two sections i have highlighted in the 14th amendment? way back in the 1930's, the best book, still arguably out there, about the framing of the 14th amendment -- how you come to use the formula that was adopted. but less well known and more recent is another book by james bond. james e. bond, actually. he talks about the process of ratification and goes to each of the 11 seceded states. he talks through what the understanding of the ratifiers was and what the framers were demanding of them. the short version is this. bond is mostly interested in section one, in what people understood at the time. he has understood how it became interpreted over time as a restriction on state power as well as federal. all kinds of things he wanted to know about. along the way he offers this. the debates did not focus primarily on section one, which today is the 14th amendment. instead, the debates focused on

this was the framers i had in the federalist papers. that each branch was given tools and constitutional weapon to fight each other. if congress doesn't want to use the powers that is not a constitutional fault. if the congress doesn't want to stop president obama from bombing isis that is not a defect it is because they are choosing not to use their power and the primary one is the power of the purse. if congress doesn't want any war to occur they just need not to fund it. this was perfect in the 1780s and 90s because there was no standing army or navy. the president would have to go to congress and say build me the military. today we have military that is designed conduct wars in other countries and that is at the design of congress. congress has created a military designed to prevent war from ever getting here by fighting in other people's country. i only have time is up. so to a law professor that means i have ten more minutes. so let me conclude. i think we should have concerns about executive power but i don't think it is from for

and produce made reference to the framers agreeing about war and i don't think that is true. i would look at the constitutional text and i have a free copy someone just gave me. i expect some place like the committee on the republic we have a a copy. article one section ten says no states shall engage in war without congress approval unless invaded or imminent danger that can not be delayed. that is exactly the powers bruce things should be between congress and executive. if you take out president it will say no president shall without the consent of congress engage in war. unless we are invaded or there is such an imminent danger of attack you cannot delay. why can't our framers have written that exact clause if they intended what bruce thought? they wrote provisions that gave some power to congress, some to the president and they expected them to fight it out. >> moderator: i want to bring the argument to the present period. i know, john, you were involved in the authorization for the use of military force, and the broad power it gave the president. so i think i will let bru

what did the framers of confederation get wrong? why did they not anticipate this would be a problem? the short answer is, when they wrote those constitutions back in 1776, the passage from federalist 49 -- back then, we were all republicans. we all believed in government by the virtuous. we all believed in patriotic impulses. we deferred to our leaders and we reunited, rejecting monarchy. at the time, we just did not think it would be necessary to have some enforcement mechanism behind it. he was reasoning like a historian. he is saying, the reason i got it wrong was not some random decision. the real fact was that this actually fit the underlying assumptions we had. that is historical lesson number one. the second -- he says, what have we learned cents? even during wartime, the system did not work, when we had an external threat that should have motivated us. this is a system that did not work very well. these types of force would work even less well. this is really a question. he says, how could it be otherwise? at this point, he

why couldn't the framers written that if they had intended what bruce said? instead they wrote provisions that gave some power to congress, some to the president and expected them to fight it out. >> i want to bring the argument to the contemporary period. i know john was involved in the authorization of military force and the broad power it gave the president and i think at first, your understanding of the authorization of military force use and the president's current request that he requires another authorization to use military force in the current situation. could you address that? the authorization use of military force language describes the universe of targets that the president can set as those who were complicit, they can be persons, organizations, individuals who are complicit in 9/11 or harbor those who work. it isn't an authorization to go after every terrorist in the world. it is an authorization to target those who are complicit in the 9/11 organizations. the president is saying omaf auth authorizes him to bomb and express the need for ground tr

and i think the other framers recognized the duality. and hamilton wrote about empowering the national government with force and vigor. i think richard's book emphasizes the latter concern, which remains valid about make sure the government controls itself and maybe deemphasizes the notion that we needed to come back to philadelphia to have a national government that actually did have some force. just more quickly, i don't want to -- i would rather hear richard. my other inconsistent reactions are that richard's framing is right historically. you can make a argument that the original constitution and the first century or more did embody classic liberal libertarian values but that we change as the country in the 20th century in -- but that we changed as a country in the 20th century in ways it is appropriate to adopt in our constitutional tradition. the myriad ways in which our culture is different today than they were over 200 years ago is an acceptable form that we can rethink and revise our fundamental understanding of the role of gove

