if u' looking for a ban on domesticvience, it will not be there. >> i'm lookg for a ban. criminal punishment for th keeping of a fiar based on the last status of citizenship. i'm looking for a band atis on the rights of american citizens. i will start with that. shorof that, felons e so ffent. a long tradition of denying people who are convicted of crimes almanner ofrights of citizenship. setting aside, there is no ban. when the people of the time wrote about it, they wrthat there is no right to misuse a firearm. we do not contend that behavior is protecd the second amendment. the one that is protected is the keeping of arms. and the carrying of ar. i would concede, there is a strong historical tradition of more restrictio ainst the right of public hearing and at is when you encounter other people. thissomeone who is keeping a firearm in his own home. the oldest american tradition of a federal government passing that kind of law, 1968. this is older than that tradition. late 20th century. we disagree at a very fundamental level on is this tradition. >> except for meone th

caregivers (202) 748-8002. ,at the end of last yr, gallup did a poll lookg at nursing homes, asking americans to grade the quality of care. on 8% of those would say that the quality is excellent -- saying it is good, 33 percent saying satisfactory, 36% saying it is poor, 6% saying it is a failure when it comes to the quality of care. this is a question about thinking f yourself in the future, if y are no longer able to care for yourself, how comfortable would you be in a nursing home. only 1 said they would be somewhat comfortable, 12 percent saying neither very comfortable or somewhat comfortable, 29% saying somewhat uncomfortae, and 41% saying for themselves, if they had to have that oion of being in a nursing home, they would be very uncomfortable with that experience. perhaps you have experiences with nursing homes or assisted care facilities, you want to talk about that. senators took a look in a hearing yesterda about quality care, focusing on assisted care facilities, but you can expand that to nursing hos. this is ellen in florida, a caregiver. thank you for calling. caller: i heard t

and as he said to frank robinson, we're always ■v■)lookg for something that will get a little publicityve you seen the morning paper and convinces his fellow guys down there to try that maybe this is the place where we do the test case against this law, maybe can recruit one of our local schoolteachers to be the one, to challenge this law. and he gets the other folks say, all right, maybe let's do this. and he's going to contact the aclu and do you mean what you say? will you provide lawyers? they say absolutely. there they are again. and they're convinced that this is not only going to bring publicity to dayton, that it's going to bring crowds that people will want to see this trial. it will be good for business. and going to speak some of the schoolteachers and they're going find one they think is perfect. he doesn't have a lot of ties to the community. he doesn't a family. so if he somehow lost job over this, which they're hoping he wouldn't wouldn't, he wouldn't you know, he didn't he'd be okay. and he was the 24 year old general science instructor and the football coach who accepte

lookg st the president of george washington to future presidencies.hey correctly anticipedhe nation might -- they were deey concerned about the nation would devolve into factions. immediately when you get to adams and jefferson they devolve into factions. they looked past tha presidency to the future of the republic. a tradition that served for 234 years until last year when was shattered by the indictment of president trump. if the court haso further questions i woul ask the court to reverse. if the cou res against us in any respect, we rue the court stay its mandate to allow us to seek further review. thank you, your honor. judge childs: mr. pearce. pearce: good morning. may it please the court. ne our nation's history has a pnt claimed immunity from criminalderation extends beyond his time in of the president has a unique constitutional role. het above the law. separation of powers principles, constitutional text, history, precedent, and o immunity rines all point to the conclusion that a former president enj immunity at a minimum, this case in whi

the larger question whether there is larger immunity for criminal prosecution for official acts or lookg on a motion to dismiss whh says look to the allegations and take those as truendhether or not we should be looking at official acts. >> when people were not preced, not everybody goes through a impeachnt proceeding before they get prosecuted. >> only subordinate officer >> and points out very clearly, the frame i the constitutionalonntion clearly contemplated that would be mandatory. he would have to be impeached d convicted. >> deals with bribery, treason and high crimes and miemeanor. >> and high crimes and misdemeanors basiclyover anything that the u.s. senate makes a political judgment and justifiesrom removing him from office. >> does not make political judgments to a charge. i think it has no basis. where the current incumbent of presidency and number one political opponent. >> what the impeachment judgment clause is designed to do and limi itself to certain acts and then thereof and impeached and convicted thereafter could be a osecution. but not everybody goes through that pro

if you are, it's me you're lookg i'm burden's hired man a'm to drive you out.we had long night drive ahead of us and we'd better be on the hike. he us to a hitching bar where two farm wagons were tied and i saw the foreign family crowding into one of them. the other was for us. jake got on the front seat with otto. i rode on the straw in the bottom of the wagon, covered up with a buffalo hide. the immigrants rumbled off into pty darkness. and we followed them. i tried to go to sleep, but the jolting made me bite my tongue, and i soon began to ache all over cautiously. i from under the buffalo, hide got up on my knees, peered over the side of the wagon there, seemed to be nothing to see, no fences was no creaks or trees, no hills or fields. if there was a road, could not ma it out in the faint starlight. there was nothing but land not a country at all. but the material out of which countries are made. i had the feeling that the world was left behind, that we had gone over the edge of it and were outsi m juristic person. i had never before up the sky and there wa

