but as a result of the information that congress discovered during the investigation, congress passed the national security act of 1947. and this act did a major reorganization of the military branches and in national intelligence. so it created a the first permanent intelligence agency and it also reorganized all the military services to be under one department of defense. just before the united states entered world war two, the senate created the special committee to investigate the national defense program. this committee was was created to oversee billions of dollars in appropriations that congress had just made for war preparation. this committee was led by senator harry truman and of missouri, and it investigated reports of fraud and inefficient c in war preparation. so the committee uncovered numerous instances of corruption and mismanagement and profiteering. it set a standard for congressional oversight operations and was widely praised for its effective work, saving billions of dollars of taxpayer money. it also made senator truman a natial figure. the truman committee's inv

congress could have said yes or no. there's nothing about law really inherently in the question of should the monitors on the boats be paid for by the owners or the government. so step one is has congress in the statute answered that question. when we say no, everybody agrees that's not in the statute, then we say the agency can make that determination so long as they do so in a reasonable way. so, for example, here, the question is whether or not monitors on the boats have to be paid for by the owner of the boat. i see that as a policy question. congress could have said yes or no. there's nothing about law really inherently in the question of should the monitors on the boats be paid for by the owners or the government. so step one is has congress in the statute answered that question. when we say no, everybody agrees that's not in the statute, then we say the agency can make that determination so long as they do so in a reasonable way. and the -- and courts sort of police the boundaries of reasonableness, but whether o

>>n e proverbial open door of congress, members of congress want tgereelected. that is why they are far-fetched. who knows how thgsould change. on some of justice alito's hypoetals, if things came to pass, i think you acknowledged -- i just want toonfirm that unlikehi case where you say historical practice supports congress's historical practice, the court's cases, if there were somethin novel, that lk historical support would be a strike against it. not dispositive necessarily. is that accurate? the point i was trying to make as there are huge practical and policy reasons these taxes would not be enacted and if it came to pass, the courtou assess that tax on its own terms and it might look to history and thk is is something new. i want to be clear we don't think the novelty alone would be dispositive. certainly congress has the power to enact texas it has not enacted before but would provide a reason to scrutinize that tax a little cefly. the court does not have to go down that road because the history is all on our side. >> o hypo of my own. if there were a fe

to one party in congress. i would've thought they would affix the eviction moratorium. i could go on and on. they don't get addressed because chevron makes it so easy for them not to tackle the hard issues and forge a permanent solution. my friends on the other side also talked about this is great. it leads to uniformity in the law. i do nothing that is in itself. if it were up to me, if you think uniformity was so great let's have uniformity and the thumb on the scale of the side of citizen. the kind of uniformity that you get your chevron is something only the government can love. every court in the country has to agree on the current administration's view of a debatable statue. you don't get the kind of uniformity you actually want, a stable decision to assess this is what the statute means. >> mr. clement, can asked the same question i asked mr. martinez about why chevron was initially popular? people who were very sophisticated and had a deep understanding of how judges decide what a statute means and a d

and the congress is a fraud. it's a unit party fraud. dre or derek, real about running for a fraudulent a, against conglomerate out the he just got caught. okay. he just got caught. derick is we go into the election cycle now? i mean, this betrayal, i mean, particularly of the, the g o p base. okay. i mean, you can say a lot of things about donald trump and i've said good and bad on this program, but he didn't get us into a war and i credit him a lot for that bite and has more awards. now that we can count isn't it hasn't what the dean p o p u a b is a betrayal of his candidacy. it was the 1st of all want to say that the everything that the left wing media in america said donald trump was going to do is what barton is currently doing. i mean, that's literally what the, what the, what he's doing rather getting us in all these wars of all this, this chaos. and as far as george stands, as i wanted to quickly say, i do, this is conservative votes, you as a conservative vote in congress. so you would not have it, he w

in briefing congress. we go to the relevant oversight committees, we make sure that they are aware of ongoing transfers above the statutory threshold. even ones that they approved a long time ago. and even when there's no requirement that there be additional notice or additional approval of any kind. we've been focused on trying to make sure that october 7 can never happen again. but having said that, the security relationship we have with israel is not just about gaza, hamas, october 7. it's also about the threats posed to israel by hezbollah, by iran, by various other actors in the region. each one of which has vowed one way or another to try and destroy israel. so the weapons, the systems that israel has sought to acquire and as i said have been contracted in many cases for many years goes to self-defense. they go to deterrence trying to avoid more conflict. host: that's the defense from the secretary of state, what do you think of that offense? guest: i think there's a lot of weaknesses there. first of

