to interpret the law.ginalism and textualism are two that many people hear in the headlines, but don't fully understand what they mean. as i understand from yr book, "a republic, if you can keep it," originalism dealsith the intent of the founders in the meaning of the constitution, and textualism deals with t words in statute. did i get it right? >> pretty good. i give you a-minus, margaret. >> how would you -- how would you improve? >> so, i'd say they're really two things of the same idea. one talks about the constitution; the other, statutes. they're labels that have been chosen really by opponents. opponents of originalism call it "originalism." i call it just the enduring constitution, and treating law the way we've always treated legal documents. so, whether it's the constitution or a statute, how should a judge go about interpreting it? and they're really two competing schools of thought. one is, you should follow the original meaning -- the original public meaning of that document. what was it und

--itive law, diving law divine law, and how they can come into conflict. put in your notes that freedom of religion gives you the right to worship so long as the way violatehip does not criminal laws. example. you another there was a religious group out of miami -- i forget the name, and you don't need to make notes on this. 20, 30 years ago. they said during our religious services -- i think they were eating hallucinogenic mushrooms. then we go into a state and we are better able to communicate with god. some of their practitioners were arrested and convicted under illegal drug use laws. they appealed it and said it's freedom of religion. the courts were very clear, you cannot do in the name of religion things which violate the local norms. >> [indiscernible] government experiment with those psychedelic drugs? there is declassified documents of the government experimenting with psychedelics like mushrooms, dmt. prof. prevas: give me that louder. o that --n they not d prof. prevas: who is they? >> the people in miami. but the government can experiment with

it must in effect void the law.of justices of yesterday and today, the court should be cautious in such actions. it must void a law only if a decision requires it. most observers feel the court has sometimes forgotten this rule of caution. often mentioned as an example is the dred scott decision. dred scott was a slave, but his master, an army surgeon, took him to the northwest territories, where slavery was banned by an act of congress under the missouri compromise. presumably, dred scott was now free. but later, he was taken back to the south, and sold. dread scott then sued for his freedom in federal court. the case went to the united states supreme court. chief justice tani read the decision. he said that a negro, even if free, could not be a citizen in the meaning of the constitution, therefore he could not sue in federal court. this seemed to settle it. but tani went further. he said, the constitution makes no distinction between slave property and other property. no word in the constitution gives congress a g

but, they value laws. and we look at, you know, the principles of the bible that is undergirded-faith. what the constitution looks like . with the u.s. constitution, separation of powers, all of the things that they got, you know, from moses. the ultimate lawgiver. whether or not you were a believer, you are born into the idea of america and what it stood for. i think today, what is missing is that people have reached the point where that search, it is all about me. it is all about what benefits my group work there is no sense that there is something bigger than all of us as individuals. and that we have to come together to achieve anything. but to be united as a nation, to build a nation, it cannot be about me and what and if it's my individual group or my family. i have to give up something for the good of the common, for everyone. the common good. we have lost a sense of that. >> that is actually a splendid point, dr. swain. think about it. these pilgrims in that but, they can't afford a tribalism. it w

of law. he's a graduate of yale college and yale law school. joey siu is a hong kong american activist. and an adviser to the alliance on china. she's participated in hong kong's prodemocracy movement through organizing local grassroots campaigns and to her international advocacy for hong kong. as an advocate, for the people of hong kong, she's testified before the u.s. congress, spoken at the uk parliament in the united nations in geneva and delivered briefings on the european union office at the european union office of the united nations. samuel chu is the founding and managing director of hong kong democracy council, a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting hong kong's basic freedoms, autonomy and the rule of law. on july 31st, 2020, chinese state made reported that the hong kong authorities has issued arrest warrants against him under the new national security law making him the first american citizen to be targeted. he's the son of a leading prodemocracy activist who co-led an

there are six or seven points covered in this law.rastate and interstate trading of produce is free and allowed without any kinds of duties. traders must trade with a personal accounting number. electronic registration is essential. no market fees. dispute resolution is in place. this is the first act. the second act is the farmers protection act. this is price assurance and farm service. this is a contract farming act. farmers can enter the agreement with a fixed price, with quality grade standards, and pay two thirds of the amount immediately. this is what is most important. acquiring ownership of the land of the farmer. insurance to be provided and a procedure is set. the third one is the essential commodities act. this allows the government to regulate the supply of certain food items. this document may be enforced only if there is a steep price rise. if the price more than doubles on a perishable or 50% on a nonperishable. >> thank you very much. why are many farmers so nervous about what are essentially free-market reforms of fa

