, i can equate it with a couple of other rulings which i think citizens united will have a similar history. pre plessy versus ferguson, and the ruling in precivil war, saying that black people are not citizens, those were two great mistakes that the supreme court of the united states made, the two greatest mistakes. the third one in my opinion is citizens united in terms of the effect upon democracy. and as some point we, as our history has shown, comes together as a democracy and says this is simply not right. this goes against the whole framework of democracy. and there will come a day -- and i'm no profphet, but the supreme court will confine citizens united to the same file that did dredd scott and plessy. as you mentioned, supervisor mar, one big allowance that we can still take care of in terms of people being sure that government is not totally bought, and that is disclosure, that even though money can be given by anyone, the people that are giving it, the u.s. supreme court has said unanimously all along, disclosure of who these people are is something that's fine. it does

here that people don't want to eun new laterally evasive money that's come in as a result of citizens unitedt it will not fix itself. this has to be an engagement by american citizens in their democracy. >> which brings us back to the core principles this nation was founded on or as james madison wrote. who are to be the eleblgors. not the rich, more than the poor. not the learned more than the ignorant so what they're doing is saying we don't want to be ruled by a lorded arising tocracy. we will create a nation for the people by the people and protect this government against our worst instinct. >> yeah, it won't alms business protected. it won't always work and sometimes it needs to be fixed and today again might be one of those days. we just don't know how exactly they would want it to be fixed. >> i can't imagine they would want to foresee anything we have today. would james madison be on twitter? >> oh, definitely. >> eric. >> it was a pleasure. >> thank you so much. >> reporter: while the founders understood the dangers and money in politics, they understood the people advocating for th

today they introduced a constitutional amendment to undo the citizens united supreme court decision but as trevor shirley tells us it's a move that is largely symbolic. and we're here today to take our democracy back. democratic senator tom udall says the country needs a constitutional amendment. >>to get big corporate money out of politics. the big money interests are buying our democracy of the standing in front of the supreme court you'd all and other democratic senators called for the passage of the democracy for all amendment. >>few decisions in the 200 and some odd years of this republic have threatened our democracy like citizens united. >>citizens, united was a 2010 supreme court decision that corporations have the same right to free speech is individuals, it paved the way for large corporate donations to flow nearly unchecked into political campaigns, democrats say much of that is dark money from unknown donors and sometimes from overseas. >>this idea that the wealthy and powerful can control our government and have far more say than the average citizen is eroding face in this

one of them is to reverse the citizens united case which allows unlimited political contributions tocandidates. [applause] i still feel apparently some of you do, and my dissent had the right in that particular debate. but in my book i describe some of the reasons for the rule that if it should apply annually did apply for many, many years before that case. and in that discussion i describe an opinion written by judge kavanaugh on that very issue. the issue in the case was whether a canadian citizen and a citizen of israel who were living in new york temporarily could make expenditures in elections that were going on at the time. they brought a proceeding in the federal court asking for an injunction against enforcing the statute that prohibits expenditures by foreign citizens in american elections. judge kavanaugh wrote the opinion upholding the statute and holding that they could be barred from making, giving contributions to an american election. and i i thought that he wrote a very persuasive opinion, and as a matter of fact they put his picture in the book to illustrate my admir

on the pecking order, would you put citizens united at the top? is there something else? i know you are big on gerrymandering and the problems it has created, and the elections and the lack of democracy we have in elections. where does that sit? justice stevens: gerrymandering is at the top because it is such a simple solution. racial gerrymandering is prohibited, but why political gerrymandering shouldn't have the same fate -- there is no real explanation for that. >> is there a way to do it without politics? we are letting elected officials to draw the district so that it benefits themselves. is there a better way? stevens: i have been thinking about writing a new york times piece based on the james comey book, the higher truth and so forth, basically when a legislator is asked to vote on a gerrymandered district, he should not vote for it. he should know that it is an improper district. it's like cheating at cards. some things you just don't do. you should not draw districts just to affect the outcome of elections. >> that happens though. justice stevens: that happens,

