that is not in the constitution. the president will issue an executive order and make a law that way. that is the power of congress. aboutr a lot administrative bureaucracy. we have too much regulation. this is a fight we saw at the supreme court level around the citizenship question. that question was not about presidential power, it was about agency power. authority tothe set forth the limits on what goes in the census for him -- census forum. congress handed off what i call the legislative baton to the department of commerce and said, you fill in the blanks for us. you make regulations for us. and commerce did. that is the part the supreme court struck down. the agencies lawmaking at the behest of congress. this is a nuance that is complicated and theoretical. it is under administrative law. center in ourd headlines. it's something people feel strongly about. people don't really understand sometimes. the other thing that is happening in the last 20-30 years is social media. massive amounts of new technology. we ha

that's not in the constitution. it has been tolerated, and that's essentially the power of congress. we have heard about administrator of bureaucracy, too much regulation. this is a fight we just saw by the supreme court about the citizenship question. it wasn't about presidential power, per se, agency power. congress has the authority to set forth the limits what goes in the census form, under the constitution and empowered with implementing the ennumeration law. congress handed off the baton to the department of commerce and said, you fill in the blanks for us and make regulations for us. commerce did. that's the part the courts struck down. it is complicated and theoretical under administrative law. it's front and center in our headlines people feel strongly about and people don't really understand. the other thing that's happened in 20 or 30 years, social media, massive amounts of technology and we have all kinds of social media coming at us. when i was a kid we had a few channels and newspapers. we know from th

that is not in the constitution. historically, executive orders have been tolerated, the president will issue an executive order and make a law. essentially that is the power of congress. bureaucracy, too much regulation. this is the fight we saw at the supreme court level of the citizenship question. that question was not related around residential power, per se, it was about agency power. congress have the authority to set forth the limits about what goes in the census form. congress is under the constitution, empowered with enumerating the clause, and congress handed off the baton and said, you know what, you fill in the blanks for us. you make regulations for us, and commerce did. that is the part that the supreme court struck down was the agency's lawmaking at the the has of congress. so this is a nuance that is quite complicated, but again, it is front and center, the headline is something people feel strongly about, and people do not really understand. thanks that happened in the last 20, 30 years, social medi

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

it is congress's constitutional duty to respond. close examination of how russia executed these interference strategies is necessary to inform this committee and other completes of jurisdiction how to best tailor a wide rake of legislative initiatives on subjects from electronic data protections to provisional funding or resources for u.s. agencies responsible for monitoring and investigating foreign interference to the integrity of special is inquiries to insuring limits on political interference with department of justice decision making. although congressional oversight might eventually lead to impeachment, it does not have to do so. the supreme court has long held that congress's oversight authorities are inherent in the article one legislative powers. these authorities are broad. and encompass matters include "the administration of existing laws, proposed or possibly needed statuteses and problems to expose corruption, inefficiency and waste." indeed the court has emphasized oversighting is essential to the conduct of governmen

the right to privacy is nowhere in the constitution. that is not in the constitution. it arrived from the fourth amendment. this idea that we don't want guards banging down our doors and banging down our stuff. that is kind of the concept behind the idea that government protects guns in the home. you can have a handgun in your home because your home is special. roe v. wade took the process clause and said, you think about your process, the oldest document known to western civilization, that is functioning in our current regime, the idea was before government can take your property, you have to at least get a trial or hearing. the court said the concept of liberty is more than just jumping through hoops and taking something from you. there's certain stuff that we don't want government working around in it at all. in the earliest 20th century, there were challenges to laws limiting parents authority to teach their children a foreign. this nothing allowing your -- we want the government telling you that? wrote is part of that. the court would have to say, there's no priva

our constitution is based on two things. ultimately that the people are sovereign but the people have no just authoritye to deprive others of their individual rights. all of these structures are here in order to confine the majority so they will be governing but not triple the rights of the minority the religious minority or racial minority or just an electoral minority that every individual human being has rights that the majority must respect if it will be a just majority. the structural component of our constitution are designed to confine and to constrain to direct the majority so it would be adjustment nor rather than aa mob. mark: what is the declaration of independence? >> that all men are created equal and we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights and those exist government. mark: so, the point iss. you can have a vote but i have unalienable rights. >> that's right. if i get 51%pr i can't take the property of the other 49%. that's what it means. mark: and yet progresses keep pushing this. >> exactly. mark