well, i'd say democracy dies in congress. okay. i mean they, they, the republican base is adamant that they not do not want money. and an anti, it brings up the question that maybe we'll have an answer to what the hell happened to mike johnson. go ahead as well. well, 1st of all, democracy, when you hear that term in america, you might as well just struck that out and say communism because that's what they're really meeting at the end of the day. we're a constitutional republic and they keep using that word democracy when they really just made communism. speaker johnston has really just been um, a complete uh sorry, a failure. he should've been vacated a long time ago. i don't care what kind of chaos that would it would have caused. it really speaks volumes to the old saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely . because to our point, he is done on $0.18 is time as a congressman to be coming. speaker, i wonder who has been in his ear. i wonder what kind of promises he's been given. it's very unfortunate around now because while

s. congress. they need to get done because they need to get passed between now and november because they've already conceded effectively the terms going to get a man the cause of that they're trying to do their relief while i reside manual and trying to run the table. i so that is what i say. i think it's already been mentioned, the program, the everybody got paid to the and everybody's happy about it and she, i never would have thought we'd miss george santos. do we have this kind of updates on this? i feel like me right now, what is the weather there? oh, good piece. trying to get onto my camp is that columbia university to walk jewish students into their classrooms right now. classes out at columbia a week before finals by the way and as well season this is summer of love. 2 point . oh yeah. but for them in algebra and i never really got it without. i never really got it straight. is he jewish or is a jewish? he said to herself, oh, how did you say anything? you want me to be these bel, columbi

all at the congress. and we have to do is get through the next 3 or 4 months. and this one can. so the, the question now is, is peter said about the, the, the war and the, the time is on rush decided the war. well, it was, it was on it it's, it's not a on their side to get everything passed through the us congress. they need to get done because they need to get passed between now and november because they've already conceded effectively the terms going to wit a man, the cause of that they're trying to do their relief while i resign manual and trying to run the table. i think is what i say. i think it's already been mentioned the program, the everybody got paid to the and everybody's happy about it and she, i never would have thought we'd miss george santos. do we have this have updates on this? i feel like me right now, one or 2 there. oh, good piece. trying to get onto my camp is that columbia university to walk jewish students into their classrooms right now. classes out at columbia a week before finals

it is just a proceeding before congress. so is it your argument that the only thing this provision covers is something tantamount to evidencing an investigation of the trial? >> it is. we are not limiting. our position does not limit to documents or records. i would submit that c1 carries into c2. the other optic is pretty broad. it need not be as 1512 f provides it may not be admissible. it could cover things like electronic records. it could cover communications. it could color -- emails and all things we use by factfinders in a formally convened hearing. >> just a quick question. what about the second circuit decision. what was involved was not evidence. it was a forged court record. did that fall within c2? >> yes. we think that does fall within c2. anything that is falsified in this operative way that is used to obstruct a proceeding would be covered by c1 -- c2. >> just to take you back to the question that justice thomas started he was. it seems there are two choices here. you can read this as otherwise obstructs a pr

s. congress. they need to get done because they need to get passed between now and november because they've already conceded effectively the terms going to get the man the cause of that they're trying to do their relief while i resign mantle. i tried to run the table. i say that is what i say. i think it's already been mentioned, the program, the everybody got paid to the and everybody's happy about it and she, i never would have thought we'd missed george santos. this updates on this. i feel like me right now. one or 2 there. oh, good. please. trying to get onto my camp is that columbia university to walk jewish students into their classrooms right now. classes out at columbia a week before finals by the way, and as well see this, this is summer of love. 2 point oh you have it for them in algebra and i never really got it without. i never really got it straight. is he jewish or is a jew it's it's a jewish. uh oh, how do you say anything you want him to be? he's val, columbia students, if you take

congress has been writing on a blank slate. it is not like it just -- that was taken out of the ether. that was a well-established term for instruction law. when congress takes a phrase like that, it brings soil with it. congress has clearly not this court and the records have interpreted those other statutes to encompass the full range of obstructive conduct. that is consistent with our president i mentioned to you earlier. i think when you put it altogether, there is no real ended with here. we clearly have the best meeting. the icing on the cake is that if congress wanted to write a statute that focused only on evidence, there was a clear and obvious way to do it. congress could have just tacked on a residual that said it otherwise impaired evidence. it would not have used the term that had a well-settled meeting more broadly to try to convey that type of limited scope. it would be nonsensical for congress to draft that way because it would be so readily misunderstood. every lower court has understood congress to legislate m