the framers of our constitution established the entire federal government in just 18 pages. that's right. i've written a 20-page bill that i will share with you that will replace this. it is the very size of this. that makes it so dangerous. you know, the cheap architective constitution james madison, wrote in federalistic 5 cautioning against congress ever passing a law and here are madison's own words. so volume nous that no one could read it. or so frequently changed that a reasonable person would not know what the law is. that is obama care twitchy. yes. yes. and our wallness president has repeatedly rewritten, revised, deleted, and delayed, and distorted this law. so that health plan he is rolling out now bears little resemblance to what congress actually enacted in 2010. and that is the most important reason that we must win a sizeable majority in the united states senate this fall. not simply to slow down obama care. no. but in addition, we must elect a new senate majority leader. a new senate majority leader who will have a chat with the president. and we mind the pr

that is what the framers intended for the constitutional mechanisms to work. if you goback to 2011, this isn't a place where the president is saying i'm going to war and congress was saying don't go to war. congress was attacking the executive for being too passive and allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen. my memory is congress and the president were in agreement in taking the fight into afghanistan and against the terrorist. i don't see this division of authority between the president and congress. we obviously have what i would say from 2004-2005. i don't think the constitutional system broke down in 2001 and i don't think the president and congress were in disagreement. and i don't see signs congress was trying to stop the president from conducting the war in anyway. if congress wanted to, they had ample powers at their disposal to do so and they chose not to exercise them and passed the amuf in 2011. a broad authorization to use force. >> i need to give a counter example because this is important of the model for government service. this is my involvement i

so the principle the framers broader than the actual attempt. he same for segregated schools for example. connell -- have your changed over the time you were on the court? i siton't think of any as here today. >> another question, a few other questions about your service on wanted to ask i you about. asks during your time in the supreme court who is justice you worked with? scalia.nk nino he has a wonderful sense of humor. i think that he would qualify. they are an intelligent, nice group of people. , i mentioned my byron white. when we were in conference room in the conference except the justices. no law clerks and no cetera.ries, et there is a telephone in there. so we the gone rings it is a wrong number. if they have a message they knock on the door and the junior to get up andance the door. was junior justice for many, many years. tom clark used to describe the justice as the highest country.rman in the but byron white, when the phone generally pick it up and say joe's bar and it number. a wrong >> i will tell you another one byron. do with

this was the framers i had in the federalist papers. that each branch was given tools and constitutional weapon to fight each other. if congress doesn't want to use the powers that is not a constitutional fault. if the congress doesn't want to stop president obama from bombing isis that is not a defect it is because they are choosing not to use their power and the primary one is the power of the purse. if congress doesn't want any war to occur they just need not to fund it. this was perfect in the 1780s and 90s because there was no standing army or navy. the president would have to go to congress and say build me the military. today we have military that is designed conduct wars in other countries and that is at the design of congress. congress has created a military designed to prevent war from ever getting here by fighting in other people's country. i only have time is up. so to a law professor that means i have ten more minutes. so let me conclude. i think we should have concerns about executive power but i don't think it is from for

out for the framers that was really important. those militias were at the heart policy. every adult white male was in the militia for their entire adult life. they were required by law to own a gun and keep the military weapon at home. was the constitution debated, they thought those were really important as a bulwark against totalitarianism. they were worried the new central federal government was going to be like that. they wanted to protect those. that was the motivating force. >> being necessary for the security of a free state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. >> live from pier three in san shall not be infringed. >> bear arms principally had a military meaning. in a days we aren't all militia. the country has evolved. it turns out when you look at the second amendment, the way we understand it is not the product of some pristine text, but always the result of rough-and-tumble of political advocacy and public argument. understood it differently. it is the case that until recently the experts didn't inc. the second amendment re