so the right to privacy is nowhere in the constitution that word is not in the constitution it derives from the fourth amendment with the idea we don't want guards banging down our doors and that is the concept with the idea the second amendment protects the guns in your home. you can have a handgun in your home so that's the idea but roe versus wade took the due process clause and says thinking about this from the magna carta one of the oldest legal documents that is functioning currently in the idea was before government can take your life liberty and property you at least have to go to trial for a hearing and the court said the concept of liberty is more than jumping through hoops to take something from you there is something we don't want government mucking around that concept is back to the early 20h century where there are challenges to limit the parents ability to teach their children a foreign language and the court said there's nothing allowing you to teach your child the language treatment what your government to tell you that? so the court says listen there is no privacy due

it is in the constitution. couldn't pass one now that would change president trump salary this term, but they could startss now a law that january 2021, there are two salary options. the president complies with conflict of interest and , wencial disclosure laws think that puts him a step up on supervising the public welfare and we get salary acts. any president that does not comply with those requirements that we are now in acting, the ones we have enacted, he will get a salary but it will be half the amount. any question they could do that? mr. consovoy: off the top of my head, constitutional conditions with -- j. millett: it is not, you can run and you can picture salary. if you take the supreme court case, or you could submit to a random breathalyzer. j. millett: people have constitutional rights. does a presidential candidate have a constitutional right to a certain salary? i don't think so. they get to set the salary. there is no dispute about that. there is plenty of legislation they could pass and say no

is your theory that the constitutional avoidance doctrine would apply if there is a constitutional doubt as to any possible action that congress could take? is that your point? >> i don't think it is. if there was any doubt whether the subpoena is constitutional, it can -- j. tatel: that ducks the question. i understand that. the antecedent question to that is congress considering -- we all agree congress has investigative authority has brought as its legislative authority. my question is i thought you were arguing legislation with congress either has pastore is -- has passed or is considering may well be unconstitutional and that is what triggers the constitutional avoidance principle. mr. consovoy: one of the things, not the only thing. j. tatel: how can we apply the doctrine to legislation, propose legislation that doesn't even exist? we don't know what congress will propose if it gets this information and has hearings. congress is also sworn to uphold the constitution. mr. consovoy: that totally answers the question for us. this is literally what tobin was struggling withn. we don't

it's in the constitution.y couldn't pass one now that would change president trump's software this term but they could certainly say passed a law that would say starting january january 2021 there are two max out options. the president complies with compex of interest in financial disclosure laws, we think that puts you in a step up on essentially supervising the public welfare and will get salary ask. any president who does not comply with those requirements that were not enacting the ones that are inactive would get a a salad but it will be half that amount. any question they can do that? >> off the top of my head, unconstitutional conditions with -- >> it is not. you get to pick your salad. anyone can run and they can pick their salary based on how they behave. >> if you take the supreme court case you could submit to random breathalyzer. >> people have constitutional rights. as a presidential candidate have constitutional right to a certain salary? i don't think so. they get to set the summer. there's no d

book, how to read the constitution and why. take your we will calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter as well. washington journal is next. ♪ host: this is "the washington journal," for july the seventh. the democratic national committee is considering pulling a separate debate or four on the .opic of climate change some of the last round of debates discussed the topic as well. in the next hour we want to hear from you about climate change. if you think it is an important campaign issue. you can call to let us know about that. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 you can post on our twitter .eed, @cspanwj about 500 of you posting on her facebook page this morning on this topic. you can add your thoughts at .acebook.com/cspan the gallup poll did a recent survey of americans and their thoughts about climate change is an issue leading up to the down bynd breaking it party. when asked about the seriousness of global warming, if it's serious or generally e

i think that is the constitution we have. in fact, to go back to your earlier question, whether or not a president -- let's keep this hypothetical. commits a crime before he selected, and nobody knows about it, and we find out about it -- find out about it later, it's -- it becomes almost absurd to imagine that the country has to somehow sit tight before eight years before he leaves office before he subject to a criminal trial. if that crime has any relationship to his election, and it almost certainly does because it impacted people's votes who knew about it, even if -- i think the constitution gets turned on its head. >> let me ask you this. in terms of the olc opinion, obviously this is looking at federal prosecution . we have 50 states. if the president capital a shoots somebody who is not a federal official in a state that would be a violation of state law. would you believe that the constitution prohibits a state prosecution of a president for a state law violation? >> i don't -- i don't believe it does, but i should al

