constitution. there isn't that something that doesn't resolve itself through a judicial question. there is only one other country that they could think of where it enjoyed a comfortable influence over public affairs and that country was written. a new addition for the day would probably make the same point. the twin scenes of these lectures would be the decline of politics and the rise of law to fill the void. i have argued it depends on their survival-one is by system of fundamental law which creates a class of professional politicians with an interest in softening extremes in order to broaden their electoral appeal. representative politics is a very imperfect mechanism for achieving this. in the long run political constraints on the power of majorities are likely to be more receptive legal funds. why do we believe in democracy? what are the proper limits of democratic-what rights even against the will of the people. when the british argue about these questions as they often do they generally look

the constitution of the united states is the organizatiarchety constitution. britain has historically been the archetypal political state. in britain, as in many other countries, including the united states, we have witnessed a mounting tide of hostility to representative politics over the past three or four decades. this has naturally been accompanied by a growing interest in the legal constitutional model, especially among the judiciary. this is, therefore, a good time to be assessing its attractions, and washington is a good place in which to do it. for the legal model raises dilemmas in a democracy of which the united states has a longer and more varied experience than any other country in the world. the prime purpose about any constitution is to provide a framework of political rules for making collective decisions. in its original form of 1787, the constitution of the united states did almost nothing else. the protection of rights came later with the ten amendments of 1791, which together constitute the bill of rights. 12 years later in 1803 came the dec

constitution. the purpose of the era is simple but critical guaranteeing women are treated equally under the law . the era was in fact approved both house and senate nearly half a century ago. in 1971 and 1972 it passed with overwhelming margins. the constitution instructs after proposed amendment receives the required two thirds vote in each of the houses it has to be ratified by three quarters of the state. after was sent in 72 it was ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 state legislatures but for decades that progress towards equality stalled. a well organized counter movement scared the american people into equality what harm women who stay home to raise their children and would erode american families. what started as broad consensus became another divisive issue in the culture wars. today we know better we know the year 2019 is unacceptable that women still aren't paid equal wages for equal work. we know when women are treated with equal dignity and respect in the workplace and home our institu

structure. constitutional structure. . . . . bureaucrats what the power to make rules for citizens. local us, you were can the court delegate judicial power to agency functionary. as is a did in the world war two case when they ruled the courts must the first to agency interpretations of their own regulations. the rationale in doing so was that agencies had specialized expertise that judges back. that's not the relevant issue. the proper question faced by courts in interpreting the regulation is not what the best policy choice might be but what the regulation means. and who better to interpret the meaning words than a judge? mortgage bankers association. so of all this, thomas argues, is the different doctrines but the court had in chevron and resources defense council. in 1984. chevron requires courts to assume that congress intended that any ambiguity under which an agency operates should be resolved by the agency, not the courts. consequently, exasperatedly, not only do you have bureaucrats making rules like a legislature and

we ought to respect the constitution. the constitution provides for specific grounds of impeachment and removal. this is a fascinating story in history. alexander hamilton, who helped the constitution, committed a crime when he was secretary of the treasury. andubmitted to extortion made it a go three. it was not a high crime. accused, he wrote an essay in mating -- admitting adultery. he knew the difference between a low crime and a high crime. i think we should look at that to give us some guidance. host: do you see any action by the president related to the mueller report or unrelated that could be high crimes? guest: i do not. and ite were high crime was obvious like the nixon case. i supported impeachment of richard nixon because he offered oney tooney to -- hush m federal witnesses in front of the grand jury. it president trump or any other president were to cross those line and move over the into a section of justice or , i wouldr treason favor impeachment. i have been teaching criminal law for 50 years. part of my