you always try to find out what you can about the framers. but that's not necessarily the answer. in fact, there are some constitutional provisions that have a meaning directly opposite to what the framers intended. didn't real lizzie understand the full implications of some of them they enacted. my favorite is the religious clauses. hey were designed to protect the christian religion. but nonchristian were not protected and that's demonstrated by contemporary writing. but when you look at the problem today, you obviously freedom of religion others. so it may be broader. it's the same for seg grated school. >> the constitutional doctrine that you evolved, your opinions changed every time that you were on the court. i don't of any today. >> a few other questions about your service on the court that i wanted to ask about. joe loveless. so joe asks during the time of the supreme court who's the funniest justice you worked with? >> i think scalia. he's got a wonderful sense of humor. nd i think he would qualify. but they're an intelligent nice group of people. e example i might mentio

. >> it turns out to the framers that part of the amendment, it was really really important.hose militias were at the heart of the political philosophy. it's not like anything we have. every adult white man was in the militia for their entire adult life and they were required by law to own a gun and keep their military weapon at home. and when the constitution was debated, they thought those militias were really important as a protector against tyranny, like red coats. they thought the new federal government would be like that. thy wanted to protect the militias and that was the motivated force originally about why they put the second amendment in the constitution. >> rose: being necessary to the security of a free state then the right of the people to keep and bear arms and shall not be infringed. >> and so the question we wrestle with is what does that mean. bear arms at that time principally had kind of a military meaning. but of course these days we aren't all in the militia. the country has evolved. it turns out when you look at the second amendment that the way we under

and the framers were consistent on this point, even alexander hamilton has a series of pamphlets and early debates between hamilton and madison over washington's neutrality proclamation in 1793 and hamilton writing says it is the province from the duty of the executive to preserve for the nation the blessings of peace and the legislature alone can interrupt them by placing the nation in a state of war. so madison for his part and i do think john reference this out before that in no part of the constitution is there more wisdom to be found in a continuous bed the temptation would be to grade for any one man. and so nobody thought that the president has the inherent constitutional power to launch wars that will but to be fair, the obama administration hasn't placed a great deal of emphasis on broad theories of presidential power to justify this latest war. justifying war on a presidential power theory is for people like dick cheney and others. the obama team tries to shy away from that sort of thing, so they have instead embarked upon a somewhat desperate search for this outside of arti

and moreover i think that example would horrify the framers. the idea of discriminating on the basis of religion in the enforcement of the law. but i want to say, there's an example that would have horrified the framers even more than that example, which is discriminating on the basis of politics in the enforcement of the law. just saying i'm not going to enforce this bankruptcy -- this bank robbery statute against, say, the republican bank robbers or the democratic bank robbers. the reason is this. if the president can, through discriminatory enforcement of the law put a thumb on the political scale, the scale of the electoral process, he casts doubt on everything that follows. because if you can't trust the results of the -- so if the president can suppress the voices of those who disagree with him by selective enforcement of the law, then you're going to not trust your elections after that. and it's going to cast doubt on everything that follows. i want to say the single most corrosive thing that can happen in a democracy is for incumbents to

once again defying congress and the framers of our constitution. the white house is preparing for an onslaught of its own creation expecting a massive surge have illegal immigrants. according to the reporting of breitbart.com. lou: you will know thatneither d seek congressional approval. center mark kirk saying the move would further efforts to impose new sanctions against iran. >> he will unite the congress against the agreement. the very first vote would be on the sanctions against iran. a bipartisan consensus being pretty strong against iran. lou: taking all of this up tonight, but we begin with much-needed good news for dozens of people on ebola watch list and the effort to prevent an outbreak of ebola the people who were closest to ebola patient zero thomas duncan begin to go on with their lives. fox news correspondent is in dallas as has our report tonight. earthquakes could lead to if as i am speaking, the cdc has announced the guidelines they will now be required it to be covered head to toe, something they did not have to do before. it has

