the constitution. now, as you may know, my legal education comes from law and order. but this strikes me as an incredibly narrow reading. by this logic, why would the president be allowed to engage in insurrection, if virtually every other federal employee who swears a slightly different oath is not? could the rioters of the insurrection act really have intended -- of the constitution, and this particular clause, really have intended to hold lower level offices to a higher level of integrity that the person holding the highest office in the land? lots of questions. and i've got the two most perfect people on hand to answer them. joining me now, is the aforementioned judge michael luttig. he is a former federal judge of the u.s. court of appeals for the fourth circuit. also with us is laurence tribe, professor emeritus of harvard law school, cofounder of the american constitution society, author of the important book american constitutional law. what do i need to talk to you gentlemen this morning, beca

, kamala law, state constitutions, the constitution just is the trump card, the eighth of trumps. we'll wait a minute, may be what we can say is that article one section seven clause to status creates a presumption in favor of constitutionality. some kind of legal force not necessarily conclusive, but still nonzero. and there's a tradition of this, expressed most clearly by james bradley and his rule of clear mistake, today we know it as several other names, the presumption of constitutionality or older generations judicial restraint. but here's the thing, i don't think you can get that rule out of the constitution itself. in fact, when they came up with this a century ago, he came up with it not out of interpreting the constitution, but out of and stay constitution. his problem was that courts were behaving too much like lawyers and deciding things and if you actually behave like a lawyer, you reach these conclusions that these things are unconstitutional. courts are supposed to be statesman. i don't think that's true. i don't think article three is a statesman article. i think i

house of the constitution. let's say that we had various cases that people from all over the country, if there is a violation of the constitution somewhere, and a violation even of the law , because the law is after all a branch of the constitution, everything is a product of the constitution, everywhere the law is criticized. they inform us and we also have a reference to follow up and fortunately in a while it is established and people have access to us, and the issues that they announce are followed up by our constitutional authority from all over the country, he gives notice to the system and the problems that are really violations of the constitution are followed up to be resolved, and of course we promote legalism. and to promote constitutionalism, we definitely need to have a single action and actually a practical one in the form of propaganda and to have the participation of the people and the participation of the elites in this public way . the presence of the president, deputy and speaker of the parli

the constitution. they. they decided that they knew better than their peers, than those that had gone before, to how this country ought to be governed. now, i begin my story. this book that was that you have mentioned called founding partizans. it talks about the emergence of party politics in the united states, and it begins with the writing of the constitution. but it really begins a little bit before then, when alexander hamilton is an aide de camp to george washington during the revolutionary war and james madison is a member of the continental congress, and they begin thinking about how we could do better than the people who set up the system we've got now. one of the astonishing things about this is the boldness is you could sort of say the, hmm, the egotism of two young men like hamilton dunn and madison hamilton, when this starts, is in his twenties and he's saying, i got this design for a new government for this country. this is a big statement for somebody. it's not it's not exactly just fres

it was a constitutional impasse. constitutional crisis. if the court didn't step in there were zero maps. the court was -- the issue was brought to the court and a decision had to be made in a very timely manner before there were any other votes taken in other elections. the court didn't have a choice, frankly. the court doesn't really belong in these cases. but we found ourselves in one and we had to decide it. that's how i see johnson. otherwise, the constitution places this responsibility on the legislature and the executive. >> chief justice, i would push back a little bit. what we had in johnson was a constitutional violation, the malapportion. what we have here today is a constitutional violation. the districts aren't con tigus and violate the separation of powers. the 2011 act, as i think justice bradley maybe had in one of the separate opinion, wasn't sunsetted, still it's enjoin. if no one had come to court and challenged the malapportionment, we'd still be under act 23, the districts would be malapportioned. it took a party comin

but what do we have today regarding the constitutional court.vants of the people were elected to the constitutional court despite the demand for its non-partisanship and apliticity of your representatives. ms. sovgyru from violation of legislation. and now we are glad that we started. finally select the representative group of experts, but we insist on the implementation of the mandatory rule on the involvement of international, independent, professional experts, who are not here, these interconnected connections, the influence on them of banking, daily telephone law, you know, reports there in the offices of the bank, about which judges should be represented in the constitutional court, who does not have the right to be there? therefore, it is very important that we meet the copenhagen criteria and build independent, strong institutions, democracy, freedom of speech, and the main court of the country, the constitutional court was professional, thank you, servant of the people of zaremskyi, maslov, please, to be honest, unfortunately, the previo