just and equal laws. what relationship of their theology did this idea of just and equal laws. >> certainly. we need to take that question up. but let me preface your remarks by saying to you that there's no one who isn't a person of faith. there are different faiths. so the great theme in life is to get the good faith, the right faith. but having said that, i want to remind us once again to place it as much as possible in historical context. so the body politic being envisioned in the mayflower compact was, in fact, not because of the beginning. but it also was not the end. within a quarter century, you had the emergence of the body of liberties. in massachusetts, you had in a relative timeframe the fundamental orders of connecticut. there's a chain of development he here. what's being evidenced in this chain of development is a conviction that they could deliberately construct the organization of society to suit the mission, which they did not form deliberately, which they saw as a calling upon them. th

school of law. he's an expert in the relationship of international law to constitutional law. he's published on china's relationship with international law. lawr to joining the hofstra school faculty committee served as a clerk of the fifth circuit court of appeals and is a fellow and lecturer in law at the university of virginia school of law. he's a graduate of yale college and yale law school. joey is a hong kong american activist. and an advisor to the inter-parliamentary alliance on china. she's participated in hong kong's pro-democracy movement through organizing local grassroots campaigns and to her international advocacy for hong kong. as an advocate for the people of hong kong, she has testified before the u.s. congress, spoken at the uk parliament and the united nations in geneva and delivered briefings on the european union delegation office at the european union office of the united nations. samuel chu is the founding and managing director of hong kong democracy council, a non-profit org

law.are a washington lawyer or whatever, you do not know that, so you need to get people and all the states, get them very much up to speed. then your strategy, again, become sort of like, where is your candidate? is the ahead or behind? that determines a lot of the legal strategy from then on out. >> two other notes about the 2000 legal team. first of all, as you mentioned, the bush team was led by former secretary of state james baker and al gore selective former secretary of state warren christopher to be the head of his legal team. how important was it to, i think, public confidence in the process to have two people of the stature at the head of the legal teams? >> both of them, as you say, we're sort of impressive people. sort of wise man of their time and their party. very different approach, a very different strategy. james baker was very much standing before the cameras being very public and saying, as i said, governor bush has one, it's time for this to end. warren christopher was

the law of the land of prey to the supreme law of the land. the alternative is a lot that's forever uncertain, no more stable, no more reliable than popular opinion at the time. and opinions change rated the words do not change. tony: you set it up and you said, between 1803 and 1905, there's not much difference. how were looking interpreted, big changes in the way for the world works. if you look at the early 18 hundreds, you have the roles of the executive pray to george washington, is a very different president than roosevelt. a very than what we see today. and so, you come down on the side of the regionalism rated explain why that is the way we should be looking at the documents. douglas: think justice kavanaugh captured it. there are times when the constitution has to be updated. the 27 amendments. the 3110 it was updated in the 313 years. in the other 17 of them along last 140 years or so. because sometimes very important matters arise, is a widespread view that the constitution needs to be amended. as the professor said, it's hard to am

law. we can't ignore the reality that when we speak of refugees, the policy of the trump administration on refugees is dramatic -- a dramatic departure from what we have done since world war ii. since the enactment of the refugee act of 1980, for example, the united states has resettled an average of 80,000 refugees per year. however, in the midst of the worst refugee crisis in the history of the world, the trump administration has set record low refugee admission targets four years in a row, culminating in the lowest level of refugees in history, 15,000. how many refugees has the united states admitted from hong kong in the last year? zero. not one. the trump administration is also decimated legal protections for hong kongers and other innocent victims who flee our borders. hong kongers could be denied asylum if they go through other states before entering the united states. the administration's reactions do not evidence support for the hong kong democracy movement. they only punish victi