our constitution is based on two things.are sovereign but the people have no just authority to deprive others of their individual rights. so all of these structures are here in order to combine the majority they'd be governing but that it not trample the rights of any minority weather or religious or racial minority that every individual has rights of the majority must respective it's going to be a just majority. the structural components of our constitution are designed to confine, drain to make it adjust majority. >> what is the declaration of independence. >> well it says all men are created equal, all human beings are created equal and we are endowed with our creator within daily inalienable rights. >> so the point is, he can have about but i have unalienable rights. >> that's right. if i get 51% i can't take the property of your other 49%. >> and yet were doing that. >> they keep pushing us in this direction. >> so they've set up the system to protect individual, to protect life and liberty in the pursuit of happyness w

not in america, not under our system or the constitution. that is one of the distinguishing characteristic pointed out. we've already heard the "humanitarian crisis" in yemen in dire. estimate show the crisis iss evn worse than we previously thoug thought. the yemen war claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people, including a lot of innocent civilians. attacks that can only be described as horrific. it's believed that from 2016 -- 201,860,000 civilians were killed indirect violence attached to this work. the full scale of suffering from starvation, property and disease is even more staggering than the stark numbers that i just quoted involving direct combat more violence. over half the population of yemen is considered currently to be in the crisis stage of famine. estimate of 3.3 million children are malnourished.he 84000 children died between the start of the war in 2015 and october 2018. water and sanitation conditions awful lead to the largest outbreak in history. more than 1.3 million suspected cases in over 2600 related deaths sin

being in, the constitution demands -- in fact, the constitution demands it. it already is the law. we have to do this. if you're so confident that we should be involved in this war, let's debate it, let's vote on it, let's let the american people see what we're all about. let's let the american people have some say in the extent to which we put america's good name and treasure and blood on the line. today we still have an opportunity to have a say, to stake -- to take a stand over this most grave matter. i urge my colleagues to take it. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. sanders: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: madam president, let me thank senator lee and senator chris murphy for their outstanding and consistent leadership on this issue. you know, at a time when the country bemoans the fact that there's not a lot of the bipartisanship, this effort indicates that people with very different political philosophies can come together on an issue of enormous magnitude. and i do want to thank mike lee for his great work on th

john eastman, you're a constitutional employee pert.rejection by the democratat party and the mea and the rest of them. rejection of the 2016 election isn't it? >> i think so. they still can't believe they lost that election and they're trying to rationalize there must have been something nefarious in order to produce it but let's put it in historical context. i think we've confronted a situation like this three times in ournk nation's history. 1,800, first time there was a change of power, one party to another, jefferson defeated adams, took him a while but adams finally handed the baton over. >> but that was brutal and there were multiple votes in the house of representatives and finally, hamilton throws in support to jefferson who he can't stand but he can't stand john adams even more. >> right. the second time in our history this happened that was not the >>result. 1860 and that led to the military conflict in our nation 's history. >> by the way, lincoln. did lincoln win a month of the popular vote? >> know he didn't like 38% off t

ell, the constitution.hat we had was a country that was growing increasingly unstable during the articles of the confederation, and what madison did with the constitution, and this idea that, you know, faction would be put against faction, and ambition against ambition. this creates a stable environment. alexander hamilton is often credited for the economy that we have today, for the vital economy that the united states has today, but madison's role in giving businessmen and the rest of us a stable environment in which to live was a major ontribution. >> what press department did james madison set during his presidency? mrs. cheney: what precedent? well, i think he set an important precedent really important one as commander-in-chief. there was a seditious movement going on. in the northeast, they particularly didn't like the war in new england, and some in new york, they hated the war, because it was very damaging to that part of the country economically. there was so much anger about the war that there wa

but we will do our constitutional oversight responsibility. the so-called attorney general can run but he cannot hide. >> today, attorney general barr and this administration have done a great disservice to the american people. it's not only about the mueller report. but this is about protecting the integrity of our national security. this is about protecting the integrity of our elections. this is about protecting the integrity of people in this country being able to have affordable health care. they have done a great disservice to the american people. and we, congress, have the responsibility as a co-equal branch of government to protect and serve to make sure the american people have the facts and the information that they need to make sure that they know that government is truly working on their behalf. now, my colleagues and i will continue to stand to fight for the truth, continue to stand for what is right to make sure that democracy works for each and every individual in this country. today we will still continue to stand to wait for t

