what is the law generally? must it be a drug law or could it be any law? >> you should give it up ms. harrington. >> let me try one more time. we think it would be consistent with the way this court has treated other men's rae issues such as, you know willful standard. >> i don't think the problem is with your articulation. i think the problem is we're sitting here thinking of examples like, you know there's an anti-bird hunting statute and says you cannot hunt green-i had turkeys and the guy has never heard of that and you say, okay, i don't know if this is a green-i had turkey and gone yon if it violates the green-i had turkey statute but maybe it violates something. that sounds like an odd principle even if you limit it to all laws concerning birds. do you see the problem? am i suddenly worried the government is going to start skull king around in the bushes. >> i think that has not turned out to be a real world problem. i certainly understand the court's concern i do think in the willful context that that has the court -- brian said that's sufficient i

if you don't like the law, rewrite the law, that is the way it works.ed at this saying what was the overall intent of congress and they came in my opinion i said this from the beginning to the ultimate right decision. if you don't like it change the law. >> that could happen under another administration or future congress. >> certainly. the problem is this is a political issue not a legal issue. i am an attorney. when i read this and what is established by the state, it will make no sense because the law wouldn't have been implemented. all laws are not written perfectly. it was clear what the intent was. if you don't like it don't make a political process out of the supreme court court process, change the law. >> it was said the supreme court is taking sides and doing whatever to make sure obamacare leads. >> i love justice scalia but i respectfully don't agree with him on that. we have to respect the rule of reason. what was the congress intending to do here and if we can gleam what congress was intending to do they are allowed to modify or if you will

this law takes the cake.his was a law that they tried to get out while they still had a democratly controlled congress. but there has been a lot of talk about the so-called death spiral, what would have happened if the court ruled in favor of king. there is a little bit of misnomer. this would have jacked up insurance for people in many states many people would have been kicked out of the marketplace, and it is sort of the linchpin of the affordable care act but there are some other big portions of this law that would have stayed in place. the inability to discriminate against those who have a different gender. women have had higher insurance premiums. people that had a preexisting condition like diabetes would have paid more. but as we look forward clearly -- this is still a political hot potato but when you look at the rollout, and 16 million who have gotten insurance in the wake of this i think it's important to put it in historical context. in 1965 when they rolled out medicaid and medicare you still had

today, as you graduate and you receive this degree and you receive your law degree from this great law school, you have become a guardian for the rule of law. and by doing so, you are a guardian. for our international students you are a guardian for our country. for all of us, we are guardians for our democracy. regardless of the role that you choose in the law, every lawyer has the ability to speak truth to power. that means standing up for what you believe is right, no matter how difficult it is. you have the ability to do so and the talent to do so with your law degree. that means standing up for the weak or disaffected or those who do not have a voice. to understand that when we defend the most unpopular among us, you do a great service to our justice system. it means telling clients not what they want to hear, but what they need to hear. that is what a good lawyer does. i will tell you it means admitting what you don't know. because often there is so much we don't know and we need to know if we are going to do a good job. in our legal profession. and finally, it always means apply

it is now law.gress will have 30 days to review and take a decision before the president can lift any sanctions given that situation, and that president has signed up for this has to be aired in public. >> it is going to be, you haven't even got a deal yet though. >> that's true, once again the iranian side has said that it is not going to agree to many of the components of the deal. so othe question is either we will sit there until they change their mind or we will change our mind if it requires us changing our mind better to walk away. >> so is you think the president needed to push. >> i think he needed to push. >> more than a push? what is it going to take for the president to live up to what you would like him to do. >> i think this is a gentle push, you have many that would go much further. you saw the letter, pacicly what the bulk of those who signed this letter said is this isn't the agreement we would have liked to have seen, but we are willing to look at it in good faith if it means the c

. >> it is clear it is a law that two states that the state could say we won't fly this states's law is. >> even though it is the same as ours? mike new york, i happen to know there's a law that a federal judge from washington couldn't marry someone if you are married to your own wife but you can't marry two other people that the district of columbia has the opposite law. if i marry two people in washington d.c. and they move to new york u.s. a new york doesn't have to recognize that marriage because it doesn't comport with the marriage of new york. >> what case is that? a few people get nervous about this. [laughter] >> my answer is based on the court's decision in nevada vs. hall because the state's home law sets its own policy and the state's law would be in conflict with the state's policy but the policy would be we distrust federal judges from outside the state. even that they would get away with in your view. because i am next going to ask what is the difference between that kind of policy and the policy that says we don't recognize the gay couples's marriage for the reason tha