when you look at the constitution, when you look at the whole constitution amended over time to be made more democratic and i terrien, it is a progressive document. we make the originalist arguments, but we make arguments branded -- grounded in the constitution. the heritage foundation is a very prominent conservative think tank. the institute for constitutional government where we discuss all legal issues, we discuss it at the constitution on a conservative perspective and originalist perspective. we engage in robust and civil debates with organizations like sometimes find common ground, but often don't. some otherll get to cases, but we have colors waiting period hear from bill in virginia beach. bill, republican, go ahead. caller: real quick. looks like we have one conservative and one progressive liberal on our show today. i wanted to ask a quick question. understanding,l to both your guests, does a person have to be a u.s. citizen in order to vote in a presidential election? in any state in the country? i will get off the phone and listen for your answers. guest: i think the answer

in a way we have, we're one country with two constitution, one is the original constitution, as amendedu might call it the conservative's constitution, the other is what liberals call the living constitution. a phrase, woodrow wilson was among first to use. and as between the conservatives constitution and liberals onestutioconstitution we're whi. in the beginning up to middle of 20 century. it was thought that the two consititutions could coexist because they were gradually converging. because the living constitution as the original progressives talked about it was an evolutional product, not revolution air bu ari but overte would agree up. incorporate anything in the old constitution that was valuable and worthy, they never thought they would come to a fight, because they would grow together. but, then the 60s, happened. and instead of growing together, the liberals radicalized and conservatives in react to them in their open way radicalizes instead of a surrender of the te old constitution, had a fight, a cold civil war. now the contr the contradiction0 individual rightbetweenindivid

questions about violation of the constitution's cause. this president relishes attacking the freedom of the press. he's inside of violence against journalists from exercising their first amendment rights. yesterday, the congress and american people heard facts and evidence that congress can and should hold him accountable. impeachable offenses, it is the constitution that entrusts congress with the responsibility of deciding whether to remove the president of the u.s. from office. in the face of evidence of serious misconduct, congress would beon abusing its constitutional discretion in setting a dangerous precedent if it did not begin impeachment inquiry. if the evidence of obstruction of justice and other wrongdoing that robert mueller explained yesterday is not evidence of impeachable evidence, what is? damage when the president have to inflict in order to trigger an impeachment inquiry? my republican colleagues have shown themselves unwilling to hold the president accountable. they believe everything is all over. the evidence in the m

constitution doesn't compel that part. they can divide the money anywhere they want and they don't have to follow that at all. i think the constitution propels how we do this in adding this question interferes with that constitutional duty. >> we are out of time and i would like to thank the panelists. [applause] >> thank the audience, good questions and i think the federalist society for putting on affairs like this which we can learn a lot from. [inaudible conversations] >> taken between 2000-2017, grover cleveland drops from 17th-23rd pl.. ulysses s grant makes the most dramatic rise going from 33rd to 22nd spot. where does your favorite president ranked? learn that and more about the lives and leadership skills and 44 chief executives on c-span's the presidents, great vacation reading available where books are sold or c-span.org/thepresidents. >> a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea, let viewers make up their own minds. the senate opened the doors to washington policymaking for all to see bringing

constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. sadly today we have some enemies of our constitution and the country that are even in congress. it doesn't mean that they are going to stop trying. so, to get a better view of the situation and what's going on right now with the threats of impeachment that they are having almost daily, they will follow for the bit about that and share some information with us. bob barr served as a united states attorney, appointed by president ronald reagan from 86 to 90. a member of congress from 95 to 2003. a member of the house judiciary committee and on the oversight committee for six years he served as an official for the time it was a member of congress to call for clinton's impeachment. the house impeachment manager in 1999 and presently private practice attorney in atlanta since leaving the house. plus the libertarian party nominee for president in 2008. we would like to hear from him and ask you to give a warm welcome to the congressman. [applause] i always appreciate the invitations to come

evidence is not in the constitution. it is kind of -- >> the only problem is that the supreme court is given deference to the last draft. >> my second point, which is quite interesting, which relates to a foundation. really interesting scholarship has come out since the decision came out. it was calling into question the factual basis for much of opinion.' there has been research i have read that in fact, the question has never been in census. -- has never been on a census. to some group that the asked not about citizenship come up with the questions were about where they were born. there is an assimilationist you. -- assimilationist issue. i thing there is going to be a lot more litigated about this. that is my general view of your question. >> i have not made it so far. i'm going to get different question. if you look at the language of of otherwo, courtesy things, if you look at this language, it talks about male citizenship 21 years or old. -- 21 years old. -- safety --evered if you deny suffrage, representation can