lookg at housing burden which is even more subtle than looking at percentage of ami. finally, the debt and interest payments should be frozen and redirected into mitigation because ultimate mitigation is how as a nation we are going to work our way out of this challenge. ese policies would resolve affordability, transparency and accuracy concerns which looks to stabilize participationn the program and support communities ross the country. thank you for the opportunity to speak today and thank you for your svice. i look forward to taking your quesons. chair brown: thank you mr. hecht . dr. kaniewski. dr. kaniewski: my name is daniel kaniewski, and i focus on public sector challenges and solutions at marsh mennan, the world's leading professional services program in the areas of risk, strategy and people. we have 5000 colleagues worldwide advising clients in 130 countries. with years of experience,e help iividuals, businesses, communities and governments address the financial impacts o disasters through insance and other risk-management tools. bere coming to marsh mclen

given them the rope for filling the p,i would exercise whatever discretion congress left open, even lookg at things like overall objectives, then it's implemti congress directive -- >>those are two very diffenviews about what qualifies an ambiguity. one is the'a better interpretation and the other as well, yeah, but, will defer anyway given whatever considerations you want to throw in the bucket. that is exactly the problem that your friends on the other side suggest persisted in the lower courts for 40 years and why mejudges claim never to have found an ambiguity and other judges say th find them all the time. it's also why, don't know, maybe a dozen or more circuit judges have written asking to overrule chevron. italso might be one onof your colleagues last year said don't know what ambiguity means. should that be occluded that something needs to be fixed near? that the federal government cannot answer the question of what triggers ambiguity? you've given us two fferent alternatives today and some th lower court judges who just want to follow whatever we tell them to do faithfullycaot f

. >> great piece in the ifft lookg at china for 2024 and you talk about european resilience, and i'mondering how you square that, given theirreliance on china trade? >> yeah. i think europe might point to this, they've gone through so many disasters over the last 10, 12 years, it's really the new hopeless continent. that was a term being used for africa for one point in time. today you could use it for everyone. everyone is pessimistic on europe, and my sort of response is that europe may not shine or do really well, but it could be much more resilient than what people think. firstly, the europeans have saved a lot of their stimulus out of caution, compared to let's say in america, where a lot of the stimulus has gone and spent by the consumer, plus in europe, a lot of the debt is on floating rate, compared to america where a lot of the debt was taken at fixed rate. in a way, europe has already suffered the shock of higher interest rates in a way that america hasn't. also the fact that the energy shock is receding much faster because they had a much bigger energy shock to deal with.

. >> what everybody's lookg for in portland was in my back yard. i was the first one to see it. >> reporter: landing in the back yard of portland teacher bob suer. >> friend of mine called me and said, you shou probably check your back yard. once i finished my work for the day i came out to look for it and i found it. my heart started beating a little faster so i guess i was excited. i went back in the house and i first called the ntsb. we are very careful not to touch anything during that time. i figured ntsb would want to see it in the condition that it had fallen in. >> reporter: the images of the door plug and the plane triggering new questions. >> there is more than likely a problem here with the latching mechanism or the way it was installed. >> reporter: attention now turning to the company that manufactured the fuselage of boeing 737 max 9aero systems. issues with its fuselages led to delays of boeing max planes last year. the company saying in a statement, spirit is a committed partner with boeing on the 737 program and we continue to work

they are just lookg at all these programs and all the money, where it's at.hat's what i'm going to do for me, not for the country. we have got to go back to voter id. we have got to go back to when you go to bed you find out who got elected for the different positions in our country. we go on and move forward. host: when do you think we shld do mail-in ballots in this country? caller: we should not use them. that is something that ivery dangerous. there's a lot of corruption with the mail-in ballots. you don't really know who did it and how many people did it. i'm not in favor of mail-in ballots. you should go and vote in person, present your id and you would have we used to do it. there should be more accountability. host: there are some states that haven't using mail-in ballot inc. for years -- balloting for years? should they stop using it? caller: i think they should because it has gotten out of hand. on the border, i do a job or i have to punch in a code to get the other side of the border. we have a pump on the river. we pump wateinto a district where i

i think the court in chevron used the word "congress," but you're really lookg the statute and what the statute reveals about whether it's resolving an issue or not. justice alito: tha. chief justice roberts: justice sotomayor? justice sotomayor: there hasn't been much discussion on why this isntled to statutory -- to stare decisis consideration. there's been an argument by petitioners that it's not really a hdi of a case; it's a method only, and we have said inheast that a method that lower courts have to use is subject to change we can make without considering stare decisis. so could you address that arment? general prelogar: yes. and i think that petitione have pointed to two relevant types of cases that they suggest just mean stare decisis doesn't apply here or it applies in particularlyeaned form. first, they say the court has somemechanged the interpretive tools it consults. thgs like legislative history might have been in greater favor, at least thome justices, before anday have fallen out of favor later. but i don't think that those pride a parallel at all, because the court has