action since the two thousand and ten citizens united supreme court case a historic ruling that created loopholes to campaign election laws by granting corporations personhood but the impact was perhaps most evident in the two thousand and twelve election that shattered all previous records of campaign financing in fact according to the center for responsive politics campaigns raised an estimated six billion dollars would two point six billion of that spent on the race for the white house alone and what critics find most alarming is that in the same election only point three percent of ordinary americans contributed two hundred dollars or more meaning the majority of election cash came from big donors and corporations it's a reality josh silver says we should all pay attention to wake up and realize you're just not going to win unless you stop pay attention to money and politics become part of the solution if we get enough of those nothing millions then we'll build something real today in washington is the beginning one proposed solution gaining traction is the american anti-corruption

join with those who are occupying the supreme court, fighting in states for clean money reform, and fighting for an amendment strategy to overturn the citizens united decision, and fighting in elections to change the supreme court. >> what would you think of having a national general assembly modeled on the original continental congress in philadelphia beginning on july 4 of 2012? coming up with a list of grievances that this assembly debated. >> lawrence blessing has talked about a new constitutional convention. i think it is early. i think it is tricky. i do not mean to sound too conservative. when you say to make a list of grievances, we could sit in this room and come up with a list of six ideas or grievances that need to be made real and lead to change. you need to find your issue, work in your community. work in the organizing around the issue. link up with groups doing work. if it is student debt, find ways to take on the banks, local legislators, and congress in the short term. is not very revolutionary. at the event we did on 9/11, i said i felt this country was in a pre-revolutionary moment. it was about a week before occupy was street la

citizen on u.s. soil as an enemy combatant, so the united states supreme court hasn't fully made a decision regarding a u.s. citizen being held as enemy combatant, haven't determined that you can't, but -- >> what was the padilla decision. he was an american citizen. >> he was held. >> but the supreme court ruled -- >> never addressed the issue, the issue got resolved a different way. when you talk about this particular case, why consider holding him as enemy combatant, has to be about national security and national interest. can we learn something from this person by holding as enemy combatant that enhances national security, national interests that we can't learn through a federal prosecution. we don't know that sitting here, but that's something at least the folks within the military and department of justice should go through in terms of the thought process. what's in the best interest of the american public and national security and national interest. >> to close this point, part of what's in the interest of the american public one could argue would be preserving rights in the constitution and w

there are plans to occupy the supreme court from the second anniversary of the citizens united decision. that crazy decision has given the rights to corporations to unleash their treasuries into our already polluted political system. go there. go to your local congresspersons office. go to banks charging student loans up the highest rates. go to those places. i think we will see more of that. occupy congress means not only closing out the super committee. it also means finding movement candidates who will run in the electoral office. this is where people get ammocete -- antsy because they say you are taking over the energy of the occupy movement. we need good people to run. >> union unity of purpose if you are going to get anything done. my wife and i ran at an event for gloria steinem recently. -- you need unity of purpose if you are going to get anything done. they were chanting about the notion that the occupy movement is male-century. -- male-centric. they had a chance that that it t mean 99% men. you have people rending this garment of unity. >> you always find there are divisions.

united states. the fact that they're a u.s. citizen, the supreme court just said even if you're a u.s. citizen, you could be held as an enemy combatant. i think based on what we're hearing, that decision will ultimately be made by the attorney general. but i think this is the clearly the case based on what we know for enemy combatant status. that would give us more time to investigate. do we want a prosecution or an investigation. and the answer is, we need an investigation. >> julian, the public safety exception to miranda allows them to talk to him without giving him his miranda rights, for some period of time, until they sort of satisfy themselves there's no more immediate threat. and then they can mirandize him. they've done this in the past. they did it with the underwear bomber, the times square bomber. your thoughts on going that route? and i think the aclu would like that to be extraordinarily limited. >> yeah, a lot of critics on the left don't like that as well. the fbi has a very broad policy, a directive from the president himself, to use the public safety exception very br