law.ears after the civil war, the nation stitches itself back together and chaos rules the indian territory. the most dangerous place in the wild west. but deputy u.s. marshal bass reeves fights for the rule of law. >> what's it going to be? >> come on here, boy. >> the lone ranger symbolizes the pra tag mist of the western region but people don't know who he is. the lone ranger closely resembl resembl resembles bass reeves. >> bass reeves' name and face has been overlooked and obscured by history. >> bass reeves, a new deputy? >> yes, sir. >> bass reeves is one of only a few dozen deputy marshals who serve the federal court and jail in ft. smith, arkansas, a place that more than earns the name hell on the border. these men are charged with keeping the peace in the new home of the so-called five civilized tribes forced out of the southeastern states. >> the indian removal act took place a lot of the tribes were moved to oklahoma. indian territory is what it was called at the time. it was a

that's because of this law.enior or an american with a disability, this law gives you discounts on your prescriptions, something that has saved 9 million americans an average of $1600 so far. if you are a woman, you can't be charged more than anybody else, even if you have had cancer or your husband had heart disease or just because you are a woman. your insurer has to offer preventative services like mammograms. they can't place annual or lifetime caps on your care because of this law. because of this law and because of today's decision millions of americans that i hear from every single day will continue to receive the tax credits that have given 8 in 10 people who buy insurance on the new marketplaces the choice of a health care plan that costs less than $100 a month. when it comes to pre-existing conditions, someday our grandkids will ask us if there was really a time when america discriminated against people who get sick because that is something this law has ended for good. that affects everybody with heal

the real issue is the rule of law. is this going to be a nation governed by constitutional prerogatives or the policy preferences of unelected bureaucrats? i think that is executive what happened in this case. this is an extraordinarily simple case. the irs is transformed it into something that we receive subsidies on exchanges there is not a reasonable interpretation of that language. they cannot dispute that the plain language is the opposite. they try to change the subject. they say, you ripped the language out of context and the language is contrary to the underlying purpose of the statute. in reality, neither of those is true. the context in which those words reside confirms in every way that the plain language means exactly what it says. following that plain language is really the only way to implement the broader purposes of the affordable care act. for example in terms of context, it is argued that this is an unusual place to put a restriction on subsidies, but the reality is that section 36 b is the only provi

and federal law. it is evident to any reasonable person that neither i nor my ex-wife the marriage act would not apply to us. yet three different levels of courts in india reached a complete opposite decision. i urge this committee to take special note of the broad and subjective interpretation and application of family law being applied in extra territorial manner by indian courts to foreign nationals and nonresidents as cause of concern of our rights as american citizens and protection by the constitution of the united states are being impinged upon. the hague convention has been in place for 30 years. how many more hearings before we see american children being returned from countries like brazil, india and japan? who have either failed to recognize parental child abduction as a crime or disregarded international law and their own obligations. we are not demanding special favors from our government but when parents are being left behind twice, once by their abductor and then by our own government t

what is your rule of law? you've just instilled a new constitution that directly upholds your supreme court and it's -- and its rulings and you turn around in the face of those and say, well we don't have a ruling, we don't have a final judgment. well if your supreme court is not the final judgment then what is? and i do applaud the tunisia judiciary for following the international law and upholding its legal obligations in the face of what is very obviously an interest of society to protect its citizen because they see my children as tunisia and not as vids and they do not see them as children who deserve the familihood of both a mother and a father they see them as symbols of their national -- of -- as national symbols. my children are tunisia and american as well and the home is the united states and the tunisia courts have rules and the american courts have ruled and it is simply time that those judgments be enforced. and i don't know if you call that corruption, i certainly call it a problem. >> gentlemen

and essentially the court did uphold the law simply because the law should alone survive. it gave the chief the license to interpret it as you did. >> you have to have a real ambiguity before you look at external signs and purposes or you are doing purposism and rewriting a statute without regard it what it says. >> reporter: he said the court saved the law so many times it is lotus care. >> shannon, thank you. >> today's ruling a big victory for president obama. and you heard his remarks an hour and half ago, you heard the pleasure. what options would a republican president have for changing or over turning the law. we played the president's remarks in the segment that jenna had with shannon bream, you heard chris, the affordable care act is here to stay is it? >> it is certainly through the rest of his term. there are other cases that may come up with the court the opposition to the contraception man date when it comes to religious institution like little sisters of the poor. that would not strike at the heart of obama care the way this would have. this will last through

secret laws are union-american laws. there is no such thing recognized under our constitution as a secrete statute or treaty. we have been experiencing it without any legal authority whatsoever. we aren't asking them to stop the negotiating. we list the vale of secrecy that has been dropped over these goisheses and the american people can't see them but foreign governments can see them. why is it we have confidentiality and we have a system and not seeing this information but to keep foreigners to see the information. and we have a situation where foreigners see it but the highest members of our government, our senators and government, we don't get to set it. it its un-america can. the only way to come up with agreements is through an open, fair and transparent process. it says none of the funds made available by this act may be used to negotiate or enter into a trade agreement. it is time for a little sunloit. it is time for the members of this body to take control of our constitutional responsibilities not to let the t