article 1, section 8 of the constitution. unequivocally states the congress shall have power to declare war. congress, not the president, at the pentagon, not someone else in the executive branch. that's an expert in you were in the executive branch of government, but congress. and they did so, they made it this way because they understood that the decision about whether to go to war is a decision fraught with immense moral peril. there's nothing pretty about war. and it always, when we face such a decision, involves a decision to put american treasure and american blood on the line. even if you think that modern-day weaponry or the modern way in which we fight wars, if you think that american blood and treasure is not being put on the line, that simply isn't true. that is exactly why the founding fathers placed this power in the legislative branch where it can be exercised squarely in front of the american people either elected representatives. this power was always intended to be exercised only by the branch of government m

constitutional crisis or constitutional confrntration or the newest option, confrontational crisis. so far we have not had a moment of constitutional crisis. so far we've had confrontations that have been followed by legal processes. for example jerry nadler demands the full unredacted mueller report, the attorney general still refuses to give the report to the chairman and then the committee votes to hold the attorney general in contempt of congress. the house can also go to court to try to have that subpoena enforced, and we would only reach the point of constitutional crisis if the supreme court ordered the attorney general to comply with the chairman's subpoena and then the attorney general refused. the constitution doesn't tell us what happens next. makes no provision for what happens after that. and that is the zone that can legitimately be called constitutional crisis. in the investigation of president richard nixon many feerd a constitutional crisis when he ordered the supreme court to comply with the subpoena. if the president refused to comply with that subpoena we would h

is this not a banana republic. >> that's where you have your constitutional c constitutional crisis. the andrew jackson quote, now let them enforce it? >> isn't that why taking impeachment off the table is like asking democrats to go to battle in a banana republic with their hands tied their bank? the only thing donald trump is afraid of is the television of impeachment, not impeachment. i was told 18 months ago he was aware of bill clinton's numbers in the middle of the impeachment, he was at 67%. meanwhile, donald trump has never or will ever seen 67%. he watched christine blasey ford and was so moved by her performance, never mind it was the telling of the most horrific moment of her life that he was almost swayed on brett kavanaugh. i don't know that this is about what it should be about for donald trump, it's always about the show. >> unless congress is able to conduct oversight, perform its constitutional responsibilities, unless court orders are respected, temporary retrainistg orders are respected by the executive branch, we don't live in a democracy. maybe that's donald trum

constitution and against the constitution all the then they can be forbidden by. constitutional court but this only happened for. parties political parties and some unions but not for individuals. ok on the busy signal was created in a very specific historical context that germany should have solid democratic foundations after years of not seizure but what are you after 70 years later what feels the most important element of the basic law or the german constitution was. the beginning of the opening of the constitution with the guarantee of the human. divine and this made a career in the whole world for example article one of the constitution of the european union as a same sentence and then the binding of all powers legislative and executive and restriction to the basic law and opening just from the beginning the opening to the u.p.a. integration this was the only. text in this time who. in the who declared to. we. open our constitution for the european. integration that only started at the start a given set on the sim did any of us see of the basic kill we must a

congress must now fulfill its oversight obligations underin the constitution. in order to provide - - prevent future attacks we must review a complete copy of the report as soon as possible to hear direct testimony a special counsel mueller. it had numerous disturbing episodes with behavior by the president they constituted obstruction of justice if we had confidence of a thorough investigation of the facts truly did not commit obstruction we would state based on the fact of legal standards however we are unable to meet that judgment for the evidence we obtained from the presidents actions has difficult issues to prevent us from conclusively determining no criminal conduct had occurred. report stated the president's efforts to influence investigation were unsuccessful but largely because the presidents who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or sent to his request. so therefore congress should look at the presidentsut behavior with the obligations to fully execute the law and preserve and protect and defend the constitution. members of congres