constitution is hotly debated these days. only this week a federal judgemp declared the t administration was acting unconstitutionally by denying some migrants a bail hearing. the document was written by america's founding fathers in 1787, and lawyers argue what it stands for today. a new book, "how to read the constitution and why," examines the backbone ofn ameri government. author and legal analyst kim wehle joined me earlier. what inspired you to write a book at this moment about how tt re constitution? kim: so many questions under the constitution are being pushed to the forefront of our national debate. it is front-page news, and the constitution is actually quite complicated. i have been teaching law for over 10 years and it is very nuanced and a lot of the messages get lost and people dose their grounding in terms of this foundationament, which isn't necessarily a guarantee that we will have a free and fair democracy goin forward. we have to enforce it. laura: you write in the book that the supreme court fills in the

to the constitution now it's everything. so they said the enumeration clause counts for all people. know it doesn't. it requires the counting of numbers. why would they say numbers quirks the word numbers was an abbreviation on the last draft of the constitution number of inhabitants. and the last draft it was not to change what they had agreed to in the first senses and others used count the number of inhabitants. and if you go to the 14th amendment in that same section two after talks about perspective numbers then it goes to mail inhabitants. those inhabitants were here legally and they were not going back to europe any time soon. so the issue of who is an inhabitant is critical. legal inhabitants are not foreign students. they are not the aliens who brought themselves here they are not legally inhabiting the united states. that's the issue. >> question. in addition to the points that john made, there is original public meaning if you look at the british practice that goes maybe 100 years before the founding that define w

i think that is the constitution we have. in fact, to go back to your earlier question, whether or not a president -- let's keep this hypothetical. commits a crime before he selected, and nobody knows about it, and we find out about it -- find out about it later, it's -- it becomes almost absurd to imagine that the country has to somehow sit tight before eight years before he leaves office before he subject to a criminal trial. if that crime has any relationship to his election, and it almost certainly does because it impacted people's votes who knew about it, even if -- i think the constitution gets turned on its head. >> let me ask you this. in terms of the olc opinion, obviously this is looking at federal prosecution . we have 50 states. if the president capital a shoots somebody who is not a federal official in a state that would be a violation of state law. would you believe that the constitution prohibits a state prosecution of a president for a state law violation? >> i don't -- i don't believe it does, but i should al

constitutional reform is as well. he has a lot of work to be done not only with lawmakers but with a national public in japan to push with that. the chief north asia correspondent there in tokyo, thank you. the latest road tests in hong kong turned violent as police fired to your gas and demonstrators converged on china's medical headquarters in the city. organizers claim 100,000 took part in sunday's march which began peacefully. let's get the latest on this with our reporter. what happened? reporter: it started peaceful marched 400,000 people in the city. that is according to the organizers. the police put it at 138,000. it was pretty big. they are protesting a range of the extradition bill which sparked the protests six weeks ago but also merging into wanting to ask for an independent inquiry into the violence the police have used against protesters. they want to see universal suffrage in hong kong. saw this march ending but a group of protesters went over into west hong kong island where the chinese liaison office

this is not what our constitution says. disses the constitution every chance he gets.nd that is a danger. so i hope people think about that when they vote. host: thanks susan. ofi think susan is the voice millions of democrats around the country and that's why i expect there to be, there was higher democratic turnout in the 2018 midterms then what we have seen in previous cycles. i think that 2020 because of oute stakes that you laid is going to be high. but also an increased focus on the u.s. senate. the house is a check to the presidency also winning at the state level. where so many laws are made and enacted and enforced and so susan isn't alone and that's why a lot of people see that the stakes are high in this election. int: carol is shepherdsville, kentucky on the independent line. caller: yes. hello. host: good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine thank you. caller: i'm a descendent of james madison, zachary taylor. wasreat-grandmother catherine mary taylor. so naturally i have a few things to say. wondering about why anybody would want to vote