following citizens united, they brought a proceeding to the federal court asking for an injunction against enforcing the statute that prohibits expenditures by foreign citizens in american elections. judge kavanaugh wrote the opinion upholding the statutes and holding that they could be barred from making contributions to an american election. i thought that he wrote a very persuasive opinion and i put his picture in the book to illustrate my admiration for it. one of the cases that he cited in that opinion was my dissent in citizens united which i thought showed the fact that he was a very good judge and had very good taste in cases to follow. [laughter] i forget what the point i was going -- [laughter] but anyway, so at that time, i theght he definitely had qualifications to sit on the supreme court and should be confirmed if he was ever selected. but i have changed my views for reasons that have no relationship to his intellectual ability or his record as a federal judge. he is a fine federal judge and he should have been confirmed when he was nominated. but i think that his performance

citizen. today i'm here to say we are not backing down on our effort to determine the citizenship status of the united states' population. i stand before you to outline new steps my administration is taking to ensure that citizenship is counted so that we know how many citizens we have in the united states. makes sense. we will defend the right of the american people to know the full facts about the population, size of citizens and noncitizens in america. it is essential that we have a clear breakdown of the number of citizens and noncitizens that make up the u.s. populations. imperative. knowing this information is vital to formulating sound public policy, whether the issue is healthcare, education, civil rights or immigration, we must have a reliable count of how many citizens, noncitizens and illegal aliens are in our country. the department of commerce sensibly decided to include a citizenship question in the 2020 census, as has been done many, many times throughout the history of the united states. unfortunately, this effort was delayed by meritless litigation. as shocking as it may be, far left

speak of the justices the citizens united case in a ruling back in 2010.ack that decision would stifle free speech and suppress political activity. "listen them is total hypocrisy. democrats putting against the amendment at the same time. they also raise and spend hundreds of millions of dollars in special-interest money to defeat president trump. this is likely to play a big issue going into 2020. speaking of president trump, democrats say if the president wants to drain the swamp that he should back this amendment. harris? >> harris: thank you very much. we will continue to follow it. some wealthy parents may have found a new way to save money on college. is it legal, or does it give them a leg up that isn't fair? ♪ newday va home loan for veterans. the newday va loan lets you refinance your mortgages, consolidate your credit card debt, put cash in the bank and lower your payments over 600 dollars a month. it lets you borrow up to 100 percent of your home's value. not just 80 percent like other loans. and that can mean a lot more money for you and your f

but the 1st value and then you won through the years to citizens united which says that the right of free speech of corporations members spend as much money they want can't be curtailed. take a look what that means it means that corporations which anyway have been pretty much buying elections are now free to do it with virtually no constraint as tremendous attack on the residue of democracy. very interesting to read the rulings like justice kennedy's swing vote his ruling said well look after all the c.b.s. is given freedom of speech there are corp why shouldn't general electric be free to spend as much when is that what. i mean it's true that c.b.s. has given treat of speech but they're supposed to be performing a public service that's why and that's what the press is supposed to be a general electorate is trying to make money for the chief executive some of the shareholders. sitting critical decisions and it puts the country in a position where business power is greatly extended beyond what it always was this is part of that vicious cycle the supreme court justices are put in by re

the citizens united this was january 2009 i guess that's a very important decisions prim court decision but it has a history and you got to think about the history. of 14th amendment has a provision that says no person's rights can be infringed without due process of law. and the intent clearly was to protect freed slaves said ok they have got the protection of the law i don't think it's ever been used for freed slaves if ever marginally almost immediately it was used for businesses corporations their rights can't be infringed without due process of law so they gradually became persons under the law. corporations or state created legal fictions. maybe they're good maybe they're bed but to call them persons is kind of rages so they get got personal rights back about a century ago and that extended through the 20th century. as they give corporations rights way beyond what persons have so if say general motors invests in mexico they get national rights the rights of the mexican business well the notion of person was expanded to include corporations it was also restricted if you take the 14

it would take steps to control some of the excesses created by citizens united. it would repeal the board of supervisors' ordinance from 2015 eliminating certain disclosure requirements for independent expenditure committees. it would implement safeguards against pay-to-play for that appearance on development decisions. i would like to acknowledge each of the supervisors who have sponsored this initiative. it would move the election process in a better and more equitiable direction. it would make elections more competitive even for those candidates without deep pocket donor base. it would encourage more candidates to run who might not otherwise because of the daunting task of competing with candidates connected to super p.a.c.s, and hopefully this will reign in the endless reporting in the media about which candidate has raised the most money. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is holda garofalo, and i have served on two grand jurys. the ethics commission was one of our topics, but that led us to looking into how nonprofits and super p.a.c.s really

