outside of the law and consequently it did not feel the need to comply with the constitutional tribunalas forbidden by the tribunal and which had no democratic guarantees and it hurt its last point on the 10th of october when in a session in the parliament, the adopted the solutions that i have mentioned. what the government to? the government on the 11th of october required that the catalonian, its president, to explain something that can be explained easily. howard league or have you not declared independence? the government could have asked them earlier as public opinion was asking us. when the constitution was disregarded, there were a lot of opportunities. but we preferred to act, think one must in these cases, with responsibility, with common sense, and tried to reach a point where there would be a rectification which never took place. the general syndicate have decided this but they did not they did not reply within the

constitution and the way he wants to at the end of the day the only people that matter is a constitutional tribunal how they interpret the constitution and i'm pretty sure they're going to side on that on the side of the government of the central government so. it is a real mess problem we'll leave it there for now but thank you well let's take you to barcelona now andrew symonds is there for us for some people the stay where you are it must be like a dream but then for others in other parts of spain and in catalonia itself it's a nightmare was. it was so can you repeat that question the breaker of course and you the noise behind you i could hear as rorik i'm saying for some people what's happened today is a dream in catalonia but for other people it with presents the opposite is a nightmare what's not. that's right that's right there these images you're seeing right across the loonier particularly barcelona i still represent the full picture that's absolutely true that's been the case for the past months but what they do show is the support that the extraordinary support for what's happened. in th

this went to the court of tribunal, the tribunal of constitutional guarantees, which sat on it for fivehich was allowed. reluctantly but seen more or less as a canvas opinion poll. the present situation could easily have been avoided. of course it is true that the spanish constitution does not permit the separation of any of the spanish constituent regions. however of course laws are written on paper and not carved in stone so technically it is possible for that to be changed. if the madrid government had looked at opinion polls and decided that actually probably only about a0% of the population in catalonia was in favour of independence, if they had been remotely intelligent they would've said go ahead, it will not be binding because that would be against the law but you can go ahead and if you want it to be the basis of future negotiation you will have to have qualified majorities, say 55, 60%. they did not do that, instead they have used sort of strong—arm tactics and there are many people in spain now on both sides of the border between spain and catalonia saying what has happened w

closely the constitution a lot of the dirt i don't know what we are more but it's from the in the decision tribunals which of course it's quite a little distance you have to try to be to truth the turkish government to walking in that respect so he was arrested before. the try google and. being jailed and the other concise is the sona protested this being the. this means our research in causes shortly after what happened in the cos with an example and in the declaration the paper of the drinking paper of the consulate this event is openly. stated and the cost that says that this is not permissible this is not understandable in any case the turkish is site is not giving you no important say in the sense of carving the rights and also the security of the cost of it and the american premises in turkey so when you live in the all these problems in the access or whatever to be there but i think since one year i think that this is a reprise little from the american side. or already at least it warning to truckee that the american side is not happy at all with what's going on actually in charge the with re

surprising is that our constitution isn't one of these constitution that builds class right into the structure of government. we don't have a tribune, while some people think of the senate as elite there's no property requirements to be a senator. there's no wealth requirement to be a senator or a member of the house of representatives or to be the president. our founding charter does not have any structural provisions that are checks and balances between economic classes. not between rich and poor, not between corporate interest and workers, and that is a radical change in the history of government. this change also wasn't an oversight. the founding generation knew how to design exactly these kinds of class war fair constitutions. and they even debated such proposals in the summer of 1787. but the ultimately chose a frame qork for government that didn't get class against class. now part of reason was pratt call they couldn't figure out how to do that we know that from james madison secret notes on convention in 1787 but part of the reason was political. they knew that the american people would never accept it. and the reason why -

are military tribunals still functioning, because he regards those as an unconstitutional challenge to the authority of the federal courts. so you have got, first of all, a constitutional/legal question in have a, secondly you procedural question being posed for the chief justice of the united states. could any of this have happened? the odds start to get very long. gary: i think that's what the potential prosecutors concluded as well. we will continue, this is a , states transition being supreme in some ways, the way some people viewed the situation. still keepn, we states rights and the south, did northerners care about states rights? allen: did you ever hear of a woman -- ableman versus booth? gary: yes. they invoke them with personal liberty laws. allen: state laws becomes a wax nose that people north and south wrigley invoke and then ignore as the situation demanded. when it came to owning slaves, you heard about states rights. when it came to recapturing fugitive slaves to the north, suddenly you heard about the importance of the federal government and a centralized authority and states rights began. -- be damned. averse the scenario, you have case where personal

surprising is that our constitution isn't one of these constitution that builds class right into the structure of government. we don't have a tribune, while some people think of the senate as elite there's no property requirements to be a senator. there's no wealth requirement to be a senator or a member of the house of representatives or to be the president. our founding charter does not have any structural provisions that are checks and balances between economic classes. not between rich and poor, not between corporate interest and workers, and that is a radical change in the history of government. this change also wasn't an oversight. the founding generation knew how to design exactly these kinds of class war fair constitutions. and they even debated such proposals in the summer of 1787. but the ultimately chose a frame qork for government that didn't get class against class. now part of reason was pratt call they couldn't figure out how to do that we know that from james madison secret notes on convention in 1787 but part of the reason was political. they knew that the american people would never accept it. and the reason why -

are military tribunals still functioning, because he regards those as an unconstitutional challenge to the authority of the federal courts. so you have got, first of all, a constitutional/legal question in the way. secondly, you have a procedural question being posed for the chief justice of the united states. could any of this have happened? the odds start to get very long. gary: i think that's what the potential prosecutors concluded as well. we will continue where this is a seamless transition. states being supreme in some ways, the way some people viewed the situation. the question here is we associate state rights with the south. did northerners care about state rights or state allegiance? that is a slow ball down the middle. allen: did you ever hear of ableman versus booth? gary: yes. yes, they did care, and in fact they evoke personal liberty laws. allen: state laws becomes a wax nose that people north and south regularly invoke and then ignore as the situation demanded. and therefore, and this is what he says in front of the joint committee for reconstruction in when it came to owning slaves, you heard about states rights. when it came to recapturing fugitive s

constitution , whichompact of states marshall denied. marshall contended it was a document emanating from the people. in the beginning of that case, fullalized and revealed, well what would happen if the jeffersonian principle prevailed . no tribunal can approach such a question without a deep sense of its importance and the awful responsibility involved in its division, but it must be decided peacefully, he said, or remain a source of hostile legislation, perhaps of hostility of a still more serious nature. he knew what was coming if the compact theory of states gained traction. interpreting this last and most important element of the rule of law -- namely constitutional law -- marshall was without doubt what would be called today and originalist. but listen to this -- it is an extended quote, but it what he thinks is the most fundamental method of interpretation of the constitution's principles. "much as been said concerning the principles of construction which ought to be applied to the constitution of the united states. on this subject, the court has taken such big one occasion to declare its opinion as to make it unnecessary at least to enter into an elaborate discussion on it. to say that the intention of the instrument must