the entire constitution? guest: no. we're not talking about a constitutional convention. we're talking about a single issue convection. the legislation the states have passed say this is only operative if it focuses on term limits and no other subjects. there are many safeguards built into the process to make sure nothing else can get out of the convention. the biggest safeguard is that any constitutional amendment in america has to be ratified by 38 state legislatures to become part of the constitution. that is why we have a firewall against constitutional amendments. 27t is why we have only had in our history because it is exceptionally hard to do. guest: it is exceptionally hard to do. there are a lot of points talking about using term limits to solve other problems. frustrated at 80% of seats being said, term limits will not solve that problem. it will be different people running in the same district. if you're talking about the scare off effect of big money in your pockets, that will not be solved by ter

even if i felt totally differently, the law is the law, the constitution is the constitution. this is a very unfortunate part of our debate to say because this is a bad administration and trump is a bad guy that nothing they do should be counted. i think it's wrong and un-american, frankly. the second point, i'm a lawyer. that is not what the supreme court said. they didn't say anything as far as majority is concerned or nefarious motives. they said the particular rationale put forward was not the real reason. put forth by the secretary of commerce, compliance with the voting rights act. they didn't say it was a bad reason. they said it was a good reason, but not the real reason. it happens all of the time where epa, federal energy regulatory commission, the exchange commission have the rules struck down because of administrative deficiencies. under the colors logic the , entire administrative state would come to a halt. if you try something badly the first time, and you cannot fix it. it doesn't work like this. it doesn't work as a philosophical matter about what you should d

even if i felt totally differently, the law is the law, the constitution is the constitution. this is a very unfortunate part of our debate to say because this is a bad administration and trump is a bad guy that nothing they do should be counted. i think it's wrong and un-american, frankly. the second point, i'm a lawyer. that is not what the supreme court said. they didn't say anything as far as majority is concerned or nefarious motives. they said the particular rationale put forward reason.the real they didn't say it was a bad reason. they said it was a good reason, but not the real reason. it happens all of the time where epa, federal energy regulatory , the exchange commission have the rules struck down because of administrative deficiencies. the entire administrative state would come to a halt. if you try something badly the first time, and you cannot fix it. it doesn't work like this. it doesn't work as a philosophical matter about what you should do, and it doesn't work like this as a matter of law. host: david rivkin, constitutional lawyer and other law here in washin

judges are obligated to follow the constitution, and if you are recalling this case, the constitution had been amended by prop 8, so i was required to follow the constitution. in that sense, my hands were tied. the device, if you want to call it that, that i used was that there were so many rights, constitutional rights that were implicated in that proposition, whether it is the right to privacy in so many others, the right to marriage and so forth, that the only way that the constitution could properly be amended was by a constitutional convention. so i didn't get any votes. but i think i had to stick with that decision because i thought the constellation of rights that were implicated by proposition 8 was not the right way to really fundamentally change that fundamental right. i want to say something about the death penalty. i probably participated in about 200 death penalty decisions, most of them were affirmances , so you do develop an attitude towards the cases. as jeremy pointed out, generally, you see the worst of the worst. there are disparities from county to county in califo

he was a true guardian of the constitution. he made history not only as the longest serving justice but as one of its finest. our country mourns his loss. he will be lying in state monday. the service will be tuesday, and again, it is a great loss to our country. last night i had a particular pleasant experience which is to sign the legislation which enabled us to use the washington monument as a backdrop for the moon launch. pretty exciting. i hope everyone will take advantage of observing that as we observe that historic event in our country, the world's history. it's pretty exciting. so here we are. as you know we campaigned on for the people agenda, lowering health care costs, bigger paychecks, cleaner government. and to that end, bigger paychecks, this week we'll have three bills on the floor raising the minimum wage. raising the minimum wage. it increases wages for up to 33 million workers and lifts 1.3 million americans out of poverty. it would help secure fairness and equality for women, many of whom will be the benefic

constitution. you would think most americans agreed with the boston magazine essayist, the idea that equal education for an equal citizenry was necessary. in a pulitzer prize winning book, -- wrote that no universal theme was universally articulated as the need for universal education. are a raidal forces against that position for some time. academies were found between 1780 and 1800s. these were among the most ubiquitous institutions of the time. they received more charters than virtually any kind of institution besides transportation products and charges. they received more government funding, direct and indirect, than any other type of school. this happened in the face of arguments like this boston magazine essay. it held that since started academies were created by and serve the interest of an elite, they would produce a country governed by one. in the phase of that, these things like -- the debate crystallized in three positions that i think are interesting about education. they carry through