on preserving or repealing this law, after multiple challenges to this law before the supreme court, affordable care act is here to stay. the court upheld a critical part of this law, a part that has made it easier for americans to afford health insurance, regardless of where you live. --the partisan challenges challenge to this law would have succeeded, it millions of americans would have had thousands of tax that it taken from them. for many, insurance would have become unaffordable again. many would have to come uninsured again. ultimately everyone's premiums could have gone up. america would have gone backwards. that is not what we do. does.s not what america we move forward. today is a victory for hard-working americans all of us this country whose lives will continue to become more secure in a changing economy because of this law. if you are a parent, you can keep your kids on your plan until they turn 26. something that has covered millions of young people so far. that is because of this law. , or anare a senior american with a disability, this law gives you discount on your p

of the law as they are themselves protected by the law.hat is the story of our nation. our strength does not come from the words we have written on the page or the laws we put down on the books. it comes from ordinary citizens generation after generation, who do their part to uphold our founding ideas. it comes from an unshakable faith in our ability to stand up for what is right and admit where we have fallen short and chose a better way forward. that was the cause to when loretta dedicated her life long before becoming america's top law enforcement officer. today the american people can have no greater advocate for the right for equality under law. no greater partner in securing justice for all than our attorney general, loretta lynch. [applause] [indiscernible] justice sotomayor: >> loretta elizabeth lynch please place your left hand on the bible of fredrick douglas. raise your right hand and repeat after me. i loretta lynch - lynch: i loretta lynch. justice sotomayor: do solumnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of

we are left with a law that is the law of the land.here is no question but was law o not drafted and didn't go through some of the editing and t go thr revisions that would have been typical for a piece of legislation that's this complex.of leg that leads to the kinds of challenges we're seeing. >> steve is in our line for artins democrats good morning. >> caller: good morning.ev i'm juste trying to figure out the law. it's my belief that the federal government cannot coerce states to do something. especially financially.do do this or we won't give you the funding. not giv if they interrupt the healthcare subsidies provisions the way the republicans would like it it it see seems toms me that would mean the law says make your own exchange or we won't give you the money. and that's straight up coercion. your opinion? how can they take it away for states that don't have an how exchange and leave it?it away it seems like it puts you in a legal quandary where if they change it, you know to what the republicans interrupt it as they're making

and was in effect writing law.his has been a repetitive theme. i think chairman ryan raised this issue regard to certain issues relating to obamacare. but we've seen this with immigration, obamacare, other issues of telephone law, tariff measures. this committee in a bipartisan way has been willing to work with the administration on these child support policies. why does the administration choose to trample on the constitution and article i powers in an area where we want to work together? i just don't get it. i understand there is always tension where we disagree. i get it. and that's a fight we're seeing play out in the courts. but why in an instance where we do have willingness to work and cooperate on this important issue area. >> we would look forward to the opportunity to work in this space. in terms of that particular rule, there were some very important things that i know you were familiar with and the fact that some of these things were done in the 1990s. so people have to do paper applications with regard

it is a changing existing law. and, and, and, you know, it's not a punt to the we're going to do this thing blows up a bunch of 11, -- >> forty-five years. they will overrule two pieces of progressive legislation, something from the civil rights era that at the economic component to voting rights so bright it. in that sense from the defenders of the laws you they are likely it alone. and anyone else was looking to change this court. let's take two questions at the time. >> this is the last thing in the world republicans in congress want to deal with. i don't agree, there's no way. you see the presidential republican candidates contorting themselves and pretzels on this issue. they say they are against marriage equality but they would go to a gay marriage. >> broadly, let's be careful to that point, do you mean pretzel or do you mean just pieces of the wedding cake? >> they would like to have waited longer but the sixth circuit me that not really a choice. >> i want to get, let's take into we can keep talking to tak

what they make of the law and other measures on the way to the law across the country next.earms on campus it's tonight's "inside story". welcome back to "inside story". i'm ray suarez we are focussing on the pros and cons of campus carry laws. the right to have a gun at college universities joining me is ken kruger president in higher education. good to have you with us. in states across the country where they are loosening restrictions on carrying guns colleges, many are pushing back saying okay but not here. what is different about a college campus. >> i think college campuses are unique environment. your previous guest mentioned developmental years, the 18 to 22-year-old period where students are finding themselves and finding their own space and voice. the college campuses are intensifiesical environment. thing about the average residence. you have hundreds of student packed into a space. it's also a place where we really actively want students to engage in challenging dialogue. think about all that took place in the last year post ferguson on college campuses. lots of

