a president by stretcher the secretary of state a congress supreme court justice and all of those are still occupied lands to this day in fact that meets every month on the second saturday of the mosque and the people of texas you are interest should come to those meetings that's what it is today the purpose. the goal of the republic of texas and what we're doing is to restore and to preserve all the freedoms and all the starving rights that were won in eight hundred thirty six test the battle of santa sent over when that treaty was signed. in other words sure here to make sure that the people get to exercise those rights even though an overreaching federal government of the u.s. keeps trying to take away more and more of the rights and freedoms we're here to restore them and to make sure they're preserved. to have the same. i drove here from lake jackson texas two hundred forty miles i'd wake up early but i wanted to come i went last month to this meeting. and what i see are some people that are concerned about. where our country is heading and. then they they look for the alternativ

a president vice president secretary of state a congress a supreme court justice and all of those are still occupied lands to this day in fact that government needs every month on the second saturday of the march and the people of texas who are interested come to those meetings that's what it is today the purpose the goal of the republic of texas and what we're doing is to restore and to preserve all the freedoms and all the rights that were won in eight hundred thirty six test the battle of santa sent over when that treaty was signed. in other words we're here to make sure that the people get to exercise those rights even though an overreaching federal government of the u.s. keeps trying to take away more and more of the rights and freedoms we're here to restore them and to make sure they're preserved. to have the same. i drove here from lake jackson texas two hundred forty miles i had to wake up early but i wanted to come i went last month to this meeting. and what i see are some people that are concerned about. where our country is heading. and they they look for the alternative. b

right there is no ratchet in that language, but i thought he was wrong about the roles of congress and the supreme court. the position that he took it into the end of his life was that section five says congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. he would say, that means in force cannot invent. what does in force me? well, the only thing it can mean is to enforce the constitution as construed by the supreme court the question had been whether congress could use his power to abolish poll taxes. and congress then tried to get read the legislation. but that was wrong. i thought then and they now the dow was right because section five is giving congress the power to do something by appropriate legislation and the power to this up includes the power to interpret the and -- interpret the underlying document. curiously judge centric. but if you go back to the rationale, we are not supposed to have a bad judge secretary. we are supposed to have a law secretary. you go and see what is unambiguously decided by the approved text, and that is binding. in that mold they are

a president vice president secretary of state a congress a supreme court justice and all of those are still occupied to this day in fact that meets every month on the second set of the of the mosque and the people of texas who are interested come to those meetings that's what it is today the purpose the goal of the republic of texas and what we're doing is to restore and to preserve all the freedoms and all the rights that were won in eight hundred thirty six at the battle of santa sent over when that treaty was signed. in other words we're here to make sure that the people get to exercise those rights even though an overreaching federal government of the u.s. keeps trying to take away more and more of the rights and freedoms we're here to restore them and to make sure they're preserved. to have the same. way of doing. i drove here from lake jackson texas it's about two hundred forty miles. i have to wake up early but i wanted to come i went last month to this meeting. and what i see are some people that are concerned about. where our country is heading and. then they they look for th

we have capitol hill police protecting members of congress and supreme court with the supreme court police. why would we not have armed law enforcement whether retired military, retired police officers who you know would be willing to do this at virtually no cost to the communities, why would we not have them in the schools? i will ask it to dennis cue sin kucinich would i respect. would you oppose that? >> i think the effective conservative position would be to leave it at the local school boards. >> if the school board decided to do it would you support it? >> sean this is the problem. we want a national solution with this -- here is the problem. the left doesn't want to answer this question and it is an easy question. of course, they do not want to have armed police officers on the campuses because they think the gun is the problem rather than the person that has it. >> sean: dennis, would you support putting armed retired policemen and military in schools to o protect our children? first line of defense? for example if your children, you heard there was a shoot at your local school and