that option is the president of the united states, based on the supreme court, can label someone, even a u.s. citizen, an unlawful, that's a key word, enemy combatant and turn him over to the military. >> do you think he would head to gitmo? >> not necessarily. you could put him in a military prison in the united states. then you'd have no lawyer, no miranda and you could interrogate him about all of the past activities, his due process rights would change. i think, because it's -- we have an ongoing conflict, a global war on terror if you will, that this would be is someone that you could apply this to if, maybe based on the initial questions on the immediate threat, you realize he is part of something bigger and we can't just stop and prosecute him. people want this guy to trial, but if he knows information, that's more important. >> that is the key question. is this something bigger? is there somebody directing him overseas or elsewhere. jordan, thank you so much. interesting perspective. they're going -- >> they're not happy with the miranda decision. >> what we rarely hear about the terrorists w

supreme court justice who was integral to citizens united which is this horrible thing. a line from kennedy's opinion in 2010 where he basically held out what -- what's being sought here as a check on a corporate at activity. here is what he said from his opinion. shareholders can determine whether their political speeches advances in profits and citizens can see whether elected officials are in the pocket of so-called money interests. now, he wasn't calling specifically for the sr ec to get involved. but he was basically saying that this is -- information that shareholders, you know, can use to sort of restrain the political activity. you can and should use to restrain unlimited political activity that was unleashed bysy sense unite. >> what we see there, really is justice kennedy assuming that this kind of transparency was already present. i mean, transparency is a bedrock business value. and it is a -- accountable democracy. so justice kennedy, another quote from the decision, says that you know, we have never seen a world in which corporations have unlimited ability

the way to answer citizens united, because we know we're not going to get the supreme court to reverseutional amendment to overturn it, force companies to reveal what they are doing. you can do it through an sec rule. the faster way is for shareholders to go to their companies and say stop what you are doing. are different gradations along the spectrum the first thing is disclose. these shareholders should be going to the boards saying we want to know what we you are doing in politics. >> bill: i have been involved in california in a couple of battles like that, and actually went to shareholder meetings and at one time made a pitch -- but as a radical oren grade to shareholders, you can also get voted down. >> look, it's very hard to win many of these shareholder resolutions. there is a whole separate complicated issues of why shareholders -- who owns the shares? pension funds, endowments those groups do not even embrace the more -- you use the word radical, progressive way -- you know, out of the box ideas for what should be done at the corporate level. having said that this idea is m

citizen for acts committed in the united states as an enemy combatant. the quintessential enemy combatant case is a foreigner on a battlefield or elsewhere. the supreme courtpheld treating an american, the american taliban captured in afghanistan as an enemy combatant. here on our own soil this is a paradigm case to be treated as a terrorist and prosecuted within the civilian court system. >> i see your point. people are going to ask the question whether terror has changed. an enemy combatant is a person who planned, authorized, committed or aided in the nine attacks of 2001 or a person who part or substantially supported al qaeda, the taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the united states. if you have groups inspired in chechnya or anywhere else killing american civilian and done by americans, isn't it the term that needs to change rather than the person doesn't fit the term? >> that's a great question. in fact, i think what you are pointing to is that authorization used military force which was drafted in the wake of 9/11 is outdated and doesn't fit the kind of changing threat that we are facing. we have seriously degraded al qaeda

the supreme court said, not so fast. we had citizens united, and the floodgates have opened.tain people can collect undisclosed, unlimited donations. we have gone a long way from back in 1974, watergate. basically, we have gone in the other direction. given what has happened, it is hard to see how we will then go back. they will ratchet back to a degree. whether people are bought and paid for is a question hard for me to answer. the amount of money that is running around washington is extraordinary. with that much money, it hasn't impact. we have a lot of money that is disclosed and undisclosed in the political process. host: democratic caller. caller: good morning. i do not agree with him more. how is it possible to say you cannot see? history started writing our laws. we have all these organizations. washington is the broken city because of the cash flow. the only difference is i can see between the two parties, and that is all we have, the two parties, occasionally the democrats win money does not come in the way, they do something for the people of the country. the other

citizens united ruling and to reduce the corrupted influence of money in politics is west virginia delegate to mansion told a local newspaper yesterday this is doing the only thing we know how to do when the supreme court bases a ruling on a constitutional principle this is what we've got to do is to change the constitution we can't continue to let corporate officials buy off our elected officials now is the time to say enough is enough and end this terrifying reign of money in politics go to move to amend or join the fight to stop the fire sale of our democracy. wealthy british style. expert on. market. come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike's cars are there are no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into kaiser report. coming up. the international airport in the very heart of moscow. coming up on r t during the housing.