do you know that constitution? it is an honor to talk someone who read the constitution in 1958. thank you for reading it then. absolutely the constitution is centrally concerned with dictatorships. that is the overwhelming concern the framers were intending to prevent. the president is not meant to be the king. the legislative branch is not meant to be a to radical branch. is supposed to be the least dangerous branch. they are not supposed to rule us either. the system is designed to ensure that power is dispersed among the branches and separated vertically among the states and vertical -- and federal government so that we the people are the sovereign power. that is why these discussions are so important and why these clashes between the president arecongress and the courts an example of the constitution working, of a healthy vibrant democracy, avoiding concentrated power by having the branches actively asserting their oversight powers and competing with each other so that liberty and sovereignty can survive. host

that's the way it is with every constitution even the american constitution is no longer the same as it was when it was created 200 years ago and that's the good thing if a constitution is good for anything it creates stability amidst all change the band and i was going to start president of guy tribal there speaking with our chief political editor mikhail cook now. during football for you know and all the action on sunday was in the 2nd division cologne finished the season 1st but the question was who would be joining them in the top flight next season going into the weekend powerball and were sitting in 2nd one point ahead of lean how to born over the line but only just after a fabulous and ali. only on berlin's famous traveling support were in full voice to spur their team on against them both inside with nothing to play for. meanwhile part of own coach stephan bound got took his charges to a hostile to dresden and they started well philip clement slicing through the dresden defense to make it one nil. now it was another set of away fans making all the noise. but part of owens adv

and i don't want to see a constitutional collapse along with a constitutional crisis. >> all right. thank you very much. >> thank you for having question. >>> the president does not want public attention on the mueller reports which includes damaging evidence at least according to more than 800 federal prosecutors. one of those prosecutors used to work closely with rudy giuliani and says giuliani would have filed charges too. tell me about your thinking about this case and how you think you would have prosecuted it or not prosecuted it when you were working for one rudy giuliani. >> well, let me tell you there are so many incidents that mueller reported. let's just take the simplest and the clearest. someone is going to be a witness in a federal investigation, and the person that you are seeking to prosecute told that person to lie or to create a false document. end of story. that's it. that is obstruction of justice. and that is a very simple matter to prosecute. in this case, the difference is in quantity and over the time period that it occurred. and i think what the letter says

as apt a term as constitutional conflict or constitutional confrontation or constitutional showdown not lead to a crisis. and the differentiation they make is that conflict is built into the constitution. it's the framework for resolving disagreements among three equal partners. now, what raises this situation out of the ordinary is that we seem to have a president who doesn't believe in the principle of three co-equal branches. and so that gets us to a new place, i think. and it's interesting to reflect, for example, that strong liberal president like fdr, strong conservative president like reagan, they chafed at the equal power arrangement but they ultimately accepted it and lived with it. even president nixon accepted the supreme court ruling that he turn over the tapes. so for the first time we seem to have an administration that doesn't buy the game plan. >> for those of us who are at home and watching and saying, well, what happened this week specifically, that this, and it's not a small lever, a gargantuan lever was pulled down to say we're now in a constitutional crisis, som

that's the way it is with every constitution even the american constitution is no longer the same as it was when it was created 200 years ago and that's a good thing if a constitution is good for anything it creates stability amidst will change the bond. there has been a star president of thanks tribal there speaking with our chief political editor mccain because the. turning to sports now and in tennis rafael nadal has defended his italian open title defeating his big rival novak djokovic in 3 sets the spaniard proved he's still the man to beat on clay for the 2nd major of the year the french open coming up later this month. rafael nadal. and novak djokovic each to tennis study 8 is doing battle on the clay of rome. nidal attacks from the off dominating a one sided 1st set with some big hitting joke of each in need of mercy. the spaniard took a set 6 love the 1st time that's happened between the pair into the 2nd set and djokovic still gain trying to force his way back into the match but no doubt as a stubborn opponent joke of it was a venture they rewarded for his efforts this hold