but under jefferson the law was repealed and six years later the law was changed to seven.37 because of the growth of the country the number was increased to nine. and in 1863 under lincoln to ten. then an act of 1866 provided for clearly political reasons that the next three vacancies should not be filled. but the number had only dropped to eight when a new law in 1869 changed it to nine. thus it stood until roosevelt in 1937 proposed a new change. in congress? people while critical of the court were just as critical of the plan. meanwhile, in the lower courts legal battles against new deal measures continued. several suits attacked social security. to the new deal these were of special concern. already at offices set up to administer the new law 26 million social security numbers had been established. on january 1st, 1937 26 million employees had begun to build up credits toward old age benefits. the first applications for benefits were being received and processed. with all this machinery this huge new organization plently have to be dismantled? eventually the supreme co

we were able to offer 16 laws and i was chief democratic co-sponsor on 11 other laws. american manufacturing jobs is a priority for me having grown up and representing the southside of chicago. we were able to get signed into law the customs training enhance. act to stop illegal goods coming into the country. the small aircraft rescythelyization act to help american aviation manufacturers. the steel and aluminum energy conservation an technology competitiveness act re-authorization to help these manufacturers thrive. and numerous buy america provisions we were able to get into transportation and other laws. but the one i'm most proud of is the american manufacturing and competitiveness act which took five years to get done but resulted in a first comprehensive american manufacturing strategy plan to be produced by the federal government since alexander hamilton. it's a good plan. i'm hope they feel biden administration considers its recommendations. to protect the environment against climate change we got the bright energy savings act into lew. to protect victims of se

does not get impacted by these 3000 laws at all m.s.p. has existed from the same 160 the new government in the last 2 in the last trick to 5 years or so has done what with the existence of various exultant there is no question of doing of it that i missed these now but you also need to understand that m.s.p. works better as an administrator mechanism that early good instrument because of very objective the very purpose of chemistry is to tweak it a constant intervals to give the benefit to the to the promise that in times when there is a bump up production and they tend to get less so the very purpose of m.s.t. is to make it that he likes the bill and if it does my out in a litigant purpose and started a litigious process that well up us will get to peak it but at the same time we have repeatedly assured that m m s p p system built continue it will remain unaffected by something and in any case if you look at the fact the percent of the farmers today sell outside the empathy m.s.p. the ones protesting as well if you look at the protest mi

her law degree is from the american university's washington college of law. she is the inaugural fellow for the historical society of new york. we will be talking about her new book, "threat of dissent: a history of ideological exclusion & deportation in the united states." published this past july by harvard university press, julia will begin by telling us something about the book and then we will begin a conversation. julia? the screen is yours. dr. kraut: i am delighted to join you. thank you for inviting me to talk about the "threat of dissent." do is start with talking about my arguments as well as highlights in the book. dissent" is a legal, social, and political history of the threat of expulsion and barring of foreign noncitizens from the united states based on their political beliefs, associations, and expressions. it is a chronological narrative, 1798 and takein all the way through to the war on terror and the trump administration. this verye history of unique intersection of immigration and first amendment law in history. what i find is that these

.ositive law and divine law how could they come into conflict? what in your notes, freedom of religion gives you the right to worship. so long as the way you worship laws.ot violate criminal i will give you another example. there was a religious group out of miami. i forget the name of the group. you don't need to make notes on this. 20, 30 years ago. they said, during our religious -- i think they were eating hallucinogenic mushrooms. because then we go into a state and we are better able to communicate with god. and of course, some of their practitioners were arrested and convicted under eu legal drug use laws. said -- appealed it and illegal drug use clause. and they appealed it and said freedom of religion. you cannot do things that violate the local norms. how can the government experiment? there are declassified documents of the government experimenting with psychedelic mushrooms. prof. prevas: say that again. take your mask down for a second. >> how can they not do that? prof. prevas: who is they? >> the people of miami. the people of the