so congress, what you've heard so far, is that congress has other roles to play than you thought. under article 5, it does have the role to propose and ultimately in our view decide about these procedural questions involving ratification. that's very, very important. you know, the founders put the congress in article 1 for a reason. they knew that their old systems in the states had not worked particularly well. so they changed some of their -- the constitutional articles of the state constitutions that they had come from the colony. so they added something called the president in article 2. and courts only come in article 3. they did ask why congress put them in the basement of the capitol for a very, very long time. indeed, when they built the marble palace, the supreme court of the united states, several people did not want to even have their offices in there because they thought it was much too posh during the middle of the depression. so i think at law school we teach you courts, courts, courts, courts, courts. but the reason that the dean was here, particularly at our law sc

and info is the bombing congress to have them do. and what did congress do on saturday? they said we're going to band tick tock. i mean, the military contractors is damn, i got, i was just explaining, i've been getting a ton of money, a ton of money to congress because they want them to have these continual wars, you know, and, and what better war a ron is perfect. china, off, ideal and russia. yeah, they're the perfect that. i mean make them a boil and then they get more money and hopefully they'll blow up more tanks so they can make more tax and more. yeah. planes and more bullets, etc. so they gave congress a ton of money in congress said okay, fine, we're going to give you crane and taiwan, a $70000000000.00. here's another one. i mean, all of this happened on the same day. israel, no country on the history of the planet is ever paid another country, so much money to have them basically do their will. that's what is real does with it's lobby. we all know that it's no secret. so what did the congress do on saturday? $28000000000.00 for israel. i mean, man, i gotta tel

in 1505, it is the administti of the congress. it is not clear to me whether defendants missy to trto artificially limit those causes beyond two terms even though these kinds of provisis d been in the instructional and they had ner been understood. quest theeyword and that is otherwise. and trying to figure out what that means under our established printable's statutory interpretation. they accepted and the other so i -- and let used the broad phrase of catchall. that can be squared with what that says or how this court interpreted it but instead i do think that the example or lesson to learn is that this court -- >> the courtasaid many times it is a natural way for congress to create a broad catchall category. i don't spute their could be situations where you have a parallel list o nouns or a parallel list of words but that is not how 1512 is structured. itas complex internal stcture. and it has the mens rea requirement unique to 1512(c)(1) and congress didn't transplant that io 12(c)(2)'s that means with they use disparate langu

and congress can take away. and so to me, again, like the notion that the supreme court has the power of judicial review is not new. the notion that the court might abuse that power in ways that are deeply unpopular is not new. what is missing today are the bricks that actually used to keep the court not completely in line with public, but at least loosely in line with public opinion. and i think that's the real problem, that if we just look at the decisions the courts handed down, we tend to miss. i just want to add an anecdote of my own that supports what you said when chief justice warren got the court together to decide brown versus the board, he said no dissents and it has fit on one newspaper page. none of this flipping to section b column four. i want everyone be able to read it and understand it. same point as early as four. well, and i mean fast forward 1974 in the watergate tapes case, you know, the court rules eight nothing against president nixon in an opinion that is signed by his handpicked chief j

s. congress do this weekend. they voted to send $28000000000.00 of your taxes, the taxes you pay to israel, so they continue the war. they can continue the war with the palestinians. a number 2 us tech companies do not like to talk and they wouldn't like to have picked up eliminated. so they lobby, that means they pay congress to go after picked up. and what and congress doing this weekend. it passed to measure the bad tick tock, teaching so much for the free market principles of a healthy competition. right? okay, now let's go to the numbers 3 and 4 as i promised you, the arms industry in the united states bank roles, influential think tanks were members of congress, get jobs, and get their support and information. they also hire thousands of law this so many in fact that they are now more of them, more lobbyist representing military contractors in washington. then there are elected officials in washington. but that put that in your function wagner. and they make donations as well. legal bribes, do these contrac