in contempt. >> i would define it as a constitutional crisis. >> constitutional crisis or constitutional -- >> i'm not even sure how you can say whoa have a constitutional crisis. >> where the candidates stand on the issues. >>> what you missed in this week's 20/20 sound check. >>> and late night laughs when "snl" meets mtp. >> you bring it in, chuck, because if you think susan colli collins is' pushover. >>> how the president and his allies are trying to break down the analysis. the administration is not complying with at least 79 requests for documentation or oth other. declining to disclose concealed communications between the president and vladimir putin, refusing to provide documents and and stopping testify over adding a citizenship question to the census. one of those investigations may come to a head on tuesday. a federal judge is expected to rule on whether the president can quash a subpoena demanding presidential records. >>> on friday a new subpoena deadline to release the president's tax returns. president trump claimed on twitter that 2016 voters did not care about his tax r

i think we're at a constitutional challenge. the constitution is built to stretch.every question. but as to some of the issues we're seeing now, we've been here before. we have had an attorney general held in criminal contempt in the past. we have had the executive branch refuse to comply with congressional subpoenas. and whether you call it a feature or a bug of the constitution, the legislative branch has never really had formal power to enforce its subpoenas. it relies inherently on the other branches to enforce these subpoenas with the exception of what's called the inherent power of congress but that requires sending somebody called the sergeant of arms to go out and arrest people and it would be interesting to see if they sent that lone person up out against the entire executive branch to enforce the subpoena. constitutional crisis not quite yet but this is one of the challenges that the constitution faces from time to time. >> setting aside the political messages we're seeing from democrats, substantively democrats say one thing they want is what they've been

both the constitution of 1787, and the second constitutional regime, the reconstruction amendment. the fact of the matter is that there was a fight over the 13th amendment, over the 14th amendment, and over the 15th amendment. they were all matters of compromise. and had good points to them bad points to them. i am satisfied with the 13th amendment, nor with the 14th satisfied nor with the 15th amendment. my comments indicate that i am very critical of the supreme court and the way to has handled the amendments. but the supreme court is not the only culprit. the framers of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, they had their own problems. that gave us the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments was a thoroughly racist society. thatould not be surprising the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments would be limited. it would be extraordinary if that was not the case. to your question about the 14th amendment, particularly the second section, having to do with voting, a couple of points. it is a section of the constitution that gets very little attention. it is hardly mentioned in constitutional law c

constitutional law better. regulation of free speech is a lot. more pretty more protected against restrictions so let's have a look now at you know sort of what the goal was of this it was really you know to provide some fundamental laws so that germany could not slip back into teller totalitarianism excuse me. what do you see in that context as the most important part of the basic law it's it's hard to point to a specific thing that is the decisive. norm of the constitution in that matter but if i would mention one thing but probably be the federal constitutional court which was an innovation at the time to to to to have. specific court entitled to to also review laws and to declare the decisions of the legislation of branch of government unconstitutional and to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and this was very effective and and also was a kind of a model for other countries to to to copy after their process of democratization during kind of 70 years on now germany has right wing populists you know in the parliament we know now how ro

we are now in a constitutional crisis. >> do you agree with congressman nadler that we're in a constitutional crisis? >> we are, we are. >> okay, but does the house speaker agree? that'll be the question for nancy pelosi when she steps up to that podium on the left side of your screen there, and it happens as the president is not just digging in but shouting out his white house's stonewall strategy on the campaign trail. >> do you see what just happened, by the way? no collusion, no obstruction. no anything. now the democrats are saying, we want more. you know, it was going to be like, we want the mueller report. now they say, mueller report? no, we want to start all over again. >> we've got our team here with the latest on this story and the many others we're bringing you this hour. nbc's kelly o'donnell is on the hill for us. that's where we will begin. kelly, you know, political playbook this morning is reporting impeachment maybe seems more likely, that the vibe from democrats is that they seem to be getting angrier and angrier about this stonewalling. is that what you're hearing? what do

we are now in a constitutional crisis. >> a constitutional crisis, says congressman jerry nadler, thechairman of the house judiciary committee. that message from nadler just moments after his committee voted along party lines to hold attorney general william barr in contempt for not complying with their subpoena for robert mueller's full unredacted russia report and its underlying evidence. now, the republicans on the committee decried the vote and defended barr. all that came just