mrs i refer to the constitutional court, and now two more deputies from the servant of the people, as we know, are applying for the positions of judges of the constitutional court, and i have a specific question from our faction to the speaker: does the fact that two deputies from the servant of the people during the election mean representatives of the council of experts to the constitutional court from the servants of the people declared a conflict of interest , that they would be candidates...' in the judge of the constitutional court, and the faction would support them, this is the first, and the second, i want to remind you of the position of european solidarity. we, with my colleagues, in particular ivanna klimposhcensadze, maria ionova, iryna fries, immediately proposed that the advisory council of experts should consist of eight representatives, of which there had to be a part, these are international representatives, that is how the expert structure is formed, which selects candidates for judges of the anti-corruption court and it proved its effectiveness , independence, tran

the constitution says you cannot hold office. but it does not tell us when we can adjudicate the holding question in advance. it says you cannot be killed without due process, but it does not mean you have to wait until you are dead before you try to get resurectio. [laughter] i think that is the right way to do it rather than try to miss read the word hold. i think the provision is no longer in the u.s. code. this occurred in 1948. i do not think is there anymore. prof. mcconnell: i have spent some time trying to figure this out and i do not have an answer. i cannot find the repeal. you say it was repealed. i cannot find it. prof. baude: in 1948, congress took the entire judicial code and said anything we left out is hereby excluded by application. i believe that is where they -- prof. mcconnell: the library of congress issued a list of provisions that still exist even though they were not ricotta fight. i do not know what the legal standing is of that. it is right there in u.s. code. look it up. host: next question. >> dan from

court, to close this discussion, for me as a constitutional lawyer there is no doubt that the constitutionot allow elections to be held during martial law, i can justify it, but believe me it will take a lot of time, but we still don't have it. the decision of the constitutional court, i would really like it to appear, if the president does not want to apply, it can be done, for example, by the ombudsman, if there are any political risks for the president, but it can be done and there is a mechanism for this, mr. andriy , and i understand that you have many arguments , not only you and explanations, why the elections cannot be held now, but if, let's say, it happens that they, the election process will begin, they will begin to hold and even hold. these elections in which, if it is not due to action, there, i don't know, a million ukrainians will take part in the elections, for example, for example, a million ukrainians, or there will be some kind of instrument... a moment with which we can operate so that analyze and actually, whether these elections will already be recognized as valid an

the constitution defines ours. under the equal protection clause, courts may not allow the separation of students based on the basis of race without an exceedingly persuasive justification that is measurable and concrete enough to permit judicial review. as this court has repeatedly reaffirmed, "racial classifications are simply too pernicious to permit any but the most exact connection between justification and classification." here for the reasons we have explained, that connection is missing. having failed to articulate clear and measurable goals, the universities and argue they should be allowed to make race-based decisions to remedy the underrepresentation of minority groups on their campuses. but none of our cases have ever permitted universities to consider race for that purpose. to the contrary, we have explained that outright racial balancing is patently unconstitutional. here, by promising to terminate their use of race only when some rough percentage of various racial groups is admitted, the universities

with that the constitutional? >> i think that likely would qualify as constitutional. of course if that create some kind of regular capture i would expect congress would act to fix that by the are examples throughout our historyf scholarship funds for for e, administered by the federal government originally funded by an endowment and those i think qualify as appropriations. >> thank you. justice sotomayor? >> general, might be a good sign or bad site don't know. nobody has talked about remedy. let me give you an opptunity to summarize your best argument y the court below erred in its broad remedyn striking down basically not justhis payday lending role but basically saying anything this agency is done since the beginning is invalid. so can you tell us how you deal with that? >> yes. the fifth circuit recognize a sweeping retrospective remedy that we think conflicts with the severability principles and additional traditional remedial equitable principles in this space. just for severability,, dodd-frank itself as an express severality clause that this court emphasized t