if congress cannot aet it the above. if congress cannot get it done — the above. congress cannot get it done or it _ the above. if congress cannot get it done or it would - the above. if congress cannot get it done or it would take i the above. if congress cannot get it done or it would take a | get it done or it would take a long time, can that europeans help fill the void? the europeans _ help fill the void? the europeans are - help fill the void? the europeans are filling i help fill the void? the i europeans are filling the help fill the void? tue: europeans are filling the void but it is not fast enough. the europeans promised to produce1 million shells now, and they did not meet the deadline. they produced a little over 300000 and the north koreans sent1 million shells. the ukrainians have a shortage of ammunition now, and only the united states can fill that shortage in the timeframe that it needs. [30 can fill that shortage in the timeframe that it needs. do you wor , timeframe that it needs. do you worry. given _ timeframe that it needs. do you worry. giv

people are writing to congress, calling on congress. blacks and whites, pleading for help around that. the violence that's taking place. and so in particular over the franchise and the vote is where congress sees that they can intercede and so congress is going to pass a series of enforcement acts. the third being the ku klux klan act all around this idea of, you know, trying to find some way to federalize, if you will, these violations on southern's civil rights and political rights, in particular, black southerners, civil and political rights. and one way that they're going to do that is they're going to form the department of justice, which the department of justice initial one of their initial ideas is to actually investigate this this violence in this klan activity is to investigate terrorist organizations and congress very quickly realizes that they cannot ignore the reports that the department of justice is coming up with. and so they decide that they're going to create a commission to organize and investigate what's happening in

people are writing to congress, calling on congress. blacks and whites, pleading for help around that. the violence that's taking place. and so in particular over the franchise and the vote is where congress sees that they can intercede and so congress is going to pass a series of enforcement acts. the third being the ku klux klan act all around this idea of, you know, trying to find some way to federalize, if you will, these violations on southern's civil rights and political rights, in particular, black southerners, civil and political rights. and one way that they're going to do that is they're going to form the department of justice, which the department of justice initial one of their initial ideas is to actually investigate this this violence in this klan activity is to investigate terrorist organizations and congress very quickly realizes that they cannot ignore the reports that the department of justice is coming up with. and so they decide that they're going to create a commission to organize and investigate what's happening in

we get nothing from congress.everybody weaponizes the value of making these direct investments to try to do better and get to better outcomes. it is not a washington monument ploy. it is a necessary moment that we with our congressional industrial partners need to push through to actually get strategic outcomes. mr. harrison: a report came out this week, from the navy, looking at the delays in the shipyards. it's not just a virginia class program. it's kind of down the line there are these backlogs and it is taking longer and longer for ships to come out. what is it, now? five or six years for a virginia class sub? it keeps taking longer. what is the fundamental problem? what do you need from congress in order to help fix that problem? mr. rumbaugh: let's not just put the onus on congress. the fundamental problem will not surprise anybody. it's all the stuff everybody can see. it's workforce challenges, supply chain challenges, making sure we have the right information at the right time to make good decisions with

if congress believes it's worth spending a hundred billion dollars we don't have, congress should be making sure that that sum of money will be fully offset or subject to appropriate budgetary enforcement. so my amendment would strike the emergency designations in this bill to subject this additional spending to the annual caps congress agreed to last year while simultaneously preventing the bill's budgetary effects from escaping proper enforcement. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending amendments and motions in order to call up my motion to concur with amendment number 1860. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. murray: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is noted. mr. lee: mr. president, it's profoundly distressing, disappointed to say the least, that these commonsense amendments have been so cav leerily -- cavalierly objected to, met only with one-word organizations. although my amendment to strike the emergency designations, all of them, drew an objection pursuant to section 314-e of the congressional budget act of

n congress and across the country. and i'm continuing to make clear to congress that we have got to continue to fund this program. it is absolutely vital and i know that conversations are ongoing with some of the major providers about what'll happen if this program falls short in and congress does not don't fund it, but i think the most important thing is to continue to press on congress how important this program is so they continue to fund it. all right. byron allen. did you? >> i shared this tbielg the office of general council. >> thank you. so we'll take questions on the media items adopted today. do you guys have any questions on the 98geo location item? >> thanks for taking the question. any notable changes from the draft item, any notable questions, anything significant from the draft to the item approved today? >> nothing significant. we incorporated new data for the statistics that was a little structure from where we circulated. seeing a letter from the -- received a letter from the community that we made re