you always try to find out what you can about the framers. but that's not necessarily the answer. in fact, there are some constitutional provisions that have a meaning directly opposite to what the framers intended. didn't real lizzie understand the full implications of some of them they enacted. my favorite is the religious clauses. hey were designed to protect the christian religion. but nonchristian were not protected and that's demonstrated by contemporary writing. but when you look at the problem today, you obviously freedom of religion others. so it may be broader. it's the same for seg grated school. >> the constitutional doctrine that you evolved, your opinions changed every time that you were on the court. i don't of any today. >> a few other questions about your service on the court that i wanted to ask about. joe loveless. so joe asks during the time of the supreme court who's the funniest justice you worked with? >> i think scalia. he's got a wonderful sense of humor. nd i think he would qualify. but they're an intelligent nice group of people. e example i might mentio

it was thomas jefferson that once claimed that a democracy cannot be both ignorant and free and the framers of the constitution said if that u.s. citizens take great care to share information completely among themselves they would be worse off than they had been as subjects of the british monarchy. in that sense the -- in order for a democratic form of government to function and continue to exist, the people must be informed. a simple mantra for a great nation and indeed the development of our free society is the result of the public debate and disclosure that journalists like james risen provide and the core of our free society is the press. and forgotten amidst a particular reporter's public persona is the crux of their profession, and that is news gathering. at the haefrt of our freedoms and the freedom to publish the news is the freedom to gather the news. and as justice sutherland wrote in 1926, this country it is safe to say has shed achkd continues to shed more light on -- and since informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon this government, the suppression or

once again defying congress and the framers of our constitution. the white house is preparing for an onslaught of its own creation expecting a massive surge have illegal immigrants. according to the reporting of breitbart.com.

, the marriage has been a question for the states decided at the state level and one of the geniuses of our framersthe states are laboratories of democracy and i think marriage laws should reflect the values and mores of the citizens. you would expect the citizens of california make different policy decisions in the citizens of texas or florida or new york. we shouldn't have unelected federal judges or the federal government trying to impose their policy views on state legislatures. >> you have a pretty significant op-ed piece talking about if republicans take majority what you would like to do. there is a lot we will not have time to get to but we will ask about one thing that caught my eye. the need for congressional oversight on a range of issues. in terms of benghazi, there should be careful and sober senate hearings. what are the unanswered questions of the tragic matter? >> there have been a number of hearings on the house side and the administration continues to stonewall and in deed, earlier this year, i introduced a resolution for a joint committee to investigate benghazi. >> just list the

do you think the framers made a mistake by including the pension protection clause that says retirement benefits shall not be diminished, and should illinois and amend the constitution now to remove that amendment? don't think that language is a mistake at all. are ak pensions contractural obligation. it should be honored by all parties. i was opposed to pension changes pat quinn put through last november because i believe they were unconstitutional. i don't believe it is right to change the payment to a retiree after they were already retired. that is what governor quinn did in that pension reform will. i don't think that is the right thing to do. i think the fair thing to do and the constitutional thing to do is to freeze the pensions where they are today. do not change anything. pay those benefits, but starting tomorrow we should create a second pension plan that is more affordable. of moneyt save a lot in the short term. it saves billions in the long run. >> my opponent wants to privatize pensions in illinois. arisky 401(k) plan that has $100 billion haul. i don't think that's the r

i think one of the great places to look to answer that question is, what are the air framers doing from a human factor perspective. what is it that they're going to ask the pilot of the future to do. and what are they investing in the human factor research today. and significantly, boeing announced, again, significant to this argument, it didn't get a lot of air time, was that they had essentially zeroed out the line item for human factors funding for airborne self-separation. what they're saying as air framers, the major air framers say this initial concept of far term next gen is there will be super high levels of automation, and controllers sitting back and watching and controlling by exception, becoming more air traffic managers, and pilots being more system managers. there is a deep recognition that there's a human -- a strong human role in even the far term of whatever this modernization effort is called now, or will be called in the future. you can see that across the different modernization plans of the worldwide nasps, the service provides around the world. they all adhere to a