united states is nearly enough. where i slightly disagree, there's a supreme court decision, the one you were referring to, chris, involving the nazis. one of whom was a u.s. citizen. the crimes were perpetrated to be for u.s. soil. bottom line, this is not a case for enemy combatants, and there so many horrible crimes committed. if we start throwing the constitution out, we're going to lose the real war for our values. >> let's talk about the issue a lot of people have been talking about. not everybody, but some. miranda rights. we've watched enough detective shows no know, police shows, they give miranda rights almost like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. it's done. why do you think that's an issue? now we just got the word as we went on the air tonight the defendant here, the suspect, i guess he's a defendant now, has been given his miranda rights. >> this is truly something of an urban legend. people like to watch shows where a criminal goes free because he wasn't given miranda rights. that's extremely rare. i do criminal defense work. i can tell you, the most you can hope for in a miranda case is one or two statements will not make it into court. it's rare the w

citizens united. a court case that opened the flood case to unlimited spending on political speech. the president attacked that supremeduring his state of the union address in 2010 with the view bream court justices you might remember sitting right in front of him. >> with all due deference to separation of powers last week the supreme court reversed a century of law that i believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. [applause] >> i don't think american elections should be than bank rolled by america's most powerful interests. or worse by foreign entities. they should be decided by the american people. and i'd urge democrats and republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems. jon: well the members of the supreme court didn't necessarily agree with the president's characterizations this. you might call justice samuel alito shaking his head and mouthing the words, know the true about what the president had to say. joe trippi is a former howard dean presidential campaign manager and a fox news contributor. so when i

>> welsh the united states supreme court, first of all, has said and i got a lot of respect for peter but i disagree with the point. the supreme court said that u.s. you citizenshen they become belligerent and they can become enemy combatants and subject to military tribunals number one. number two, i think it is the wrong lens. we can prosecute this guy if he survives and put him in jail forever. great. except that doesn't answer the question. by the way, it is not just the department of justice through the fbi that can mir randize him. >> you are allowing the taliban and al-qaeda and the people that hate you and me and what we stand for and the people that we love in this country, there has to be and i think and i respect you and i love what you say all the time. there has to be some respect for the constitution and i know you fight every day for the constitution. >> peter -- >> judge jeanine: the issue is that the federal court convictions are many in the years since 9/11 and in the military tribunal very few and they have been subject to a lot of reversals. so michael is sullivan let me go to you. which way do we go. in do we want to be assured of a convic

>> welsh the united states supreme court, first of all, has said and i got a lot of respect for peter but i disagree with the point. the supreme court said that u.s. you citizenshen they become belligerent and they can become enemy combatants and subject to military tribunals number one. number two, i think it is the wrong lens. we can prosecute this guy if he survives and put him in jail forever. great. except that doesn't answer the question. by the way, it is not just the department of justice through the fbi that can mir randize him. >> you are allowing the taliban and al-qaeda and the people that hate you and me and what we stand for and the people that we love in this country, there has to be and i think and i respect you and i love what you say all the time. there has to be some respect for the constitution and i know you fight every day for the constitution. >> peter -- >> judge jeanine: the issue is that the federal court convictions are many in the years since 9/11 and in the military tribunal very few and they have been subject to a lot of reversals. so michael is sullivan let me go to you. which way do we go. in do we want to be assured of a convic

>> welsh the united states supreme court, first of all, has said and i got a lot of respect for peter but i disagree with the point. the supreme court said that u.s. you citizensn they become belligerent and they can become enemy combatants and subject to military tribunals number one. number two, i think it is the wrong lens. we can prosecute this guy if he survives and put him in jail forever. great. except that doesn't answer the question. by the way, it is not just the department of justice through the fbi that can mir randize him. >> you are allowing the taliban and al-qaeda and the people that hate you and me and what we stand for and the people that we love in this country, there has to be and i think and i respect you and i love what you say all the time. there has to be some respect for the constitution and i know you fight every day for the constitution. >> peter -- >> judge jeanine: the issue is that the federal court convictions are many in the years since 9/11 and in the military tribunal very few and they have been subject to a lot of reversals. so michael is sullivan let me go to you. which way do we go. in do we want to be assured of a convicti