paul received his law degree from stanford law school, where member of the stanford law review. he clerked for a member of the u.s. court of appeals and received his masters in public policy from george washington university. he also holds a bachelors of arts degree in philosophy from washington university in virginia, where of course he graduated summa kolodny with honors in philosophy. ladies and settlement, my colleague, paul larkin. you for that thank wonderful introduction, and thank you to our audience. you have numerous demands on your time and numerous opportunities how you all spend it. on behalf of heritage and myself, i want to thank you for taking part of your day to listen to a discussion in which we have several scholars, legal and history who will address slavery and the constitution permitted but this is a contemporary issue. from the day the new york times magazine published the 1619 project a year ago, the opinions expressed in network touched nerves in american historical and political scholarship as well as in american life. projectis of the 1619 was the true

i was in law school. [laughing] that was actually my introduction to antitrust law, was the u.s. versus microsoft. it's been a long time. it's a big, big deal that we finally turned the corner and it's really only the beginning. only beginning of what we're going to see coming against google and then we also have the ftc is expected to sue facebook in the next month or two. we left states attorney generals adding to the google case with their investigations into other aspects of google's monopoly power and anticompetitive behavior. it's a huge deal. >> host: why is it that it took 20 years? i mean, google has been huge successful company for a long time. probably about that long, right? and facebook is newer of course, but how do you explain if monopolies are such a problem in the economy, why would we go 20 years without a case against a big company? >> guest: well, i mean, as i was saying before the judges had really made it very difficult to prevail and i'm sure sherman act case isn't the one sicko after monopolization. just another part of the sherman act called section one a

>> famous harvard law professor. one of the best known and highly regarded liberal law professors of his era. he's written great constitutional law textbooks. i remember him early on as an advocate in the supreme court. he had some very good arguments and some not so good arguments. the good thing about him was he was so smart that there was a certain amount of cases or the justice would just sit back and listen to him. which way they do not do this too often. there is a fairly liberal law professor. he would not necessarily going to have a lot of sway with the conservative justices. he in many cases, he would run into a real clash with rehnquist and scalia and conservative members of the court. >> the court has i hope most c-span listeners know do not allow videos of the proceedings. even at the time there were audiotape-ing, we have a clip of both tunnels in and lawrence tribe. it's about a minute long. making their arguments before the 2000 court from bush versus palm beach county canvassing authority. let's liste

it's not just one law or a handful of laws, it's hundreds of laws that are amended and strengthened overtime. >> can you speak a little bit about the laws that codified slavery here in virginia, or anywhere? >> alright. well, before we talked about the laws, there are a couple of cases that set a precedent. what is in 1640, and it involves three men who were incertitude, one was african mother by the name of john punch, the other european descent, and scotch men. so they were all in servitude. they ran from virginia to maryland, they were caughtt and returned to virginia. so they all committed the same crime. they were runways. they got caught together. they did the same thing. you begin to see racial differences in treatment with the case. where victor and james gregory were made to serve their original owner one additional year and the colony of virginia three years. john was me to serve his owner and his owners assides or ears for the rest of his natural life wherever they lived. >> and john punch was black? >> john punch was black. he's referenced as african in this record. you've anothe

that is the law. the law does not always reflect real life. factors ensure that coverture on the ground was not as restrictive as the letter law. wealthted to pass their through their daughters to devise legal ways to keep money and property out of the hands of sons in-laws. the demand of everyday life and commerce play their own part. i woman could not make a contract, plenty of bid -- women did business and trade, either on their own or for their husbands. rent businesses beside their leg with the local community acting as monitor ended orser. at the law said one thing, there was a lot more latitude. we must assume that the husband had a right to marital relations at will, there was probably a great deal of negotiation about secs -- sex. referenced the long-standing "more of coverture, generous and favorable to them than their ancestors." she understood power. so much do not put power into the hands of the husband, remember all men would be tyrants if they could. she even referred to the shame of marital rape and physical abuse, when she sai

can you kid you don't cut the law for me. sir i mean there i completely agree in terms of.we do need to find new strategies we've been reliant on not just the arab world but just on the globe generally to try and bring about change for palestinians and that's just because we've been crippled. financially we've been crippled socially politically that we have to rely on the outside world but i don't want to agree with that. this doesn't add pressure it takes away from putting pressure on israel as it is even there that's the assumption and i think it's a very false assumption in the end these are regions trying to maintain themselves that these are regimes that are oppressing their own people and populations very violently so to expect otherwise would be just naive. from palestinians and the world. ambiguity it's always a pleasure having your commentary here on the screen thank you very much and thank you to all of our guests tonight don't send insight into protests that were happening in india close to the end and also on the gaza strip as well thank you for what you've been