the foundation of our constitutional liberties.ll the things that young americans foundation -- young america's foundation has been about since its founding. beyond that i couldn't be more proud to serve as vice president to a president who stands without apology for the sanctity of human life. [applause] vice pres. pence: president the mostump is pro-life president in american history. [applause] vice pres. pence: yaf has been an indispensable partner in the last two and half years and i really want to come by to commend you. and also to tell you our work is far from done. the work you've done has truly been inspiring. theinstance in 2017, university of california berkeley, a stateschool which re home of the free speech movement restrict60's, tried to conservative organizations from hosting speakers, but it was the of yaf who stood up. and this administration stood with you. last december, after more than a year of the litigation, we won. because of all of you. they changed their policies on freedom of speech. well done, yaf. when

i do swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state california against all enemies, foreign and domestic. that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california, that i take this obligation freely without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion. and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which i am about to enter and during such time as i hold the office as a member of the code advisory committee, general contractor seat of the state and county of san francisco. >> okay. we are all set. if you would like to make comments, you are welcome to. >> it is a thrill to be here. i am anxious to contribute. i live this code every day. i am in the field. i don't dress like this often. it is a pleasure to form what happens going forward. thank you. [applause.] >> next item is 5. discussion and possible action to make recommendations regarding current membership and reappointments to the code advisory committee. terms to expire august 10, 2022. >>

and by the way, they don't have the constitutional authority to do so. i yield my time. >> we will yield my remaining time. >> i appreciate representative gallagher's thoughtful back-and-forth. i just want to make a distinction between a national emergency classification, which is what we have with iran come into the national emergency as defined by the war powers act which requires a national emergency created by an attack upon the united states from its territory or its armed forces. .. >> that you just want to acknowledge that he will work on this now i will yield my tie back. >> just to put it upon one - - a point on those issues what my colleague is conflating that the war powers resolution and with the iranian sanctions with that emergency economic powers act with the unique - - economic emergency and not conflating those two is important i yield back the remainder of the time. >> it was very dÉjÀ vu leading up to the first iraq war. and to see this administration in the manner they did to us and the justification without going into details terrifi

and that includes mainland taiwan hong kong and in my car that's in our constitution we should by and by our country's constitution rights you're being told by xi jinping as you were in january unification is an inevitable requirement for the great rejuvenation of the chinese people he said taiwan should accept that it must and will be reunited with china whatever talks you've been having with china hasn't got the mother vattel idea and how many people in taiwan want that reunification under 3 percent do or about that i'm going to worry about what the rand paul thing about you don't know you've already got people up i think but don't worry about their threatening ver words when you stand up to those threatening words what we stand up to you won't we stand up to that but you know never said you really meant try one must and well ok and i did with john have you not so much of me have you tried to take a lot of our constitution to have you tried to take a look of loss to show you are looking at what china is now saying our laws and in our constitution we want to peaceful relationship we

the people the people dogs that's in our law in the constitution it doesn't matter what their country why they want and try to amend the constitution that's your perception our people here want to have a peaceful relationship with the mainland and we want to make money we want to do business together we want to have a democracy in the future in mainland china but not fighting against them not taking down s. and anomie trying to be their friends and tragic change them by participation perhaps like what you do and where do you go that's working so well the the reality is mr joe the beijing's push on unification puts your party the kuomintang into a very difficult position doesn't it your veteran china expert suchi actually said that he said she jinping took away all the space for ambiguity and that puts us the kuomintang in a very difficult situation that difficulty being that your party is being told get on with this by china and you don't have a policy of standing up to it do you do have a policy. i declared that i claim that i want a unified china i want to unify under taiwan less yo

it is not a legal or constitutional standard. they shouldn't be making the standards up and it puts them in a position of every single time there is a census and redistricting, they will be called on across the country to basically pick political winners and losers. that would be a horrible outcome for the court and most importantly, it is a horrible outcome because it is not how the constitution has designed the system to work. justices are not there to fix everything. some things, unfortunately the political process has to be there to fix. there are states who have enacted either constitutional amendments or laws trying to create ways to get the partisanship out of that and that is absolutely an option but it has to be through the legislatures, not the courts. alex: could the court ever have another gerrymandering question if congress were to pass, or is this it? carrie: this is a very clear answer. for the last 45 years, we have had cases saying what about political gerrymandering? the court has a role, if it is racial gerryma