there's nothing that presents the united states government from determining who is a citizen of the united states. they can't use census information to do that. and people who are watching, you know, should be aware that no matter what, they can fill out the census without being concerned about the census bureau sharing from with other parts of the united states government sharing that with the immigration enforcement. it's actually so plainly within his authority that it was already happening. so all of this litigation that's been done on top of it was all against the backdrop of the census bureau saying that they were already going to perform this function, which opens the question, why is he having a press conference. the government has been doing this all along. >> and you know, our greg wallace has reported that this is the option that the census bureau itself recommended to the commerce secretary, wilbur ross, in january of 2018. and said, not only should you do it this way, it won't be expensive, and it's also more reliable data than you would get on a census. so here we are. >> and

for the law and for forgot presid ford appointed he ruled against prayer in school he opposed citizen united. that w the landmark ruling into t campaigns. he appealed the second amendment after the 2018 school shooting >> if he saw a case differently think twice about writing an opinio writing a dissent and >> rep justice stevens he died from complications he was 99 years old. aaron and eun, back to you. pr sid tweet referringto them, quote, to go back and fix came four republicans and one on last night's measure. they called the president's it carrieso legal prosec have ordered the record accord to the associated s he wa sound mind. eemos sscheduled to be tried a mng was already held prince george's county but hu dre are expected at tonigh meeting. they 6:30keat la we brought you first on news 4. someon firedhots into an weeks. the shots shattered at least one window and that's at the iheart the first incident happened on the latest incident happened tenant received an email so far no word on any arrest in 10-yea ma kaia wilson died god. >> last night family, friends, last summer. they'r ho

records even records related to the department of homeland security to determine how many citizens are in the united states, and the president says this will give an accurate count of about 90% accuracy how many citizens are here. president trump: we will utilize these vast federal databases to gain a full, complete, and accurate count of the non- citizen population including databases maintained by the department of homeland security, and the social security administration. we have great knowledge in many of our agencies. we will leave no stone unturned. reporter: and the president ordered this to be done immediately and now the linkage of the records was tested in the 1990 census, the 2000 census and the 2010 census. now it's going to be put into practice and the president saying democrats just want to block the citizens question for political purposes. president trump: far left democrats in our country are determined to conceal the number of illegal aliens in our midst. they probably know the numbers far greater, much higher, than anyone would have ever believed before, maybe that's why they figh

i am supportive of a constitutional amendment to .epeal the citizens united i think that decision was misguided. has seen the advent of the super pac's. they can simply flood money into a district. i have been supportive and a cosponsor of a bill by a congressman to establish a citizen financed system. not unlike the system the city of seattle has started up. where you have small dollar campaigns. bill calledor of a the disclose act. if you are going to see these groups influence elections, they should put their name on it. we as americans should have a right to know who is trying to influence our elections. there are some bills frankly -- right now. the conversation is publicly disclosed. ad on radio, that information is publicly available, right? three democrats and republicans. as most of your viewers can comestand, every decision out 83-three stalemate. there was an article, i think it was in the new york times, when they celebrated the 40th anniversary of the creation of the election commission, they stalemated whether to serve bagels or doughnuts. the concern is in the absence o

i should have a right to know how many citizens are here in the united states. it's one thing to say i am a citizen on the forum, but there is another thing that should say i'm other or i'm a noncitizen. i think we have a right to know, as americans, how many citizens are in our country. i see nothing wrong with that. we should know. like ir countries no -- say, this has gone back to -- when i was in college, i always heard it was 320 million. does either of the guests know approximately how many american citizens are in the united states? host: we talked a bit about the citizenship question. any further thoughts? guest: i have no idea how many citizens there are in this country. i've heard estimates that we have 11 to 12 million unlawful aliens here. aheard that is also dramatically low figure or the figure is much higher, but i have no idea. guest: i don't know the answer either. that there is is information and data the government has about citizens and doesn't necessarily need -- does not need to use the census to get the information. that was one of the issu