there are state laws and there are municipal laws and there are some federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the about abasis of sexual discrimination. they don't cover everything and they don't cover housing or commercial transactions and things of that nature. i think the lgbt will be pressing for laws that entitle gays and lesbians to the same respect and anti-discrimination protections that other people of other religions have or people of other races or nationalities. >> second, there's the question and it became hot this spring of religious freedom. can the proverbial baker or photographer who is selling services openly can he refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage because he or she believes that it violates their religious freedom or is that now illegal under this rule? >> it's not illegal under this ruling. there may be statutes that cover it. if you walk into a bakery on the street and want to buy a pie or a doughnut or something like that the bakery under federal law can't discriminate against you on the basis of your race or your religion. if there are laws that cover tha

that is changing existing law. and, you know, it's not a punt to say we're going to do this thing that blows up a bunch -- that blows up 11 -- the consensus of 11 courts of appeals -- >> you can put it more simply. you're talking whether they'll overrule two progressive pieces of legislation. something from the civil rights era, that added the economic component. that's what the '67 '68 laws were about, and obama dls care, which has already been tested. in that sense from the defender of the law's view they're like leave it alone right and everyone else is looking to change through the courts. let's take two questions at a time. >> let me chime in. this is the last thing in the world republicans in congress want to deal with. i actually don't agree. there's no way. you see presidential candidates and contorting themselves into pretzels on this issue. they go -- >> be careful. >> is it pretzels or just pieces of wedding cakes? >> it's a wedding that serves -- >> or free dam -- >> i think it's pretzels. they're not g

there's no law overseeing those. anyway, i'd like to speak to that and how the court circumvented the opportunity for me as an ohioan. to say what relationships we would subsidize and benefit the community as a whole. and i can say that intellectually, being intellectually honest and say i could have someone like new york where windsor ruled over them and by all means saying have it your way, that was right for you but not right for ohio. guest: i mean, that's a good point. windsor, as you say, was about in part states authority to define what kind of family relationships they were going to recognize. i think that the issue the way the court looked at it was true, ohio in amending its constitution did seek to deny the benefits and also obligations, let's be clear, i mean many married people would see it not as completely a -- as containing some obligations and duties as well but in deciding which of these relationships it was going to admit to this institution and subsidize it in some ways and strengthen it in some w

the aca law. and i'm just curious as to how can we as a nation figure out -- take some funding from parts of the defense contractors. some of that money that's been wasted and put it in for health care? of course you have to watch and make sure that the money that's being wasted in the health care system, but it seems like to me it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out there's money out there that can be covered for our citizens. that's my comment. >> this is new jersey next up. we hear from john on our others line. >> caller: i have a couple comments. i strongly disagree with the supreme court. i live in a town where everyone -- the single family home, everyone has mortgages, second mortgage car payments kids are in school. none of these politicians bring up the fact that most of us are -- considered working poor. every dime we have that comes in, goes out. and now they turn around and lay this health care on me. my health care has gone up at least 35%. our deductibles went up to $10,000

gun law, we would not be here. but the challenge is that laws are created for a just society. this guy was not trying to be a part of a just society. >> i want to go back to the issue that was in that editorial for a moment though. because there was an effort it feels right away to sort of make this a part of a bigger very troubled history that has existed, this is a black church, it was attacked by a young man who has espoused thoughts of segregationism and white supremacy. so when you heard about this crime and when you think about it now do you see it as a part of that continuum, as a part of that difficult history, or as something that appears to be separate from that? >> i think the fatherct of the matter is that people all around the country and world struggle with different types and different levels of prejudice and certainly racism is a real fact. it has not been eliminated. but we have made so much progress. what i hear in the question very often is not analysis of the individual but an attempt to drag us

because the law needs risk takers, too. the law needs entrepreneurs, too. the law needs dreamers, too. and no matter what you decide to do in the law, i hope you find a way to inject some of that spirit, because an idealistic lawyer can not only achieve the american dream but open up that dream to other people also, to the disenfranchised, to the downtrodden, to the discriminated against. you know, it's certainly impressive when someone figures out how to deliver advanced technology to your wrist, but what about when someone figures out how to deliver justice to your life? a driverless car? well, that seems downright magical, but don't ever underestimate the promise of your own profession, the noble profession you embark upon today, because the law practiced with hope and idealism can lift people up, too. it can inspire wonder, too. the law, if wielded well, can work a type of magic, too. you think the iphone is elegant? you think a tesla is beautiful? what about the truth inherent in the argument that separate but equal is inherently unequal? [applause] pr