because the supreme court said he had to be, the politics changed and the position of the administration changed and 2009 revisions of the act now an american citizen is excluded. we have the united states itself going back to george washington has had a long history of using military commissions including against u.s. citizens. john wilkes booth and coconspirators in the lincoln assassination were prosecuted by military commission. when germany landed spies off the coast of long island and florida they were rounded up within a matter of days. at least one of which was an american citizen. they were tried by military commission and executed within a matter of weeks. this is not unprecedented. just that the obama administration for whatever reason doesn't want it. jenna: based on the way the law stands now currently in 2013 what happened in the past with an american citizen being tried, convicted and executed as an enemy combatant would not fly? that is the law right now? >> that would not fly as the law stands right now but i think this case, is a wonderful example of why congress needs to revisit that law. jenna: why? >> because, in my opinion, we simply can not protect the home

in a military commission in the united states notwithstanding the claim by one of them that he was an american citizen. that went up to the supreme courty. >> the bottom line here, the americans should have faith in their court system and not worry about this becoming a a military tribunal. >> there are weaknes weaknesses. if they can collect intelligence on the older brother, for example, the younger brother might try to create a defense or at least mitigation along the lines you suggested, that is, he was influenced by his older brother. he would want to know and get access to that intelligence so that he could make that point, and if that came out in a public courtroom, that could make us less secure. i think we have to be wary of that. >> michael mukasey, the former u.s. attorney general, fascinating insight this morning. thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> nice to see you. >>> a teacher is in trouble because his student asked to see his bible. he gave it to him and got fired. is that fair? the teacher joins us next. >>> a heart-stopping moment at a drag race when a car goes flying into the stands and lands on top of

united states citizen would be given. you cannot sue your city and remain unanimous. i vowed to appeal this and fight this to the supreme court which we did. so, what brings me here is a life of experience as a mayor who tries to balance a budget, provide a good quality of life for the people that live there and realize what happens when illegal immigration, not just at the border, not just in texas, i'm 2,000 miles away from that southern border. we have good reason to enforce our immigration laws and we should not be encouraging people to come to this country illegally by granting amnesty. we did it in 1986 and we're going to -- we're talking about this again. why obey our immigration laws if we have an administration that won't enforce the laws and a congress that wants to give amnesty every time the problem comes up again? we need to enforce our laws. we need to make e-verify mandatory, protect american jobs. we need to make sure we're protecting our national security. there are people around the world that want to harm us. and we need to give the immigrants that come here the opportunity that they waited for. those immig

the american citizens who aided the german saboteurs were held as enemy combatants and tried in a military court and three of them were hanged. their case went to the united states supreme court and the supreme court says, when you joined the forces of our enemy, you're committing an act of war, not a common crime. tokyo rose sided with the japanese. she was tried and given a life sentence. since 9/11, there have been three american citizens who have been with al qaeda or the taliban or affiliated groups. they have been held as enemy combatants. they have gone to trial in civilian court. and the courts have blessed the holding of american citizens as enemy combatants. rumsfeld v. hamdi was an american citizen who was captured in afghanistan, held under the law of war as an enemy combatant who was eventually tried. the court said, as in world war ii, we can hold one of our own as an enemy combatant, recognizing the difference between a common crime and the law of war. mr. pa difficult ymr. padilla ws by the bush administration. his case went to the fourth circuit. the fourth circuit held you can hold enemy combatants off the battlefield. that's what the government posses

united states supreme court. it is my hope that the court will acknowledge that no one, including this president, mr. speaker, is above the law in this country, from the poorest of our citizens to himself. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kline: 30 seconds. mr. rokita: and we can never afford to forget that. for these reasons, i simply urge all my colleagues to support h.r. 1120, to not listen to the nonsense that we're hearing from the other side. we believe in the worker, we believe in workers' rights, we believe in the rights of businesses, we believe in the rights of unions. we believe the president above everyone else in this country should follow the law and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i yield myself to 20 seconds. -- myself 20 seconds. mr. speaker, the prior speaker's own words indicate the contradiction of his position. he said it is unconstitutional that these recess appointments took place. he then just said that the appeal of this matter is pending before the united states supreme court. marbury vs. madison does not g