a president vice president secretary of state a congress a supreme court justice and all of those are still occupied lands to this day in fact that meets every month on the second saturday of the mosque and the people of texas who are interested come to those meetings that's what it is today the purpose the goal of the republic of texas and what we're doing is to restore and to preserve all the freedoms and all the rights that were won in eight hundred thirty six at the battle of santa sent over when that treaty was signed. in other words we're here to make sure that the people get to exercise those rights even though an overreaching fair. government of the us keeps trying to take away more and more of the rights and freedoms we're here to restore them and to make sure of their prisoner. to have a say. i drove here from lake jackson texas two hundred forty miles. i had to wake up early but i wanted to come i went last month to this meeting. and what i see here some people that are concerned about. where our country is heading and. then they they look for the alternative. but there's a

dispatch as they said that they correctly reserve policymaking for deliberative bodies like congress and the supreme court. as woodrow wasn't sent the whole purpose of democracy is that we may hold counsel with one another so as not to depend on the understanding of one man. and indeed when it comes to me can policy there isn't much truth to the maxim that two heads are better than one. if you look at the studies by economists psychologists and other researchers share decision-making works better than utero lateral decision-making. it's not hard to find examples of bad unilateral decision-making. i will pick on george w. bush and his decision to take us to iraq. two presidents, if you have two presidents from different parties than they would bring the different problem-solving approaches in the different skills to make for better decision-making. two presidents with different perspectives with make more good choices and fewer bad choices than single president. i understand single presidents of course don't act in isolation. they consult with members or cabinet and staff so they do enjoy many of the benef

with dispatch but the correctly reserved policymakerring for a deliberative body like congress or the supreme court. wood dry wilson said the whole purpose of democracy is we may hold counsel with one another and not depend on the understanding of one man, good there is much truth in the max jim that two headed-better than one. you look at studies by psychologisties, shared decisionmaking works better than unilateral decisionmaking. it's not hard to find examples of bad unilateral decisionmaking, and i'll pick on george w. bush and his decision to take us into iraq. single decisions can make us make very beside decisions. if you had two president proves different parties, then they bring different problem-solving porches, and better skills for better decisionmaker, two presidents with different perspectives would make more good choices and fewer bad choices than single president. i understand single presidents don't act in isolation. they consult members of their cabinet and staff so they do enjoy many of the benefits of group decisionmaking. nevertheless there's a big difference between making dec

the supreme court has outlined these categories of situations in which the congress can rely on the commerce clause, and, of course, this is not one of those three categories that the supreme court says congress can do under the commerce clause. if congress can do this, it can make people take all sorts of actions simply because they owned a product that once moved in the interstate commerce. like bread or like soap. and they can face jail time if they do not do what congress demands that they do. even the individual mandate from obamacare only establishes a penalty. it didn't put anybody in prison. i do not think that 90% of americans would support this universal background check if they had a chance to read the proposals. the motion to proceed also goes to a bill that contains language on straw purchasing and gun trafficking. i -- many changes were made to that bill and they were made at my suggestion. an amendment of mine was adopted. at the time, i still expressed concerns even though i voted to bring the bill to the floor. and i spoke of my desires to have those concerns worked out -- c

functioning and fully implemented, the fact that it exists, and that the supreme court didn't strike it down, and that congress have voted 30-some-odd times to get rid of it, it is the law of the land, and it will sink in. >> michael: sovereign means sovereign could quote the president. president obama talked about jason collins. the first nba player to come out of the closet. let's listen to the president. >> i had a chance to talk to him yesterday. he seems like a terrific young man, and yeah, i couldn't be prouder. one of the extraordinary measures of progress that we've seen in this country has been the recognition that lgbt deserves full equality. >> michael: karl, do you think the president's evolution on the situation made it easier for collins to come out this way? >> i think it made it easier for everybody. when the president says you're okay it goes a long way. it's been great to see so many people universally across the board praising collins for his courageous right wingers. oh, you you have a few right wingers say, oh, what are they going to do in the locker room showers. i think this is a remarke

as guns around adopted in congress, the supreme court may decide as early as today to consider whether the second amendment's right to keep a gun for self-defense extends outside the home. the case under consideration is a challenge to new york's law requiring proper cost to carry a weapon in public. 10 states have similar restrictions, most have been challenged in court. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. she livedd at age 11, with her favorite uncle james buchanan. years later, he becomes president. because he's not married, she serves as white house hostess. she's the first to be called first lady on a regular basis and is so popular that she sets trends and children are named after her. harriet lane, her life and that of her predecessor jane pierce, along with your questions and comments by phone, facebook, and twitter. tonight at 9:00 eastern. also on c-span radio and c- span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: senator roger wicker is our guest, republican of mississippi guest: glad to be here. host: let's start with the sunday talk shows. a lot on i