questions about the change in law. the law changed after the opening and answering briefs were filed. mr. gura referred to it as cementing a victory for the plaintiffs. at the panel level, we were asked, i believe by chief judge thomas, whether or not that would prevent the case from going forward. and counsel agreed it would not in both cases. in richards, the reason why i took that position was because as i read the district court opinion, the changes that had been made in the law -- and i will address those in a minute -- would not have changed the district court's view. judge smith: then how do you explain page eight and nine in peruta and page 10 in richards where both district court's put an emphasis on the presence of carry law in california and suggested that was maybe some reason why intermediate scrutiny would not strike down the law? because they had carry provisions which were allowed then. you simply could not put the ammunition with the gun. attorney: those exceptions still exist. albeit in lesser form. t

this is law.icans on the court. he's got two decisions now. he's going to say, if you want to do something about this law, treat it as law and work with me. that's what we've heard from white house officials and it's been vindicated by the court today. >> it's the same thing the white house said after the first decision, the first supreme court decision on obamacare. so the first challenge to the supreme court on this was the constitutionality of it. this second challenge, very specific on wording of it. legally speaking is the supreme court shutting the door on future legal questions about this law? >> reporter: it's a hard question because we're not in the prediction business. what i can tell you legally is there is no majority on the supreme court that has shown any appetite to knock down any part of obamacare in any way that would undermine the whole law. i say it that way because in that original decision they did rule that states could opt out in a way without jeopardizing their past medicai

this law scotuscare. there was a chuckle in the courtroom and some laughter, but it was very dramatic. >> and there are a cacophony of voices there, and not to suggest that the voices on the steps of the supreme court are the majority of those in america, but can you give me a feel of what people are saying and how it's being received, at least on the stairs? >> as soon as the ruling came out, there was a loud applause, a lot of celebrating. you can hear me right now, they're talking about the rolling we stand with aca, aca is here to stay. a very vociferous, loud crowd, because this is a very big deal, ashleigh. again, half the justices come out in favor of the challengers who said that those millions of people shouldn't receive subsidies. this could have gutted the affordable care act. so, a big victory for the obama administration with today's ruling. ashleigh? >> stand by, if you will. i know it's getting loud out there. jeffrey toobin, to the quiet confines and the thoughtful situation you're in righ

>> i can tell you, jake according to law enforcement source rich art matt has been shot and law enforcementid sweat. this in upstate new york. that's all we know for now. i know there are a number of tactical teams in that area including the u.s. marshal's special operations group. you have s.w.a.t. teams that also have been searching, and the corrections department. their cert teams are there as wet. we heard earlier from major guest, that they did believe the men were in the area in the franklin county area and that they had credible evidence they said there had been no physical sightings, but the evidence they were getting and the dna they had let them to believe they were close, that they were moving in a northwest direction a north-northwest direction up towards the canadian border but now we are getting information that law enforcement reporting that richard matt has been shot and david sweat is now running, being chased by law enforcement. jake? >>> just to reiterate these are the two fugitive killers who escaped i believe 21 days ago from clinton correctional facility. we are being

they can decide what they believe the law says but the congress has to actually create a law. what they did was not rule on marriage equality. they redefined marriage. there is a fundamental difference. their decision was a political decision not a legal one. they had to reach out into thin air to create a right that simply is not listed in the constitution. i think that is what is so significant about the dissenting views from the four justices. what this really means and i think roberts puts it well five unelected black robe lawyers essentially by passed the legislative process, political process that is fundamental to our country and just made a decision that they had no authority or poier to make. >> on the subject of reading writes into the constitution that you say don't exist the supporters of the majority opinion say they interpreted equal protection clause to provide rights even though it is not explicit. you have to look at modern day america and try to understand what the founders meant. in this court in 2015 says the same way they interpreted that clause to provide

i'm not the one that sets the law.ust abiding by the law. >> also he says the older moving companies want to protect consumers from shady operators. >> just say i'm coming to pick up your furniture. i tell you it's $80 an hour and i get to your new house and i say i'm going to charge you $155 an hour. >> now we have this thing called the internet where people can find out if a company has a bad reputation. >> consumers go for the cheapest price, john. >> check the web before she hired r.j. >> if somebody rated a company poorly and said they didn't take care of their items and that would certainly ring some alarm bells for me. >> had you had complaints from people you'd moved? >> no. no complaints. we are the top ranked moving company in the state according to angie's list. >> after a two-year fight with bureaucrats the judge ruled in r.j.'s family. now any moving company can compete in kentucky. that's a good thing for consumers and also because -- >> entrepreneurs are the welt create wealth creators of our society. i

gave that agency the tools to enforce the laws? a sort of financial cop for american families. and then we held that agency accountable? a tough cop who was willing to take on wall street and big banks. what would happen then? i talked to everybody i could about this idea. i went to washington, i talked to folks in congress, policy gurus, newspaper people, anybody i could. pretty much all of them told me two things. first, that is a good idea. that is actually an idea that could make a difference. and the second thing they told me, don't do it. think about that. they gave me 1000 reasons not to do it, but the reasons all boiled down to one very painful point. you can't win. don't do it because you can't win. don't even try because you can't win. you will never get to this consumer agency passed into law. they pointed out that the biggest banks in the country would hate this idea and they would send hundreds of millions of dollars to stop it. and they said to me, you are just a teacher. you've got nothing. you've got no money, organ