it is built into our constitution. because the president is directly elected by the people, there really is a decision of congress to assess those qualifications. why is that argument not right? >> a few points. quick section three does specifically mention congress for one purpose only. to remove disqualification by a two thirds vote. it does not grant congress any this qualification in the first place. section five of the 14th of, does authorize congress to enact additional legislation. but an important point is that section five applies the same way to section three as it does to section one. the do processing equal protection clause. >> i kind of agree with you. my question is because we have an electoral college, other parts of the constitution -- that what the movement is weird. it only talks about modifications of the lives of. the implicit in that are those ready for the president, congress understands that they may have the authority to assess qualifications. that is more than what i'm getting at. >> in additi

and in that sense the american people through the framers of the constitution, both the original constitution but also the 14th amendment, which was ratified in 1868, those people were our representatives, if you will, the american people's representatives. it's they who determined in section 3 that an individual who's engaged in an insurrection or rebellion having previously taken an oath to support the constitution of the united states and thereafter engage in an insurrectional rebellion against the constitution of the united states should be disqualified from holding high public office thereafter. >> what is the threat of trump today? >> as i said before the congress over a year and a half ago, nicolle, the former president and his allies were as of january 6, 2021, a clear and present danger to american democracy. a year later when i was asked i think by michael schmidt of "the new york times" i said that today one year after january 6th that the -- that the former president and his allies were an even graver danger to american democracy than they were a year prior. and then most recently

that the constitution.our earlier segment on the lawsuit to keep him off the appellate and colorado. it's really -- it's that first state to determine who's on the ballot for the presidential election. i think it's really going to ad hominem. they're going after him and ways that generate sympathy for him. you know exactly what you shouldn't be. >> two points. one, thank you for watching the interim laura coates live show. i do agree it's dynamite. 11 pm, eastern, weekdays. number two, i will say, it's not double jeopardy, according to law. because one was a political discussion and one was, you know what, let's not argue, fellas. i'm glad you are both here. thank you so much. [laughter] brian stelter, geraldo rivera, thank you and be sure to check out brian's new book, network of lies, the epic saga of fox news, donald trump, and the battle for american democracy. we'll be right back. >> when hamas militants broke they poured offense and i can't pick to reject a voter for seven, many war gopro camera to do

the constitution says you cannot hold office.ut it does not tell us when we can adjudicate the holding question in advance. it says you cannot be killed without due process, but it does not mean you have to wait until you are dead before you try to get resurectio. [laughter] i think that is the right way to do it rather than try to miss read the word hold. i think the provision is no longer in the u.s. code. this occurred in 1948. i do not think is there anymore. prof. mcconnell: i have spent some time trying to figure this out and i do not have an answer. i cannot find the repeal. you say it was repealed. i cannot find it. prof. baude: in 1948, congress took the entire judicial code and said anything we left out is hereby excluded by application. i believe that is where they -- prof. mcconnell: the library of congress issued a list of provisions that still exist even though they were not ricotta fight. i do not know what the legal standing is of that. it is right there in u.s. code. look it up. host: next question. >> dan from n

that the constitution shouldn't apply to him. he said, we don't need the constitution. what we need is a judicial determination, if impeachment by the house is enough to establish as a civil proposition that he's engaged in insurrection. or if you need fact-finding by the court. nowhere does it say you have to have a criminal conviction to make section three of the 14th amendment apply. >> that's where colorado comes in. jamie raskin, thank you so much. >> thanks for having me. >> want to bring in marbshal cohen, and rebecca legrand. glad you're all here. let's begin with that leads off, really. there's not a requirement that it has to be a criminal conviction. that's true. but so many voters say, how do you get to decide if there's been insurrection? is that the criteria. there's been a trial in this case. they are trying to, as congressman raskin, create an insurrection took place. tell me what was gleaned in the closing arguments. >> both sides in this case, presenting final arguments to the judge, who has two days to issue the ruling. this is going to happen quick.