perfectly lawful for the federal government to ask on the census whether individuals are citizens of the united states. and it's entirely reasonable to want to know how many citizens and noncitizens there are in the united states. in fact, the federal government has routinely asked questions relating to citizenship ever since the 1820s, but while the supreme court correctly recognized that it would be entirely appropriate to include citizenship questions on the census, it nevertheless held that the commerce department did not adequately explain its decisions for doing so on the 2020 census. because as the supreme court recognized, the defect in the commerce department's decision was curable with a better record, the president asked me to work with secretary ross to determine whether there remained a viable path for including a citizenship question on the census. i did so. in my view the government has ample justification to inquire about citizenship status on the census and could plainly provide rationales for doing so that would satisfy the supreme court. therefore, there is no question that a

and non-citizens living in the united and there is a lot of data to be had. the president's suggestion was as much as 90% of those people could be accounted for through the department of homeland security, the social security administration, et cetera. doug burns is with us now. doug, the main question i have is whether the courts will try to block this executive decision. >> this was interesting. exactly as you said, they said look, if the supreme court says we can't do it on the form itself, guess what, we will do it in another manner. the legal argument's going to be you're just dodging and running the supreme court decision by trying to use these other agencies. that's going to be sort of a close call. but in the end, you know, little prediction, i think the administration will probably win out. but there was some very interesting messages real quick. the attorney general made it crystal clear this was not on the merits, the question's perfectly fine legally, interesting message, which was what the supreme court said

"a very sad time for america when the supreme court of the united states won't allow a question of is this person a citizen of the united states to be added on the 2020 census. going on for a long time. i have asked the department of commerce and the department of justice to do whatever is necessary to bring this most vital of questions and this very important case to a successful

that oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states for the first time when i was 10 years old, getting sworn in to be a citizen of the united states five years after my mom brought me here from poland. and so i thought, you know, i don't -- i don't necessarily share the same politics as aoc or congresswoman tlaib or omar, but if you're going to go after my fellow members of congress because of where they are from or appear to be from or how they look, you're going to have to go through me, and so i offered this resolution and i'm glad the house passed it today. we said that we are better than this. the president doesn't speak for the country. we do. >> i know there was a lot of consternation in the house during the debate of this resolution in the use of the word racist. it's in the title of the resolution condemning president trump's racist comments directed at members of congress. house speaker nancy pelosi had to deal with a real tempest today when she used that word to describe the president's statements as well. there was a big controversy over whether or not she was allowed to describe the president's re

that started when i was attorney general and that citizens united decision first came down.hat i take will be disclosed. so anybody can judge. but here's an example, my brother does safety and environmental-related work for a contractor that deals with fossil fuel industry. should i not take money from my brother? ultimately what we should be doing is, disclosing the contributions and we have seen about a billion dollars of money spent in our elections since citizens united. where none of us know who's making those contributions or spending. >> right now, you don't meet the thresholds for that third debate in september the abc debate, you need to get 2% in two polls, need 130,000 donors it's an uphill fight, are you going the to make it? >> i sure hope so. i mean, it's one of these things, you know, i been in about seven weeks and made six trips to iowa and i think for all these debate rules that it's still going to be the early states that take a large field and make it smaller. and hearing folks on the ground and what their concerns are is also my best debate prep. i had a

that oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states for the first time when i was 10 years old, getting sworn in to be a citizen of the united states five years after my mom brought me here from poland. and so i thought, you know, i don't -- i don't necessarily

he did feel to the end that second amendment case and citizens united had been wrongly decided.s a little bit interesting is, you are going to see all of the clerks line up. they become in many ways a justices greatest legacy. they start off at the courts knowing very little about the law and there they are at the highest echelons of power. they continue on. he served as a mentor. you'll see many of these clerks will write about citizens united, write about the second amendment in op-eds, in law review articles sort of carrying on stevens legacy. he stayed very close with them. he just finished a book last spring and had his last reunion. so these clerks who have become judges, businessmen, law. >>ers, -- professors, they wil carry on his legacy, opinions he thinks the newly constructed supreme court should look at again. >> we've been watching those clerks lining the steps turning toward the casket as it makes its way up there into the great hall of the supreme court. thanks very much. stay with us. we'll be right back. okie dough . apply that same speed to the ford hurry up an

today tweeting this, so important for our country that the very simple and basic are you a citizen of the united states question be allowed to be asked in the 2020 census. department of commerce and department of justice are working very hard on this, even on the fourth of july.