saying this is incompatible with international human rights law and they've called the whole law. to be rewritten we know at the moment that only one part of that law is going to be written that is article $24.00 but protesters say that that's not enough. so i would just get him in court and tear gas here just to have a look it's just been released by the police officers as they're trying to control the situation so the firefighters can do their job have you know many of the people who are against article 24 and the global security will say the problem we think is that there has been this is semi issues in terms of violence within the police force and if succes can't say for example that filling police officers will be no evil to show police brutality and not be problematic just outside the bank that was completely smashed up by some of the demonstrators you can see that a scooter or a motorcycle outside was there the bank itself was smashed people went inside they took the furniture from inside the bank brought it out and then they set these fires up outside the bank you see comp

days amid anger over projects prices and agricultural subsidies farmers are trying to overturn a new law which they say will damage their livelihoods you can follow their stories course on our website at al-jazeera dot com updated through the day next al-jazeera upfront i'll see you in half an hour. in south central chile indigenous communities are fighting to reclaim their ancestral lands and the conflict is becoming increasingly violent talk to what you see are travels to the region to see why the mcclatchy people are rising up and asks is there a path to peaceful coexistence on al-jazeera. this week up front tens of thousands protest across france against a new law that would restrict sharing images of the police. our civil liberties under threat that is our debate but 1st after decades of violence a major breakthrough between afghanistan's government and the taliban the 2 sides have reached a deal to begin talks could peace finally be possible just hours before the news broke i spoke to one of the government's only women negotiators house you koofi an afghan political veteran and nom

i love law. i love law. i eat law and drink law. i love law.and drink it. >> kaberia: i sleep law. i-- everythi-- i do everything in law. (laugh) >> cooper: listening to you talk about the law, it sort of makes me excited about the law. >> kaberia: yes. let me tell you, cooper. you know, there is one thing we do. we make assumptions as people, as a society. and we dig our graves through those assumptions. law is not for lawyers. law is not for the government. law is not for some people somewhere or the rich. law is for everyone. ( ticking ) >> how prison internet access transformed the kenyan court system. at 60minutesovertime.com. for groceries, gifts and more on your list. it's the fastest way to get what you need, today. at target. and unmatched overall value. together with a dedicated advisor, you'll make a plan that can adjust as your life changes, with access to tax-smart investing strategies that help you keep more of what you earn. and with brokerage accounts, you see what you'll pay before you trade. personalized advice. unmatched valu

that you are lawbreakers but what laws have actually been broken, specifically laws?ar as it relates civilly to the bar i don't know of a specific law that has been broken other than the governor's edict that declare an orange zone across half of new york, staten island. i don't know if that is a legal order. we've been challenging those orders. the governor in this state has been basically given a blank check by the wisdom of our legislature, and, what they have been, what they basically given governor cuomo, is the power to pretty much do anything he wants at anytime he wants. david: without any summons or warrants or any of that, any real legal representations that are supposed to be made, they're nonexistent, correct? >> you know we brought lawsuits, we brought four different lawsuits against the governor and the mayor of this city. we're about to bring lawsuits on behalf of the parents of new york city against mandatory testing. back to the restaurants, we brought up lawsuits. we've been turned down by judge after judge. i'm happy the people of los angeles got a

i would the new laws there are 3 laws yes one goes with the our commerce and the. it's called farmers' produce trade and commerce act now this comes under the constitution's concordant list part occurred and there are 6 or 7 points which are covered in this law interstate and interstate trading are produced is free is allowed part of me did without any kind of cess duties etc yes electronic trading is permitted trade also must trade a bit up bankcard bankcard is a. personal accounting number electronic registration are traders is essential if we're told are terrified of getting into a meant not to be libyan creates no market fees price information system should be in place and a dispute resolution is in place this is the 1st act the 2nd act is far most important under protection agreement act this is pricier surance i'm sorry says bill. farmers and a sponsor may enter this is a contract. they can enter into an agreement litter fix prices with quality grade standards etc then the response of douglas one serving is to pick the product at the pre-decided price and pay