supreme court. >>> moving on to gun control. congress is advancing bills for federal background checks and stronger laws for gun trafficking. california has some of the strictest in the country. what would new federal laws mean for us? >> not a lot most likely. we already have the background check -- universal background checks in california which goes further than what has been reached in a compromise in congress in the senate right now. that would not cover private person-to-person sales as california does. we have an assault weapons ban and ban on large capacity magazines. we have a ten-day waiting period. these are changes congress is not contemplating. it will not have an affect here. it is playing out messily in congress. just today, 47 house republicans write to speaker boehner urging him not to even bring the background check to a vote in the house. even though the democrats were able to break the filibuster in the senate this week, it still faces a very uncertain future ahead. then here in sacramento in california, we are lookin

this is wrong and the supreme court and congress talking about eliminating section 5 in the vote ing. >> you're a generous man and say they don't hate them because they're black, they hate them because they're democrats, that's your pitch. andrew young, the black violence, it's serious business, victim hood, people getting killed, the drive-bys. seems i have never seen such a divide. black americans want gun control. >> they do and need gun control. by and large we need self-esteem. the kind of violence and insanity that black on black crime really has killed more people than the klu klux klan did. >> thank you, martin luther king for joining us and ambassador andrew young. we'll be right back. are you flo? yes. is this the thing you gave my husband? well, yeah, yes. the "name your price" tool. you tell us the price you want to pay, and we give you a range of options to choose from. careful, though -- that kind of power can go to your head. that explains a lot. yo, buddy! i got this. gimme one, gimme one, gimme one! the power of the "name your price" tool. only from progressive. >> a

isn't jut through the supreme court or congress or education. but there's a greater long-standing transformation taking hold here, and it does result, i argue, in a affirmation through the state of what amounts to an antichristian position, and again, this is something we can see by just comparing the views that have taken hold and are now asucceeding. >> host: let's talk about the country's founding. you write about that in the book. the separation of church and state has become a beloved american cptarg that it's helped troll flourish in this country. you have a more complex view. would you talk about that. >> i -- >> guest: i do, and probably will upset everybody. there's a lot of confusion here. to begin with, a great point of clarification. christianity got invented, the dings between church and state, and that should be obvious from the name, church and state. no church anywhere else. a it's specifically christian term. but it has its ultimate origins in the hebrew bible request judaism and that fundamental distinction between the priest a

the idea that congress actually represents the will of the american people is a myth that people keep buying into, the same with gale marriay marriage >> what does it say that the supreme court is ahead of congress in terms of responding to the will of the american people? isn't that a complete failure of one of the branches of our government? >> if i'm here to saying that one of our branches of government is -- then you've put the wrong person on the show. one fundamental way is it represents rural areas. in rural areas there's much more keep your hands off my guns sentiment than there are in urban areas or even suburban area. you'll hear from the white house that people miss the intensity and the fear about given control. so there is -- that is one way this is a particular issue which the lines up very, very poorly with the way congress is designed. >> i accept that to some degree, but katty, and i don't mean to get emotional about this, but as a mother can you envision dropping your child on where there are patrol men armed with weaponry, bulletproof guess, hinges to the door welded shut. do you feel like you're sending your child to a war zone? >> my concern as a mother

this is wrong and the supreme court and congress talking about elimina eliminating section 5 in the vote>> you're a generous man and say they don't hate them because they're black, they hate them because they're democrats. that's your pitch. andrew young, the black violence, it's serious business, victim hood, people getting killed, the drive-bys. seems i have never seen such a divide. black americans want gun contro control. >> they do and need gun control. by and large we need self-esteem. the kind of violence and insanity that black on black crime really has killed more people than the klu klux clan did. >> thank you, martin luther king for joining us and ambassador andrew young. we'll be right back. but th erars i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪ a confident retirement. those dreams have taken a beating lately. but no way we're going to let them die. ♪ ameriprise adv