perfectly lawful for the federal government to ask on the census whether individuals are citizens of the united it is entirely reasonable to want to know how many citizens and noncitizens there are in the united states. in fact, the federal government has routinely asked questions related to citizenship ever since the 1820's. while the supreme court correctly recognized that it would be entirely appropriate to include citizenship questions on the census, it nevertheless held that the commerce department did not adequately explain its decisions for doing so on the 2020 census. because, as the supreme court default wasthe curable with a better record, the president asked me to work with secretary ross to determine whether there remained a viable path for including a citizenship question on the census. i did so. in my view, the government has ample justification to inquire andt citizenship status could plainly provide rationales for doing so that would satisfy the supreme court. therefore, there is no question a new decision to add the question would ultimately survive legal review. any newlem is

i sat down wivens this spring, for one of his final interviews, he said this about the 2010 "citizens unitedling on campaign finance laws. why do you think it's had a corrosive effect on american politics? >> just look at the amount of money. i can't give you the figures, but millions and millions of dollars are spent on cpaigns now. and, often there's state representatives spending money provided by residents of other states. people in the district should be the ones who decide the outcome of elections.dr >> wf: the ruling in "citizens united" came toward the end of stevens' tenure, throughout which he was able to maintain a rich personal life. again, former clerk sherry: >> he was very passionate about everything, about, you know, all of his interests, and, so, he had a lot of extracurricular uinterests outside the , tennis and fossil fuel and bridge and the like, but he was so passionate about the the i mean, for many years after he was off the court, he was sti iting and speaking and ootraveling. >>uff: >> woodruff: i asked him to assess his lengthy career, and his own impact on american

truck deeply opposed to the citizens united decision which removed restrictions on corporate spending and politics. he supported affirmative action. and voted to uphold the roe versus wade decision legalizing and believe the death penalty to cruel and unusual punishment. stevens retired in 2010. has 30 for years on the bench, with the longest serving import justices. and after stepping down he had more to say. well into the 90s, stevens called for gun control suggesting he spoke out against the nomination of conservative justice brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. is still issuing opinions. even from the sidelines. mola lenghi, cbs news. >>> local calling it a shark park. why we are about to see a whole lot more great white sharks along the california coast. >> before we go, let's take a live look outside. that is the moon. a full moon from our camera we will be right back. it's no ordinary day for our family at denny's. it's crepe day. a family tradition we started about 22 minutes ago and now we can continue that tradition at home with denny's delivery. see you at denny's or denny

really the event that wased the decision for me when i decided to announce my oral dissent in the citizens united case. for some reason, i had trouble making the oral announcement. i struggled with some of the presentation, which i felt was unusual. i thought i was reasonably articulate over the years before. i seemed conscious that i did not do a very good job on that particular occasion. that maybe i have to give a little thought to changing my career. >> you still have an office in the court? >> i do. >> have you sat on any cases? >> i haven't. one of the important bits of information about retirement --t i learned from the chief solicitor to the chief, mike chambers, my locker, my secretary, even if i did not sit on cases. if i don't sit on cases, i will not be qualified for a raise in pay. i think the clerks deserve their pay, but i will not lose any sleep over the likelihood that there will be a salary increase. >> william rehnquist was therefore 19 years. a system we do have , in which cert pool first five, then six, seven, now eight of the justices pool law clerks to write memos about the

one is money in politics because we have the controversial citizens united deci corporate money is flooding into , politiich dissociates legislativors from individual voters, and big data and informat accurate.that is not that was not the case 30, 40, 50 years ago. laura: or in 1787. kim wehle, thanks for joining us. the chinese ambassador has been summoned to the foreign office in london over his comments on protests in hong kong. he criticized britais foreign secretary jeremy hunt for supporting the recent demonstrations in the chinese territory. the ambassador said that britain seem to have forgotten that hong kong was no longer a u.k. . the u.s. trade deficit has risen to its highest level in five mohs. the deficit now stands at more than $55 billion. the gap with mexico, of which president trump has been caparticularly critil, has sort to levels not seen in 10 years. saudi arabia has announced that americ hip-hop star nicki mina j will headline a show in jeddah . it follos a number of performances in saudi arabia by western pop stars in recent months. now to japan, where more than one