powers of the congress in article one of the constitution. there are those who, if allowed to do so, would move us toward a monarchy, rather than the republic that we have been given. the republic checks and balances that our constitution guarantees. this undemocratic tendency cannot be allowed to continue unchecked. and all of us as citizens must do our duties. i certainly did not come here to make this political speech. it turned out to be one. but what i do ask of each of you is to appreciate the value of our democratic republic in its hour of peril. what i do ask of each of you, and especially our graduates, is to call upon the talents and education that you have received at this great institution, and stand up for our democracy in your own communities. what i do ask of you is president obama's challenge to all of us. i ask you to fight for the america we want to become. for myself, i can only tell you this. i will continue to do all that i can to live up to the lasting example forged by former congresswoman barbara jordan in 1974. my fai

but how relevant is a constitution in today's germany article one for example states human dignity isin viable as part of a series it's my right and next story takes a look at what dignity means to a german man who was homeless for 10 years. or so of course after going to the toilet taking a shower there normal things for everyone but how can you do this when you're homeless it's not so simple. dominic clone lived on the streets for 10 years always on the move looking for something to eat somewhere to sleep he says it was a life without dignity. i don't ache was 16 when his mother threw him out the streets of st paoli became his home the red light district of hamburg. when we beat each other up for a sleeping bag it's a fight for survival and then there's a sadistic violence and contempt where people come in they don't treat you with dignity but like dirt. they pee on your sleeping bag or batter us something there might not be a tomorrow maybe someone will set me on fire beat me to death you end up living just for the here and now and trying to stay alive. yet dominic's got his high s

do we not understand the constitution and article 1 and article 2. this judiciary committee will not be targeting anyone. all we will be doing is doing our job. and that is to have members of the cabinet of the president of the united states to come before this committee and tell the truth. we will not stop until we get the truth and until the truth is told to the american people and the american people will decide as we go forward that the truth has to be acted on and that's what i think some of our republican friends are afraid of. mr. lieu: attorney general bill barr is one of the most dangerous men in washington, d.c.,. he mischaracter ised the mueller report and he was towled that he mischaracterized the mueller report and he continues to mislead the american people. today he ignored the will of congress oversight responsibilities of congress and lawfully should subpoenas and third right now, he is suing to eliminate your health care coverage. right now, he is suing in court to eliminate pre-existing and health care coverage and taking it away f

constitution.s is actor and activist patricia arquette speaking at the hearing. >> what it women achieve equality in 1787 or 1982? because the country was not ready? i hope you are ready now because women have been waiting 232 years for equality in this country and it has failed them. legislatorors have blocked the passage ofof the eququal rights amamendment for decades. we are done waiting. amy: for more, we're joined by the copresidents and ceos of the e.r.a. coalition/fund for women's equality carol jenkins anand jessica neuwirth. jessica neuwirth is also the author of the book "equal means equal: why the time for an equal rights amendment is now." carol jenkins and jessica neuwirth, we welcome you to democracy now! what is it you could see happening now that has not happened in u.s. history? >> two things. the coalition is now working on two ways f forward to the e.r.a. being ratified. one is we need 38 states. we think we're close to that. we got as far as 37.5 states. virginia senate passed i

do we not understand the constitution and article 1 and article 2? this judiciary committee will not be targeting anyone. all we'll be doing is doing our job. that is to have members of the cabinet of the president of the united states to come before this committee and tell the truth. we will not stop until we get the truth, until the truth is told to the american people and the american people will decide. that the truth has to be acted on and that's what i think some of our republican friends are afraid of. >> attorney general bill barr is now one of the most dangerous men in washington, d.c. for three reasons. first, he intentionally mischaracterized the mueller report. he was then told by robert mueller that he mischaracterized the report. instead of apologizing, he doubles down and continues to mislth