the law of the land. the supreme law of the land. the alternative is a law forever uncertain no more stable and no more reliable than popular opinion at the time. opinions change in ways change and the words do not use of between 1803 and 1905 there wasn't much difference but there are big changes the way the world works if you look at the early 18 hundreds, you how the role of the executive, george washington is a very different president dan roosevelt the 19 hundreds and very different from today. you come down on the side of a regionalism and explain that's the why one --dash the way we should be looking at the document. >> i think justice kavanaugh captured it. there are times the constitution has to be updated. twenty-seven amendments. the first ten were past two years after the constitution was ratified. the other 17 of come along in the last 140 years. because very important matters arise there is a widespread view the constitution needs to be re- amended. as the professor said, it is time to amend the constitution it was mean

have a law school question for you. this is fair because neither one of us went to law school. can the president pardon himself? >> unclear. part of the -- >> okay. >> -- thing about the -- two thing about the pardon, right, the pardon power is plenary. it's in the constitution. it's not a complicated thing. the president can pardon people. the one thing that's never been tested is the president trying to pardon himself and the way that we learn the extent of new law is by trying it and seeing if you can get away with it and so he'd be the test case. and if i were him, i wouldn't count on that. >> so, my reading of the constitution is that the president can pardon himself, but who cares what we think when laurence tribe is going to join me later in this hour? >> nice. >> harvard constitutional law expert. the world's leading expert on this question. and he has a very definitive opinion, very, very clear. he leaves -- for him, there's no question about this. it's very, very clear to him. >> well, then he should definitely get the last word here and not me. >> he's going to. that

assembly which is a congress so that our viewers have to have very clear they were unable to pass laws whatever they did was not recognized by the government or by the supreme court which is in the hands of government loyalists or by any other institution so it was really very nominal but it did allow the opposition to name. an interim president as the leader of the only. that was recognized. democratically elected for all this time and now that is going to be lost. most of california is going into lockdown as it shatters records for the number of new coronavirus cases there are fears that intensive care units could run out of beds this as u.s. health officials say the distribution of a vaccine could begin soon if it gets approved this week. the u.k.'s preparing to roll out the 1st doses of the corona virus vaccine and tuesday initial batches have been distributed to hospitals selected to administer the vaccine priorities going to be given to those over the age of 80 frontline workers care home residents and stuff 2 thirds of kuwaiti m.p.'s lost their seats in parliamentary elections o

, the law of the land, the supreme law of the land. the alternative is a law that's forever uncertain, normal no more stable and popular opinion of the time. opinions change, more exchange, the words don't. >> so coming out you set it up and you said between 1803 and 1905 there is not much difference in how we are interpreting and looking at the constitution even though there are big changes in the way the world works . if you look in the early 1800s you have hit the role of the executive, george washington for example is a different president and teddy roosevelt who comes in the 1900 different from what we see today so you come down on the side of original is him and explain why that's the way we should be looking at this document. >> i think justice kavanaugh captured it. and there's times the constitution have to be updated. we had 27 amendments and the first were passed after the years the constitution was ratified, they were added and the other 17 have come along in the last 100 and 40years or so . and because sometimes very impor

the ability to create a new law or whatever. you can waive a statute that may be allows for someone to do actthing, but you have to within the laws of the emergency management act as they are written. that's true for nebraska and true for everybody else. if we were acting outside of our prerogatives, i would hope before some other state brings it up that somebody in nebraska would be saying you have to follow the law. reporter: [inaudible] gov. ricketts: he saying why is this not just a political move for republicans? i think the separation of powers is a profoundly held belief and is important to our very republic and the foundation of our country that we follow the rule of law and have the separation of powers. that's not a political stunt. [inaudible] i can't talk: about hypotheticals. andrew asked if joe biden had lost and trim had one, would the attorney general be filing an amicus brief? it would depend on the facts and circumstances at the time, so there's no way to answer that. can't answer hypothetical questions. report