program, these are not goals or objectives, a constitution, rather , yes, a constitution, by the wayr me personally, as i understand it, here she is, as it were our constitution, in theory, was conceived this way, and the american constitution and in general other countries where there is a constitution, it’s more like this, you know, a security law. this is the line you can’t go beyond, not for a citizen, not for the state in relation to a citizen, that’s what it actually is, well, for example, censorship is prohibited there, for example, yes, as if that’s what we’re talking about, article fifty-one, who are you, a policeman, a policeman , it doesn’t matter, i don’t have the right not to give an explanation, i ’m speaking very rudely now, but in general the constitution is built around this, and there is a whole general section the state structure, well, it’s clear, you just can’t do anything without this framework, well, because otherwise it’s not very clear, this subject, whether he’s russian or not, for example, why they are but in general, it ’s still why this, by the way, is a

the constitution requires this. in fact, there is nothing outside of the constitution, so we resolve hundreds of disputes every year. in fact, in this case , we have resolved 480 disputes between us in the past one year. the religious institutions of this institution ask us to do things that are simple, like what you just said, our vice president has a board, they sit and solve the more complicated cases, they bring them to a supreme consultative assembly, which consists of a number of judges. from the supreme court, from the court of administrative justice and lawyers from the universities, you will be our vice-presidents. i myself am usually present in the meetings. we sit there and discuss an issue that may take two hours and vote. finally, based on the voting, we announce that the opinion of the legal vice-president is this. a detailed work is carried out and the opinions of both sides are presented in the meeting. before that, the opinions of both sides regarding this matter were also submitted to the vice-chai

they hav exercised pursuant to my constitution so i hear the government arguing our c constitution is more like scenario two so therefore don't you is on this fundamental conception of you've given away your authority? >> if that were true leave the concepnd by in the appropriations clause, the is yes but it's truly and there are no limits on the appropriations. >> why is that a problem that's what scenario two says. the authority to make the determination of how the government is under the mark of youronption is congress and say to the president is deposiou spend what you think isnably appropriate. , if you think that's what it means that ios. >> but i'm asking you, we don need to understand why it's not what it means. that's your burden tha what the words seem to say, there's nothing in this constitution like scenario one and wherehe framers have the authority they are givi congress so what i o find out why we are not in scenario two given the languages and the clause has been handled. why up to congress if they decide they want to set it up in this way without limit? so be it. >> i

ohio republicans proposed a constitutional amendment that would require 60% of the vote for all constitutionalt was currently needed. ohio voters would reject that proposal in august, which means that on tuesday, as voters go to the poll to vote on whether or not to enshrine abortion rights in the ohio state constitution, they will only need a simple majority of the vote. it now, confusingly, that was called issue one in august and abortion advocates got out there voters message that they should vote no on issue one. now, they've had to shift their messaging because this month's issue one asks voters who support the right to the abortion to vote yes on issue one. passing this amendment shouldn't be difficult in ohio, again, ohioans have consistently voted to protect the right to choice by relatively wide margins. there is a catch. while republicans fail to get the issue of the volatile together, and while they fail to require a higher threshold to pass the amendment, this time around, the republicans were able to shift the language on the ballot itself. issue one on tuesday will include a summ

reform of the constitutional court. who is running for office?ska acted as a representative of this unscrupulous judicial corporation. but why didn't the previous conclusions of the state security council be stopped. oleksandr prokopenko, he has a negative opinion from the public integrity council. congratulations, judicial control is on the air. the judicial system of ukraine needs thorough reboot. this is one of the requirements of our accession to the european union. soon , ukraine will begin selection for one of the country's most important judges - the constitutional court. the selection conditions are strict, and even in spite of this, unscrupulous servants of themis are trying to get into the body that interprets the main state document and decides on the conformity of the ukrainian legislation with the constitution. why judges of dubious reputation. rush to positions, about it and let's talk today, but first to the news. last week, the higher qualification commission of judges began the qualification evaluation of the current servants of

that's with the constitution >> if you think the constitution lowsoast essential safety executive, you pick the number n spend whatever you want forever, i would agree. i would lose this case. iave to think speeded if i could understand you get your arme in the briefs as understood it did have lot of moving parts, and now this is a much clearer view of wt the appropriations clause demands. and if youe saying internet a specific number tha with a little wiggle room, the execiv has to snd. this at this that the wayd it? i mean, i do thinkhat if you go back to founding era statute business constant not exceeding ask for a particula ppose. justice scalia in clinton said the constitutionalityfuch appropriations has nev seriously been questioned. so if that's rll the core argument that you're making, not like the others 22 different things that come together in this particular stu to create a ucorn, but that seems like a much more fundamental argument and one that's been dely rejected by our history. so two responses. the argument ethic of i don't f think it's been decisively rejected by h.