every constitution even the american constitution is no longer the same as it was when it was created 200 years ago and that's the good thing if a constitution is good for anything it creates stability amidst little change and. in tennis rafael nadal has defended his a tally an open title defeating as big rival novak djokovic in 3 sets the spaniard proved he's still the man to beat on clay with the 2nd major of the year the french open coming up later this month. rafael nadal and novak djokovic which 2 tennis gladiators doing battle on the clay of rome. natal attacks from the off dominating a one sided for a set with some big hitting joke of it she needed missy. i span the a to the set 6 love the 1st time that's happened between the past into the 2nd session joke of each docking trying to force his way back into the match and into the step an opponent. was eventually rewarded for his efforts this hold at the end of the 2nd set paved the way for him to level the match i but that was the high point for this that sat near it the 1st with more a moment stakes coming from the djokovic trac

does not put women in the constitution. it puts sex in the constitution. sex has a lot of different definitions. it will do nothing that benefits women, but it can harm women by making women and men interchangeable in every situation. e.r.a., we would lose the ability to regulate abortion. taxpayer funding of abortion would be required. any kind of sex segregation would no longer be acceptable, including prisons, women's women, and think, and children's health. lease vote no on e.r.a. host: let's look at some of our social media comments on this topic. here is one from stephen brodie tucker. is redundant, 14th amendment covers everyone. there is no need for an equal rights amendment when the constitution already provides equal rights for all americans. until feminists and e.r.a. supporters demand women have to be registered for the draft, they can never be taken seriously. without the e.r.a., discrimination will run rampant, and there is nothing we can do about it. it is another 1% tool to subjugate the population. let's go back to our phone lines and talk

we are now in a constitutional crisis president trump appear to be headingng towards a constitutionalwe're hovering on a constitutional crisis. >>

doesn't go to school german law says she has to but she signs to constitution. and national income if it is a separate and develop individually at school everyone has to do the same thing and they have to. act everyone goes at the same speed. i felt limited and that i wasn't allowed to decide for myself what i wanted to learn depending on how i was feeling. like. the 14 year old has been schooling herself for 2 years with books apps and internet groups she's not alone around 2000 german children refused to go to school they call themselves free learners but the state says they're truants molly helen is convinced she'll graduate high school if she doesn't actually have to go to high school you know what you get i'm more motivated to learn at school it was always like now it's german and i look at this again if you really put your mind to it and said a laptop then it's amazing to say it can actually be fun and i had never thought about school. that bottle. at her home in a small village on the north german coast molly had been designed herself what she wants to le

i swore and he swore to uphold the constitution of the united stat states. our constitution is built on the principle of separation of power, precisely to prevent a dictator, an autocrat from taking control of our government. this separation of power a part of the brilliance of our constitution and it has served us well for centuries. yes, i took an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states and so did everybody in the senate and the house, including the majority leader. and now, we must act to fulfill that oath. there is no political inconvenience exception to the united states constitution. if any other human being in this country had done what's documented in the mueller report, they would be arrested and put in jail. the majority leader doesn't want us to consider the mountain of evidence against the president. that is wrong. he and his colleagues have moved to protect the president instead of the constitution. maybe my colleagues on the other side are confusied and didn't read the report. well i did, there were passages that stuck out to me. s

constitutional -- two u.s. constitutionalism as exploitative technology and has called upon on all of us to join him in making the case for democracy for freedom and for the will of law, and to share these precious concepts of ideals with a watching and skeptical world. and of course, he exhorts us to be worthy of our tradition and to strengthen and expand it in our own time. his efforts have not only been abroad. in an important speech to the american bar association in 2003, justice kennedy called upon the legal profession to focus attention on our system of criminal punishment for excessively long sentences and high rate of incarceration. organizationd an for commission of criminal injustice. the 2004 report of this commission, according to my colleague, was a turning point in our approach to sentencing and incarceration. justice kennedy also realized we cannot very well advocate for our -- advocate for our constitutional ideals if we don't understand our constitutional design, therefore , he has been at the