are you a citizen of the united states of america? can't answer that question. that's after spending billions of dollars. they used to be a time when you could answer questions like that very easily. they used to be a time when you can declare i am a citizen of the united states. thethey are trying to erase existence of a very important word and a very important thing, citizenship. they are even coming after the pledge of allegiance in minnesota. i'm proud to be a citizen, you are proud to be a citizen. the only people who are not proud to be citizens are the ones who are fighting us all the way about the word citizen. today, i'm here to say we are not backing down on our effort to determine the citizenship status of the u.s. population. i stand before you to outline new steps my administration is taking to ensure that citizenship is counted so that we know how many citizens we have in the u.s. makes sense? we will defend the right of the american people to know the full facts of the population's size of citizens and number of citizens. it is clear we have a bre

perfectly lawful for the federal government to ask on the census whether individuals are citizens of the unitedble to want to know how many citizens and noncitizens there are in the united states. the federal government has routinely asked russians relating to citizenship ever since the 1820s. while the supreme court correctly recognized that it would be entirely appropriate to include citizenship questions on the senses, it nevertheless health of the commerce department did not adequately explain its decisions for doing so on the 2020 senses. because as the supreme court recognized, the defect in the commerce department's decision was curable with a better record. the president asked me to work with secretary ross to determine whether there remained a viable path for including a citizenship question on the census. in my view the government has ample justification to inquire about citizenship status on the senses and could plainly provide rationale for doing so that would satisfy the supreme court. therefore there is no question that a new decision tab the question would ultimately survive lega

i am supportive of a constitutional amendment to repeal the citizens united. i don't think corporations are people. i think that supreme court decision was terribly misguided. it has seen the advent of the super pac's. at the end of a cycle they can simply flood my into a district. -- money into a district. i have been supportive and a cosponsor of a bill by a congressman to establish a citizen financed system. not unlike the matching funds systems the city of seattle has started up. you have citizens financing small dollar election campaigns. i think that would be better than the status quo. i am a sponsor of a bill called the disclose act. if you are going to see these groups influence elections, they should put their name on it. we as americans should have a right to know who is trying to influence our elections. there are some bills frankly that have bipartisan support that i hope it be able to cross the finish line. i'm a sponsor of a bill called the honest ads act. if you're a political candidate or a group trying to influence electoral outcome, if you r

perfectly lawful for the federal government to ask on the census whether individuals are citizens of the united and it's entirely reasonable to want to know how many citizens and noncitizens there are in the united states. in fact, the federal government has routinely asked questions relating to citizenship ever since the 1820s. but while the supreme court correctly recognized that it would be entirely appropriate to include citizenship questions on the census, it nevertheless held that the commerce department did not adequately explain its decisions for doing so on the 2020 census. because as the supreme court recognized the defect in the commerce department's decision was curable with a better record, the president asked me to work with secretary ross to determine whether there remained a viable path for including a citizenship question on the census. i did so. in my view, the government has ample justification to inquire about citizenship status on the census and could plainly provide rationales for doing so that would satisfy the supreme court. and therefore there is no question that a new

citizen and who is not. it may seem so to some people but if you are a person in this country who is without the official documentation, and undocumented resident of the unitedd you are asked the question, are you a citizen of this country, considering the political atmosphere at the moment, many of those people will be inclined to not fill out a census form altogether. if people do that in large numbers it would skew the figures, and the census is important for allocating funds to different areas and states in the country and allocating seats in the house of representatives. so the figure could be actually quite inaccurate if some people just opt out of filling out a form. also making news today. the uk has raised the security threat level to the maximum for ships sailing near iran after a british warship warned off three iranian gunboats. the ships were trying to intercept an oil tanker in the gulf. tehran denies involvement — but it had threatened retaliation after one of its tankers was seized last week, by british forces off gibraltar. police there have arrested the captain and searched the ship. prosecutors in italy have opened a criminal investigation