we know we are going to have to revisit this law much more frequently than other parts of the law that we continue to address here at the board of supervisors. the ballot measure also in many regards, in my opinion , has been politically driven and not policy driven. i believe there are a number of advocates that i very much appreciate a dialogue with where we have disagreed on the underlying basis but have approached this on a policy basis and not a political basis. i look forward to reenergizing those dialogues moving forward. i also understand my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have other policy components they would like to have time to discuss and sort out and i would welcome conversations on this complicated topic. from my perspective we passed a framework last year, now let's take the time to get it right. i know ultimately we will get a policy crafted that protects our affordable housing stock, which has to be the no. 1 goal, incentivize hosts to be good actors by streamlining the registration process and fully fund it so we ensure the law we pass here at the board of sup

these laws are out of character in an unprecedented in many respects. >> you say that the law in some state are contextual? >> i think the nonrecognition losses have the distinction between same-sex the opposite sex was the most dramatic variation it is a racial marriage is the closest analogy but it goes to justice sotomayor question being. >> what is the most erratic variation in marriage laws of the state's. >> it probably is age. >> 13 through 18 but the tradition of the state is to recognize that is entered into that could not be entered into with in the state because of the nature once established recognizing the fundamental nature of that relationship is not one the state should put asunder. >> guide that you said it could refuse to recognize with of minimum age was puberty? >> they could with the individual case it would show because of lack of consent. >> but that perception of such as state at age 13? vitter faq are right but 15 instead of 16 the courts probably would recognize it with the reliance of their marriage the couple already conceived of a child would do no one any

they wrote this law.u look at it as a whole, it's clear millions of americans keep their subsidies. and without the subsidies it could create chaos. that's something the court didn't want to be responsible for. jake tapper pass it back to you. >> thank you so much. i'm going to go back to wolf blitzer right this second to talk more about this big overbheming victory for president obama and the u.s. supreme court. >> a huge win for the president of the united states. a 6-3 decision by the united states supreme court in favor of continuing the affordable care act, obamacare. the chief justice of the united states john roberts, siding with the majority justice kend also going with the majority. senator rand paul is joining us a republican presidential candidate. the senator from kentucky. senator, you must be pretty disappointed with this decision. >> yeah wolf. as a fashionphysician, i think the supreme court missed an opportunity. i think we made a mistake. if they would have ruled and adhered to the liter

affordable health care for every american is the law of the land. a new bloomberg poll reveals bernie sanders has eaten into clinton's lead in iowa up 8 points for may. and clinton is also down in new hampshire with sanders up 6 points from a month ago. today sanders called the high court ruling common sense. the idea that we would simply throw another 6.4 million people all of health insurance and totally disrupt the affordable care act he said makes no sense. he's glad the supreme court ruled the way it did. former maryland governor martin o'malley said "we must continue to build and improve upon this hard-won progress." former arkansas governor mike huckabee called this a new low for the court and that a simple majority in black robes are circumventing the law. business woman carly fiorina said it is outrageous the supreme court once again rewrote obama care to save it even though it isn't working for the majority of americans. and former pennsylvania senator rick santorum says if you want to get rid of obama care you must elect a conservative pr

i went to dinner with a palestinian law professor and an orthodox jewish law professor, and they wentyou know, their disorder was out in the open. they didn't try to -- yeah, they didn't try to make nice like we do in the united states. and again, i think in order to have that conversation, it's going to be raw. feelings are going to get hurt. but, look, african-americans, more than our feels, have been getting hurt for 400 years. so this is the time. >> all right. paul, thank you. great to have you on. >> great to be here. >>> ahead, the other major supreme court decision handed down today. but next, the donald trump interview you do not want to miss. >>> america, your dreams have been answered. looks more and more likely that donald trump will be on stage when the fox news gop presidential debate in august. candidates polling in the top ten nationally, ahead of the debate, will be allowed to participate and a new poll from fox, itself, has trump in, drumroll, second place among gop contenders, trailing only jeb bush and just ahead of ben carson. second place! another new poll has tr