the framers of our constitution established the entire federal government in just 18 pages. that's right. i've written a 20-page bill that i'm glad to share with you that will replace this. it's the very size of this. that makes it so dangerous. you know, the chief architect of our constitution, james madison, wrote in federalistic 62 cautioning against congress ever passing a law, here are madison's own words, so voluminous that no one could read it. or so frequently changed that a reasonable person would not know what the law is. that is obamacare to a ""t." yes. and our lawless president has repeatedly rewritten, revised, deleted and delayed and distortethis law. so that the health plan he's rolling out now bears little resemblance to what congress actually enacted in 2010. and that is the most important reason that we must win a sizeable majority in the united states senate this fall. not simply to slow down obamacare. no. but in addition, we must elect a new senate majority leader. a new senate majority leader who will have a chat with the president. and remind the pres

it's certainly what the constitution envisioned, certainly what the framers envisioned. and as we go, you know, we're at 13 years into the, into the history of the aumf, the pentagon sees up to 20 more years, it becomes a complete pretense that we've got any kind of real congressional authorization for this. it's being treated as the delegation in perp perpetuity ta succession or presidents to do more or less whatever they want that they think is in the name of national security. that's not the way our system is supposed to work. >> i could add to that, that this problem actually predates 9/11. and you could argue that it goes back to the existence of a standing military force which was also never the founders' intention, right? consult your constitution. it talks about raising an army and maintaining a navy, and that was not just a semantic gimmick. that actually had real meaning to them x. so the fact that -- and so the fact that a president no longer is required to call up forces is why you don't have declarations of war, you don't have congress debating whether or not

barrow: i believe in the term limits that the framers gave us which is two-year terms for the branch of government they want to be closest to the people. here's the problem with arbitrary. you will not solve the problems making one is represented as it is. congress isn't as unrepresented as it is because we have too many folks elected in the same place. they do a good job of representing their districts. it's their districts that don't do a good job of representing the country as a whole. that's why i endorse and support the redistricting reform. we had more look at the rest of the country and members of congress who look at the national interest when they deal with things nationally and that's what the framers intended. we need a system where the people choose their leaders rather than politicians choosing their voters that has to be fixed and nothing will solve the problem held until we do that. >> it is now your turn to ask a question. >> moderator: your opponent was organized by the center and you refused to participate in that venue. does that portray a religious bias or prejudi

the struggle for the executive branch has dissipated, thereby undoing the framer's intent, do you thinkt's a good analysis? >> the analysis is they want the perpetuation of power, it's not about the perks, they do, especially the true believers on the republican side and the democratic side want the power to somehow change america for what they believe to be the better vision. kennedy: i believe a lot of people who were first elected believe, that they start out with good intentions but are corrupted along the way. >> that's what gets to you sleep at night. it becomes the perpetuation of power. in absence of vision for the american people, you say day to day transactional politics. james mcgregor burns in his book defined transactional leadership or transformational leadership, we're not seeing transformational leadership, we were promised it in 2008. kennedy: and then some. >> and then some. the machinations of politics, there is no collaboration to reach a common destination and the public is frustrated, nothing is done and you see the tribal warfare amongst the caucuses and approval

that's the way the framers of our constitution made it. resident makes the final decision on war and what type of war we'll fight. not the generals, not the chiefs of staff, the president. if that wasn't the case when jfk was president, we would have had a nuclear holocaust. the generals wanted to bomb the russians and jfk stopped them. he was a civilian and he knew the consequences. and so congressman ryan doesn't understand the basic tenet of the american constitution. it is a civilian led military. that's what makes us different than most countries in the world. >> are they trying to politicize this before the mid-term elections? >> no ifs, ands or buts. almost everything is being politicized. the sad thing is they don't have the courage to take a stand. they run off, they leave washington, and then they say, why don't you call us back? as if they need permission from the president to call them back. and they know that they don't. they don't want to take a stand. they want to kick this can down the road. just in case something goes wrong

the plumbers, the electricians, the framers. um, everyone is just kind of scrambling. so the countertops are already kind of-- like, templated, and set, ready to go? travis neff: i'm worried about the faucets too. george oliphant: so wha-- what are our options? -find new faucets. -so wait, new faucets and new sinks? -yeah. we might have to. -and since this is a his and hers, i means two sinks and two sets of faucets. i'd like to say it's an organized chaos, but it's kind of just a little bit of just straight up chaotic chaos. you know what this means? we need at least another red bull. -or two. -[sighs] cheers. narrator: "george to the rescue" is sponsored in part by homeadvisor, the free way to find and hire the best home pros. crew: one two, one two. buckle my shoe. crew: what? all right, hold on. -you've got that side, i've got this side. just the two of us. you've got one shot at this, because, uh, fabricating something like that, it's not easy. -good news, the plumbing issues have been taken care of. the tile is now going up in the bathroom. you're finally back on