it is and just through the supreme court or the congress, it isn't just for education. but there is a greater longstanding transformation taking hold here, and it does raise all i argue on an affirmation through the state of what amounts to an antichristian and this is just by comparing the reviews and not receiving. >> host: let's talk a little bit about the country's founding because you write about that in the book and a little bit of separation between church and state has become a beloved american concept and coming you know, some argue its of religion to flourish you have a more complex view can you talk about that? >> guest: there is a lot of confusion here just to begi3 >> guest: there is a lot of confusion here just to begin with and a great point of clarification. christianity actually invented the church and state and that is in the name, church and state. there are no churches anywhere else, specifically christian term, it's not religion state. but it has ultimate origins in the hebrew bible in judy is on and that is a fundamental distinction between the pri

congress, mr. speaker, when we have a piece of legislation and finds its way over to the supreme court and the supreme court comes down with a ruling and then congress takes a look at the ruling and we will bring a piece of legislation to conform with the directive from the supreme court. i think that's an appropriate thing for us to do, provided we agree with the supreme court's decision and its clear, logical and legal analysis. an example would be the language on partial birth abortion. the first time it went to the supreme court, the supreme court ruled that the definition of partial birth abortion was too vague. and so we went back and fine tuned that language, pass it out of the judiciary committee, pass it out of the house and senate, president bush signed it and it was upheld when it found its way back again before the supreme court. that's ok. if is appropriate thing to do, to conform our legislation to a supreme court decision when it's a proper one. but when the president defies the laws and the policies established by the united states congress and makes up his own as he goes along which e

congress. that is all little tough. 7 percent, 7% say the supreme court overturned it. rcent just plain don't know. they don't know enough about the lot to say what the statices. congress doesn't get to that high level. it will be interesting to see where they are a year or two, but all this points to a president to suddenly is precariously close to that number between a historic and relevant president and a president who is so historic that he is immensely less relevant and there we say it, a lame duck. we will soon know. here he goes again. president obama now wants to shut down gitmo. why the p state-sponsored terrorism. that's right. they were on welfare. we will tell you all about it. attorney arthur i. dollars joins us next. ♪ for seeing your business in a whole new way. for seeing what cash is coming in and going out... so you can understand every angle of your cash flow- last week, this month, and even next year. for seeing your business's cash flow like never before, introducing cash flow insight powered by pnc cfo. a suite of online tools that lets you turn ins

supreme court. >> uh-huh. >> not the congress. but members of congress were tripping all over each other, particularly democrats to get on board before the argument. >> yeah. >> there was no legislation? >> yeah. that's right. >> some don't want doma overturned. they don't want to give the supreme court an out to say legislation is moving. so we don't need to get involved. they will probably punt on that and it will become an issue whether it moves or not. >> rob portman is the only republican who has issued his but democrats, mark warner claire mccaskill, kay hagan, richard blumen thole and i am sure i am forgetting a couple who had been for civil unions but anti-actual same-sex marriage. is this the issue now where if you are not on the right side. >> north carolina is not exactly new york. kay hagan, and she is up in 2014. this is something where the politicians are reading the political winds and grappling with this. it wasn't that long where joe biden basically forced obama to come out and say we need to evolve on this. >> do

branches of government, only one of which is controlled by barack obama, we have the congress and the supreme courtsupreme court as recently as 2008 in its huller versus d.c. ruling upheld gun ownership laws. when people say the government is out to get you it's one of the biggest falsehood out there? >> it seems to me it's pretty clear that we already -- we already have background checks. right? we already have background checks at gun stores. there is no registry because the law doesn't allow it. if there is no gun registry if you are just expanding that program, it's not going to lead to a gun registry. how do they get there? >> the oliver stone types call it the slippery slope. they say we expand it and start down that slippery slope. i want to know when obama rolled out back in january, the task force and he and biden had that big event, if you go through everything that he said that supports this notion that's making, you know, the rounds in the right-wing blogosphere. it's a falsehood, absolutely false >> bill: i like the phrase oliver stone types. >> yeah. good. >> bill: that's good. >> peo