the rule of law is not a one-way traffic. law, which only the government have to obey. the government have to obey it too. indeed, by chapter 60 of the original charter, the customs and liberties which the king had granted to our men, which meant my men, the barents, had also to observe their men. -- the barons. they cascaded down through the feudal ranks. these ideas, the essentials of modern constitutionalism can all be found in the original magna carta of 1215. the idea that fundamental life can only be taken away or interfered with by due process and in accordance with the law. although when i get to the end of my lecture, you will see the debate whether "and" means "and" or "and" means "all." the idea that consent rests upon the governed and that the government is bound by the law. no wonder lawyers get so excited by it. all three ideas begs the question of where the law comes from and who makes it. but i will come back to. historians, at least in my country, tend not to be so excited about the, but the 15th of june of 1215. -- about the magna carta. they do it was

no law is. but this law is working for millions and millions of americans, approaching 20 million americans. once again the affordable care act prevailed. so, mr. president i say respectfully to my senate colleagues, and i mean that, stop banging your heads against the wall in this legislation that passed. it's the law of this nation. stop it. move on. republicans should be really -- they should pause for a minute and look back. mr. president, i don't know the number anymore. i don't know. i lost count of it, is it 75? certainly approaching 100 that actual votes have taken place to repeal the law. never even came close to passing of course, but they've done it time and time again. stop it. think of the time wasted doing that. as einstein said the purest -- the pure definition of insanity is someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over again and gets the same results. i would hope republicans would rethink what they've been up to. their reckless cynical attempts to increase taxes on middl

that's because of this law.u are a senior or american with a disability, this law gives you discounts on your prescriptions. something that has saved 9 million americans an average of $1,600 so far. if you are a woman, you can't be charged more than anybody else. even if you have had cancer or your husband had heart disease or just because you are a woman. your insurer has to offer free preventative services like annuals or mammograms. because of this law, and because of today's decision millions of americans, who i hear from every single day will continue to receive the tax credits that have given about eight in ten people who buy insurance on the new marketplaces the choice of a healthcare plan that costs less than $100 month. and when it comes to preexisting conditions some day our grandkids will ask us if there was really a time when america discriminated against people who get sick because that is something that this law has ended for good. in that effects everybody with health insurance, not just folks who

, the clean up is to try to get rid of state law in a number of places in the code. the board didn't act on that ordinance for a few reasons, among others i recall it eliminated the commutative contribution before mccluchin -- i don't recall this question coming in this ordinance. but mr. bush may >> it's redoneundant i can withdraw that. >> i would agree with you, they're minor in the overall grand scheme of things, we put it in there for a reason, but people can disagree in terms of -- our experience with the surrender stuff, just as an fyi when people call us and ask for information, they're asking for who is spending the money and how much they're spending that's what they're asking for, what we try to do is just make the requirements for the ie reporting, the 496 and the member communication the same given that no one is calling about the vendor stuff. but people may disagree >> if they're not calling, that doesn't necessarily mean we have a law >> you are right. >> thank you. so i would like to motion that those two sections, page four, line 22-24, and page 31

and the law enforcement continue to come here. a little bit ago there was a van, a large police van that had a lot of people in it and went up into the parking lot of the emergency room. and they all got out and they went inside. and that is contrary to the other law enforcement just forming the blackockades so people can't drive down the street. so we know even more law enforcement are inside that hospital where david sweat is. it's raining, but the community is here. and they finally feel safe again, poppy. >> i cannot imagine what they've been going through. i'm glad to hear that they feel safe again. if you're just joining us, an kprierd extraordinary past hour here. david sweat who escaped 23 days ago has now been apprehended by the authorities there, just 2 miles south of the canadian border. you're looking at the first picture we've seen obtained of him. this is the first image since he escaped from prison. bloodied but alive with the hope that he will give the authorities all the information as to how this could have happe

even though law enforcement had over 2,000 leads.e the three different areas we've been talk act within the last few minutes. dana moor the prison itself owls head and malone. these are all linked by trails. by atv trails and if the prisoners were not aware of those trails already from conversations and talking to guards and things, by breaking into any of these cabins you can find maps that show you all of these trails. so i think it is highly likely they were using these trails moving off the trails when they thought law enforcement was nearby and then moving on the trails again. but that iron ring that law enforcement put around this area it still contained them. they were still not able to get out. and as your original question suggested, was there anymore violence? if in fact we find out other than taking these guys into custody there was no more violence i think that is a credit to law enforcement by keeping these two killers in this area and not letting them get out in a an area where they could start committing violence. >> a

we have civil rights laws which are very important laws. antidiscrimination laws, anti-racial violence laws. they need to be enforced. there are so many areas where we have not come to grips with our racial divide. in recent months, we have seen the criminal justice system and the problems in that system elevated to national attention. that is enormously important. that has to continue. this horrible incident is another instance that we need to find the positive aspects in it and use it to move forward to deal with these enormous problems. simply looking at the socioeconomic problems of people in this country based on race that are clearly a result of our racial history. his astonishing. median household wealth for african-americans is less than 1/10 of what it is for white house old. facts like that are just overwhelming and we need to address them. our politics have prevented us from doing it. people need to keep pushing to get these issues to the forefront and make change happen. john mcardle: patricia is on the line for democrats. calle