but that threat is the tool that framers gave us in our constitution to defend our freedom. we must also vote out of office this fall. the spendaholics who have gained control. taken the government into their grip. the spendaholics. because under the obama administration, they push federal spending up as high as 25% of gdp. then you add in state and local government spending and you're up to 42% of gdp. 42% of everything all of us produced going to work everyday. 42% of the fruits of our likor are sucked up by government program. do you get 42% of your happiness from government? no, no. in the midst of world war when we were fighting for our survival as a nation, nothing today, justifies government appropriating 42% of the fruits of our labor. it's wrong. that's right, it's wrong. we must put a stop to it. the fact is, that our government has been hijacked by people who don't share our values or value our freedom. the spendaholics are pushing government spending up to levels commonly found in european countries. we americans don't want to be europeanized. no. no. in europe pe

it was thomas jefferson that once claimed that a democracy cannot be both ignorant and free and the framers of the constitution said if that u.s. citizens take great care to share information completely among themselves they would be worse off than they had been as subjects of the british monarchy. in that sense the -- in order for a democratic form of government to function and continue to exist, the people must be informed. a simple mantra for a great nation and indeed the development of our free society is the result of the public debate and disclosure that journalists like james risen provide and the core of our free society is the press. and forgotten amidst a particular reporter's public persona is the crux of their profession, and that is news gathering. at the haefrt of our freedoms and the freedom to publish the news is the freedom to gather the news. and as justice sutherland wrote in 1926, this country it is safe to say has shed achkd continues to shed more light on -- and since informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon this government, the suppression or

i want to say there is an example of oil would have horrified the framers even more than that example, which is discriminating on the basis of politics in the enforcement of the law, i will not enforce this bankruptcy -- bank robbery statutes against the republican bank robbers or the democratic bank robbers. the reason is this. if the president can, through discriminatory enforcement of the law put a thumb on the political scale, the scale of the electoral process, he casts doubt on everything that follows. if you can't trust the results, the president can suppress the voices of those who disagree with him by selective enforcement of the law, you cannot trust your e elections after that. the single most corrosive thing that can happen in a democracy is for incumbents to use the levers of power to stifle their critics and entrench themselves and that is in effect what the story of virus targeting is. admitted leave there is no evidence that president obama himself personally gave this order, but i want to remind you all again this duty, the duty to take care that the law be faithfully

and for those very reasons, the framers understood that they were not to be treated as people under our constitution. james madison said corporations are a necessary evil subject to proper limitations and guards. thomas jefferson hoped to crush our moneyed corporations. as a result of citizens united, five justices of the court have unleashed unlimited corporate and union dollars into our elections making a dangerously corrupting system exponentially worse and extending further the fabrication of corporate claims of constitutional rights. >> you have two minutes. >> under our constitution and under our republic, we the people shall govern over corporations not the other way around. in the face of this crisis, we must now use our power under article 5 of the constitution to enact a constitutional amendment to overturn the supreme court and to defend our democracy and our republic. we have done this before in our nation's history. 27 times before. seven times to overturn agreenlous supreme court rulings. we can and we must do it again. and we will. for as dangerous as this moment is for o

the framers of our constitution established the entire federal government in just 18 pages. that's right. i've written a 20-page bill that i will share with you that will replace this. it is the very size of this. that makes it so dangerous. you know, the cheap architective constitution james madison, wrote in federalistic 5 cautioning against congress ever passing a law and here are madison's own words. so volume nous that no one could read it. or so frequently changed that a reasonable person would not know what the law is. that is obama care twitchy. yes. yes. and our wallness president has repeatedly rewritten, revised, deleted, and delayed, and distorted this law. so that health plan he is rolling out now bears little resemblance to what congress actually enacted in 2010. and that is the most important reason that we must win a sizeable majority in the united states senate this fall. not simply to slow down obama care. no. but in addition, we must elect a new senate majority leader. a new senate majority leader who will have a chat with the president. and we mind the pr