this week up front tens of thousands protested across france against a new law that would restrict sharing images of the police. our civil liberties under threat that is our debate but 1st after decades of violence a major breakthrough between afghanistan's government and the taliban the 2 sides have reached a deal to begin talks could peace finally be possible just hours before the news broke i spoke to one of the government's only women to go shaders house you koofi an afghan political veteran and nominee for the nobel peace prize who some say could one day become the country's 1st female president. kofi thank you so much for joining me on outfront there have been 2 attempts on your life l.z. the most recent by unknown shooters but the 1st by the taliban and your daughter witnessed both of those attacks u.s. envoys says this latest attack was meant to be rail the talks how much faith do you have that the taliban will uphold their word in any sort of agreement that his reach. you're right it's very very early to say that you know the taliban have actually changed views and perception towa

public health laws, housing law and so on. through surveys we determined that eviction was going to be one of the most severe challenges for the legal system and for people facing eviction. evictioncommittee on -- i am chairing the committee on eviction and we have tried to support them in their efforts. the american bar association created a pro bono network to provide eviction dissents across the country as well as a resolution on relief to ensure tenets and property owners are protected during this time. as well as to prevent the screening of evictions. host: in terms of the first line of defense or the first line of help for someone facing eviction, aside for reaching out to the management agency, who should the contact? guest: if they are facing eviction or have received a notice, the best thing to do is to contact legal services organization. there are multiple aides and corporations across the country and in every state. you can find that information on theelp.org and calling local information line, 211 or311 -- or 311.

law review. he clerk for judge robert more of the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, and he received his master degree and public policy from george washington university. he also holds a bachelor's degree for philosophy from washington university in lexington virginia, where of course, he graduated summa cum laude with honors in philosophy. ladies and gentlemen, my colleague, paul lurking. >> angela, thank you for that wonderful introduction, and thank you to our audience. you have numerous demands on your time, and numerous opportunities, how you will spend. it on behalf of heritage and myself, i want to thank you for taking part of your day, to listen to a discussion in which we have several scholars and legal subjects and history who will address the issue of slavery and the constitution. what made this a contemporary issue, was that from the day the new york times magazine published 60 19 project one year ago, the opinions expressed and that network touched nerves in american histor

on every state and pro-life laws and gun rights laws, such back and forth and back and forth what we really want as a country. the framers didn't think so. they created this cooling saucer for those patients but washington talked about, the filibuster is the preeminent tool we use to force broad agreements on tough issues most of us will vote for in the country can live with. remarkable young frenchman who wanted to our country in 1931-32 and wrote the best book on democracy in america saw two great dangers for our future, one, russia, 2, but here any of the majority, ending the filibuster would destroy the impetus for the broad agreements i have been talking about and woods unleash the tyranny of the majority to steamroll the rights of the minority. you may say the senate isn't solving some big problem that you would be right. we are not voting on big problems. sometimes because the majority doesn't bring it up and sometimes the minority it obstructs. of a carbon tax is a good idea, if we want to help the daca kids, or the federal debt is out of control wire we voting on it? doesn't

baldwin argued that under spanish law, the mendhi could not be considered lawfully held slaves.he captives had only recently been transported to cuba, which was in violation of a spanish treaty prohibiting the african slave trade, and that under the terms of that spanish treaty, the mendhi were free in cuba or any other spanish territory. in a trial filled with testimony about salvage laws and treaty obligations, the dramatic high point came when sinke presented the court with a chilling narrative of enslavement. speaking through a translator, sinke described his capture by slave traders in west africa and the horrors of what was called the middle passage, the voyage across the atlantic with several hundred people confined in the suffocating hold of a slave ship. he demonstrated the painful position the enslaved were forced to maintain day and night. sinke also reenacted the brutal physical scrutiny of the africans by the planters in the havana slave market. two other mendhi captives gave similar testimony about being kidnapped and enslaved within the past year. after five days

laws. so that's the one idea have for this speech. our country needs a united states senate to work across party lines, to force broad agreements on hard issues, creating laws that most of us have voted for and that a diverse country will accept. in the 1930's, we needed a senate to create social security. after world war ii, the united nations. the 1960's, medicare. 1978, to ratify the panama kanawha treaty. in 2013, were recently too tight interest rates for student loans to the market rates, saving student borrowers hundreds of billions of dollars in the last several years. in 2015, to fix no child left behind. that bill had 100 alligators in the swamp. the wall street journal said when we finished, that it was the largest evolution of pallor -- delegation of power from washington to the states in 25 years. when president obama signed it, he said it was a christmas miracle because in the end, 85 senators voted for it. in 2016, senator mcconnell mentioned the 21st centurycares act, moving