but law enforcement now shaking hands with other law enforcement i see. >> jean is it possible -- >> they obviously feel a job has been done here. >> if it is possible for you potentially to talk to somebody who might be there, someone who's shaking hands, if that's a congratulations, maybe somebody who might be able to tell us and in fact confirm that david sweat was in fact in that particular ambulance and has been transported to the emergency room that would be helpful. what i'm hearing from you is that you believe he is already inside the hospital and potentially being treated. >> there's a lot of law enforcement here. and right now, as you were talking, someone was trying to get into the hospital. they were stopping that person. they had to show their hospital i.d. i heard her say she was from the surgery unit and they allowed her to go in right now. whether this is a normal shift or someone being called in, we don't know. but i can try to talk to some law enforcement here to stee if they will tell me anything. as you can manual they're all business around here. right now they'r

gave that agency the tools to enforce the laws? a sort of financial cop for american families. and then we held that agency accountable? a tough cop who was willing to take on wall street and big banks. what would happen then? i talked to everybody i could about this idea. i went to washington, i talked to folks in congress, policy gurus, newspaper people, anybody i could. pretty much all of them told me two things. first, that is a good idea. that is actually an idea that could make a difference. and the second thing they told me, don't do it. think about that. they gave me 1000 reasons not to do it, but the reasons all boiled down to one very painful point. you can't win. don't do it because you can't win. don't even try because you can't win. you will never get to this consumer agency passed into law. they pointed out that the biggest banks in the country would hate this idea and they would send hundreds of millions of dollars to stop it. and they said to me, you are just a teacher. you've got nothing. you've got no money, organ

there's a law in south carolina that says that law-abiding citizens cannot legally carry a concealedin a church. gun free zones are dangerous places to be. virtually all of the mass shootings in america have happened in gun free zones and where there are people who are lawfully and legally armed, these kinds of shootings have been -- >> i want to get pia a quick chance to respond. >> let me just say i don't think that's necessarily true. most people are not able to respond that quickly to an instance where there's war -- >> they don't have a chance. if they can't have a concealed weapon. >> well okay. let me say one thing. there is something that can be done about stopping a family member or friend. it's called the gun violence restraining order and more and more states are considering this. so, we talked about how big the laws are et cetera and i think that's a way of dibiasing the conversation but there are other laws that can be thought of to help address this problem. california's done it. this is a case where south carolina were to have that law, this could have made a differenc

they can decide what they believe the law says but the congress has to actually create a law. what they did was not rule on marriage equality. they redefined marriage. there is a fundamental difference. their decision was a political decision not a legal one. they had to reach out into thin air to create a right that simply is not listed in the constitution. i think that is what is so significant about the dissenting views from the four justices. what this really means and i think roberts puts it well five unelected black robe lawyers essentially by passed the legislative process, political process that is fundamental to our country and j jus made a decision that they had no authority or poier to make. >> on the subject of reading writes into the constitution that you say don't exist the supporters of the majority opinion say they interpreted equal protection clause to provide rights even though it is not explicit. you have to look at modern day america and try to understand what the founders meant. in this court in 2015 says the same way they interpreted that clause to provid

--law do. in this context, it seems far-fetched that this law discriminated based on geography. but no one who opposed the law talked about that as a good or bad thing. the president signed the law and that was just a secret design that was somehow never discovered and needs to be applied by the court in a way that other branches never wanted to discuss. and the democrats who were pushing the law included in it a secret suicide trigger. it is very far-fetched. the second analytical structure you are referring to is, well, isn't this political? i wonder if we could tease that out a little bit. i think it is fair to say the justices are human and at times will be moved by their own instincts, lyrical, personal, or ideological. but how does that actually work? certainly, it is fair to say in defense of the court, there are plenty of examples to point to where justices depart from what they may want to do or feel constrained by. the rules. i take this out to ian and the panel. if this is a far-fetched argument, to say the law does not do what you think it does, why would this be app

-- pizza is not required by law. if they don't recognize that their lawyers need read the regulations more carefully. other things about having ten different signs in the convenience store is not required by law. there's clearly some misunderstanding what the law requires and the guidance will help to clarify that. also as some of them become more familiar with the regulations they'll realize this is not as burdensome as they think it is, just like the restaurants did ten years ago when i first started working on menu labeling in oregon and other places. i heard the same complaints from the restaurant industry. once they started to do it, they realized this is not as complicated as it seemed. they worked through it, did it, does not cost them a lot of money their customers like it and use it and it's helping them to make lower calorie choices when they want to. >> i appreciate that. mr. chairman, i ask the letter that a lot of senators, representatives, put in be a matter of the record if that's all right. >> without