there are some provisions that have been meaning to do the opposite to what the framers intended thatthey didn't understand the full implications the establishment clause was designed to protect the christian religion that they were not going to pretend to be protected and that is demonstrated by the temporary but when you look at the obvious you can't have the freedom of religion freedom of religion for protestants and athletes and then for jews and mormons and so forth. so the principles they be broader than their actual intent in your opinion has changed over time when you are on the court >> i don't think of any. joe asks who is the funniest justice that he worked for? to >> of >> i think antonin scully -- soviet and if there are others they are with a nice group of people. i don't know if they mentioned my friend is byron white nobody is in the conference room except the judges and busy telephone and when the phone in the conference room rings it's almost certainly a wrong number. i was the justice for many years and used to describe the junior justices. and then it would be a wr

we also know from the debates of the framers of the constitution that they specifically rejected including in the constitution the words "after conviction." they also in the debate at that time indicated situations where it might be necessary or desirable to grant a pardon even before indictment, as was the case in this instance. now, mr. president, i know that you followed very carefully the deliberations of this committee during the impeachment inquiry and i know you're also aware that this committee unanimously concluded that the president was guilty of an impeachable offense growing out of obstruction of justice. so in a sense, couldn't we not say that this was at least the basis for a possible criminal charge which was already spread on the record with ample evidence to justify it? so those who say you should have waited until there were formalized charges are overlooking the fact that there was a very formalized charge and indictment if you will by this committee. >> well, the unanimous vote of the house committee on the judiciary, all 35 members certainly is very, very substantial e

world that congress envisioned when it enacted section 215 and it's certainly not the world that the framers envisioned when they crafted the fourth amendment. if there are no questions. >> thank you very much. we very much appreciate the arguments of both sides which were extremely careful, thorough and learned, and we will take them under advisement and eventually render a decision. thank you all very much. that's the last case on the calendar. the clerk will adjourn the court. >> court stands adjourned. >>> tonight on c-span3, sports at school. we'll show you a house hearing on head injuries and other safety issues. also, a senate hearing on academic standards for student athletes. it begins at 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. >>> virginia's democratic senator mark warner is seeking a second term. he's being challenged a by former republican national committee chair ed gillespie. they debated in the northern virginia suburbs outside washington, d.c. here's a few minutes of that. >> there are differences i have with, and you know, again, when you're not in the white house, you know, my part

the framers would easily have recognized, it did not st. paul antinomy.same i have the desire to do what is good but i cannot carry it out. when i want to do good evil is right there with me. years the ideaf of natural law played a dominant role in philosophy and history. --ero, calvin coolidge approved similar sentiment, a wonderful speech given in 1926 to celebrate the wonder had -- 150th anniversary of the declaration of independence. he lamented most of those clamoring for reform were ill-informed. america's foundation was spiritual, not material and the founders or people influenced by spiritual development required a great moral power. only the exercise of god's providence seemed out of it to explain the declaration of independence. he did not believe it should be discarded for something more modern. he concludes that all men are created equal that is final. if they are endowed with an unalienable rights that is final. if governments derive power from the consent of the governed that is final. no progress community on these proposition

the framers would easily have recognized, it did not st. paul voice the same antinomy.i have the desire to do what is good but i cannot carry it out. when i want to do good evil is right there with me. for thousands of years the idea of natural law played a dominant role in philosophy and history. calvin coolidge approved similar sentiment, a wonderful speech given in 1926 to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the declaration of independence. he lamented most of those clamoring for reform were ill-informed. america's foundation was spiritual, not material and the founders or people influenced by spiritual development required a great moral power. only the exercise of god's providence seemed out of it to explain the declaration of independence. he did not believe it should be discarded for something more modern. he concludes that all men are created equal that is final. if they are endowed with an unalienable rights that is final. if governments derive power from the consent of the governed that is final. no progress community on these propositions. anyone wishes to deny