we are not in a constitutional crisis with the constitutional crisis. >> we are. everyone a constitutional crisis looks like? open your i. >> we have not entered that crisis. >> i'm curious because isn't that the height of a crisis? >> trump heading toward a constitutional crisis with democrats as he continues to hide the mueller report. >> this administration wants to have a constitutional crisis. >> constitutional crisis? how? because they can't get the full mueller report? they all stupid? they have 98% of the full report. i got news for you bozos, you weren't even entitled to any of it. the report was written for the attorney general by the special counsel. the attorney general decided to issue a four-page conclusion and offer democrats the facility to see the whole report. not one democrat wanted to see it. so attorney general barr was in the impossible position of violating federal law and releasing jury testimony or the demands of the radical left. the only constitutional crisis is the one created by obama administration officials of a false russia collusio

setting off a constitutional crisis.he president whether they like it or not? (woman) paul, i need a simple wireless plan and a new phone. (paul) get both sprint's unlimited plan and the brilliant iphone xr, included for just $35 a month. (woman) the iphone xr has an amazing camera. get in here! (paul) oh. yeah. (woman) i'm switching to sprint. for people with hearing loss, visit sprintrelay.com. howl whimper yap yap yap yip licking, scratching, scooting, and rubbing... may be signs of allergic itch, a medical condition that may require fast-acting, prescription apoquel. apoquel has helped over 6 million itchy dogs get the relief they deserve. apoquel goes right to the source of itch to provide relief in as little as four hours! woof because nothing should come between you and your furry friend... ...especially not allergic itch! apoquel is for the control of itch associated with allergic dermatitis and the control of atopic dermatitis in dogs. do not use apoquel in dogs less than 12 months old or those with serious infe

it clearly gave rise to the exact provisions of the constitution requiring trial by jury.requiring the trial be in the district, etc. so these were the grievances are, may seem obscure but they actually are of one of the most important structural provisions in ourconstitution , article 3 sections of the independent judiciary. >> guest: in many of these provisions have themselves been in place or many hundreds of years in england, guaranteeing them to all subjects and we are forbearers in america were themselves british subjects but they were denied these rights. it's one of the reasons we had a revolution and we won. >> host: you mentioned you're on the senatejudiciary committee . maybe you could tell us about how your work habits and forms that work. what do you think of the judicial nominations from this administration and how do you think the work of the senate judiciary committee is doing after that? >> guest: i've been thrilled by this administration approach toward the federal courts. we've gotten top to bottom in federal district courts to federal court of appeals a

is going to kettles on the 70th anniversary of the german constitution. now plans to expand the next world cup to 48 teams have been abandoned by feet up the tournament in qatar will instead go ahead with the usual 32 teams as previously planned the people would have required qatar to share hosting duties in 2022 with other countries in the region world football's governing body said after quote a thorough and comprehensive consultation process the change would not be made the following tournaments in the u.s. canada and mexico in 2026 will now be the 1st with $48.00 teams. you're watching news from berlin coming up next the organized crime gangs driving the trade in poached why no horns are documentary after the break i'm terry martin thanks for being with us. shifting powers from the old order is history the world is real uniting itself and the media's role these keep the topic in focus of the global media forum 29 teams today one out of 2 people is online who are we following whom do we trust to beijing and shape the future at the georgia dome of globa

the constitutional convention was a constitutional crisis. the rules had broken down and the articles of confederation required unanimity. the civil war was a constitutional crisis. there was violence in the streets about the meaning of enshrining lincoln's prompt of -- promise of new freedom. some tchailed new deal a constitutional crisis because the threat of court packing was required for roosevelt to impose a new vision of the constitution's broader federal authorityle maybe think civil rights movement when there was blood in the street, mobs, and you needed military authority, i think what we're seeing now is very serious constitutional conflict between the branches. we're seeing competing assertions of constitutional authority, congress says it has an oversight authority and can require the president to appear. the president is denying that the courts may resolve this. but this is the kind of conflict we have seen before in history when president jefferson attempted to defy a subpoena and chief justice marshall ordered him to provide it