and it, in fact, delays the proceedings in congress. now under 1512.c2 that might be corruptly impeding an official proceeding. is that core and therefore immunized or whatever you want to use for that or not core and therefore prosecutable? without a clear statement that applies to the president. >> it is not core. the core kinds of activities that the court has acknowledged are things that i would run through the youngstown analysis. it is a pretty small set. things like the pardon power, the power to recognize foreign nations, the power to veto legislation, the power to make appointments. these are things that the constitution specifically allocates to the president. >> a president could be prosecuted for the conduct i described after he leaves office? >> probably not. i want to explain the framework of why i don't think that would be prosecution that would be valid. first i think you need to run through all of the sort of normal categories of analysis. is there a serious constitutional question that is posed by applying that statute

major cass has repeatedly violated laws enacted by congress regarding immigration and border security. in large part because of his unlawful kick, millions of aliens have illegally entered the united states on an annual basis with many unlawfully refraining in the united states of -- remaining in the united states. his refusalling to obey the law is not only an offense if against the separation of powers in the constitution of the united states, it also threatens our national security and has had a dire impact on communities across the country. despite clear evidence that his willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law has significantly contributed to unprecedented levels of illegal immigrants -- entrants, the increased control of the southwest border by drug cartels and the imposition of enormous costs on states and localities affected by the influx of aliens, alejandro n. mayorkas has continued if his refusal to comply with the law and thereby acted to the grave detriment of the interests of the united states. alejandro n. mayorkas engaged in this scheme or course of conduct

yo b point, we got to look at 1934, we got to look at wt congress wrote, why would congress have drawn that distinction in 1934? >> because they wanted to get the fully autotiweapons who had the push triggers. and if you use pull of the trigger you are not going to get those devices. so they had to say function of e trigger to own expos those forms of weaponry, as long as the conventional cover push and pull? >> how should it be defined, in your view, to cover bump stocks? in other words, tomorrow congress said, mr. mitchell, how shou we write the statute to cover bump stocks since function of t tgger in your view doesn't do it? >> i'd have to ask them what else do you want to encompass besides bump stocks? >> just bump stocks. give me a sentence that you thk would cover bump stocks. >> i would provide a statutory definition of bump stos at tracks as closely as psie to nonmechanical devices that mr. cargill has. >> it's not a great statutory language. you got anything better than that? [laughter] >> i think you can say any device, and this may be a little tobrd, but you can say any dev

so congress, what you've heard so far as congress has other rules to play than you thought under article five it does have the role to propose and ultimately in our view decide the slideabout these procedurals involving ratification. that's very, very important. the founders put the congress in article one of her reason. they knew that they were old tasystems in the state that hadt worked particularly well so they changed some of the articles of the state constitutions that they had come from. the courts will become in article three and maybe that's why congress put them in the basement of the capital for a very long time. indeed when they built the marble palace, which is the supreme court of the united states, several people didn't want to have their offices there because they thought it was much too posh during the middle of the depression. so i a think at law school we teach you court, court but the reason the dean was here is we teach you the constitution is also about you, about elections, the congress, the presidency because we can get rid of courts there's other nations that don'

and congress mandated that. and i don'see any way to try to draw lines around to exclude pregnancy complications in the very narrow but tragic circumstances where the only way to address the woman's cond and prevent material deterioration is for the pregnancy to end. justice kavanaugh: thank you. chief justice roberts: justice barrett? justice baet so, general, i -- i understand the primary dierence between emtala and the idaho statute to be this heal, at -- that idaho focuses on the risk of life, b the federal government says that tala -- well, emtala says that the health is -- am i right, it's health and life? general prelogar: that's -- that's the principal difference, but i think it's also the difference between necessary to prevent death versus the health concerns would be reasonably expected to cu so i think that that is a stda that builds in a little more space for doctors to take action justice barrett: got it. is the federal goverenaware of any state, other than idaho, that has a law that do n take heal

day congress resolved. i quote that two battalions of marines be raised, that they be distinguished by the names of the first and second battalion of american marines making the 10th in november. the official of the united states marines, which is celebrated by marines, regardless of where they are in the world, regardless of what their circumstances are, they still celebrate the birth of our core today and again, i shared with dr. brooks earlier how i distinctly recall being in a combat situation. we didn't the opportunity to have a full ball, a large birthday cake. so i took one of my my what we call meals ready to eat field rations had pound cake in it, took that little pound cake out, put a match in it and lit it. and we sang happy birthday to the marine corps. that's what marines. so congress directed washington order to form these two battalions of marines to cherry pick soldiers out of his battalions holding the british under siege in boston. and those sailors, soldiers that may have had any type of