in our courts we want a government of laws and not of men. what is my proposal, it is simply this whenever a judge or justice of any federal court has reached the age of 70, and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension a new member shall be appointed by the president, then an office with the approval as required by the constitution of senate of the united states and. >> a justice reaches 70, if he does not retire, and additional justice is added for women if he does retire the number returns to nine. in 1937, there were six justices over 70. thus under the proposed law, the president would be able to appoint six extra. if the older justices, decided to retire. the total number would return to nine. throughout the land debate began. the newsreels covered the story. >> roosevelt's plan to change the supreme court has been the biggest publication since slavery. bringing this statement on the supreme court himself by chief justice hughes. >> the justices of these federal supreme court, part not merely successors, an import

of congress and those laws. of congress and those laws. james madison oftentimes called the father of congress -- james madison, often called the father of congress, thought it was essential that the legislative branch made policy that well represented the vast and varied republican and best served the nation as a whole. remember, our nation began as a unique experiment in self-governance. there's great doubt about whether the views of people so diverse could successfully be forged into good policy that serves such a large nation. madison believed that the way to do this was for members of congress to represent the multiple diverse interests and ideas of their constituents in an open marketplace of ideas in congress. through the legislative process, the people's representatives would debate, deliberate and put together a consensus on legislation that served the common good of the nation. what the constitution created was not a parliamentary system, because the framers did not intend to empower temporary majoriti

law should be followed on this, whatever the law will be. it is beyond my knowledge of the requirements. rep. palmer: the law says no. >> if the law says no, i would respect that. law, iistent with the would say no. rep. palmer: thank you. residents --mented well, should noncitizens regardless of legal status be allowed to vote in our elections? >> no. again, it is whatever the legal requirements are. we believe the legal requirements should be followed. rep. palmer: i will take that as a no. >> i will conform with the rules of the law. whatever the losses, i will risk -- the law says, i will respect that. >> i would say no. rep. palmer: i'm glad -- [laughter] answers, should votes cast in this last election by noncitizens, including people residing here illegally, be counted and allowed? yes or no?a rep. palmer: yes or no. >> no, they should not be counted. >> votes should be counted consistent with the law. >> same. votes should be counted consistent with the law. >> no. rep. palmer: here's my point. obviously a couple of you would like to

katyal said, then the criminal law itself would not be a neutral, generally applicable law. you have to have some disparate treatment of religious reasons versus secular reasons. that's what justice alito said in the fraternal order of police opinion the solicitor general relies on, that it's not okay to let people wear beards for medical reasons but not for religious reasons. and so, as the -- as the volokh brief also described, it's not just whether in the air there's a possibility for exceptions or differential treatment. it's whether you've actually had such treatment, because otherwise you just simply don't have a workable system of law. justice gorsuch: thank you. chief justice roberts: justice kavanagh. justice kavanaugh: good morning, mr. fisher, and welcome. thank you for your -- and i want to thank all the parties for their excellent briefs and arguments and all the amicus briefs, which have all been very valuable in thinking through these issues. just a couple questions to just confirm a couple things factually here. you agree, i assume, that catholic social servi

we were able to offer 16 laws and i was chief democratic co-sponsor on 11 other laws. american manufacturing jobs is a priority for me having grown up and representing the southside of chicago. we were able to get signed into law the customs training enhance. act to stop illegal goods coming into the country. the small aircraft rescythelyization act to help american aviation manufacturers. the steel and aluminum energy conservation an technology competitiveness act re-authorization to help these manufacturers thrive. and numerous buy america provisions we were able to get into transportation and other laws. but the one i'm most proud of is the american manufacturing and competitiveness act which took five years to get done but resulted in a first comprehensive american manufacturing strategy plan to be produced by the federal government since alexander hamilton. it's a good plan. i'm hope they feel biden administration considers its recommendations. to protect the environment against climate change we got the bright energy savings act into lew. to protect victims of se