it is often a constitutional right. automatic registration when you're 18 is very common in democracies. voting occurs on a sunday or holiday. the united states is a very strange case of a democracy in which it has always been more obstacles to vote. governments don't work to help people vote. so the reforms, we are under no illusion this is going to happen overnight but we think it's important to begin thinking about and publicly debating democratizing measures. the constitution is hard to amend, we have a long history of working to make the political system more democratic, george washington in 1787 wrote to his nephew that the constitution was an imperfect document and it would be up to future generations to improve upon it and we did do that through the bill of rights to the gradual expansion of suffrage to the important reconstruction reforms to the important reforms of the progressive era, the improvements of congressional elections. the last half-century, the last 50 years have been unique in american history in

the constitution deals with substance, not s. for too long, many universities have wrongly concluded the hstone of an individual's identity is not challenge as beed, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice. nearly 130 years ago, this crt issued the decision in plessy versus fergun,here we upheld a jim crow law that required ci segregation on trains. plessy has correctly gone down as one of the mosteved decisions this courtasver issued. but at the time it was decided, plessy was almost unanimous. the voten e court was 7-1. the one was justice john maha harland. wrote only for himself and history, quote, in the view of the constitution and the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior dominant ruling class of tins. there is no here. our cution is colorblind and itr knowsor tolerates classes among citizens. to we reaffirm that guiding principle. the judgments of the court of appeals for the first circuit end of theict court for the middle dist

, he loved the constitution, he defend the constitution.id the constitution is not the problem. we need virtue and public office who follow the constitution and live with the constitution. there's a lot more on the book and i hope people check it out. >> there is a lot more of that in this fantastic book, the democratic party hates ♪ ♪ we have only got eight minute left it. i think the best way to end the discussion is the quote you have in the back of the book if i may read it. inevitably the democrat party infinite cultural economic and political interventions always in the name of the people in some virtuous and worthy cause lead to the steady decline of liberty and the steady rise of the people. fewer and fewer masterminds with an ever increasi ever-increasinf bureaucrats and enforcers reign over the citizenry and decide what is and is not good for them. the abuses of power are limitless as are the justifications. and slowly but surely the people get used to it. even about fort until one day it's a gri grip is too tight. then it is too

, let’s adopt a federal constitutional law at a constitutional meeting and gather there and resolve theown that doesn’t work, i can admit it, from which suddenly there is confidence that if we write it down in some document that... acts that need to be brought to their logical conclusion, the constitution, federal, constitutional laws, federal laws, by-laws, what we are writing in this document, nikolai , let’s see, the first point, vich said, the only ideology that can be patriotism means we have decided, okay, who is against patriotism, no one, but next we we say, for example, we define 100 principles. for example, not a single government decision should be aimed at reducing the quality of life, for example, for example, isn’t this written down, no, not written down, not written down, i say again, if we are talking about a built-in system of regulatory legal acts, this is omitted including before acts in the ministries of departments, the first, for example, not a single decision should be aimed at reducing the territory of the russian federation, this is spelled out in the constituti

rather than hearing to an oath he took to defend and secure our country and uphold the constitution when he was sworn in as secretary of homeland security, alejandro mayorkas has engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the laws of the united states as follows. article two of the constitution requires that the executive branch with two days includes the secretary of homeland security and ensures the laws passed by congress and signed into law by the president are faithfully executed. the secure fence act of 2006, public law, 109-three 67 requires the secretary maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the united states. in his willful admittance of border crossers, terrorists, human traffickers, drugs and other contraband, alejandro mayorkas has failed to maintain operational control of the border. thereby violating the secure fence act of 2006. the guaranty clause set forth in article four section four of the constitution dictates the united states shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government

article 2 of the constitution requires that the executive branch, which today includes the secretary of homeland security, ensure the laws passed by congress and signed into law by the president are faithfully executed. the secure fence act of 2006, public law 109-367 requires that the secretary of homeland security maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the united states. in his wiff admittance are border in his willful admittance of terrorists and contraband, nicolas mayorkas has failed to maintain operational control of the border, thereby violating the secure fence act of 2006. the guarantee clause set forth in article 4, section 4 of the constitution dictates, the united states shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion and on application of the legislature or of the executive when the legislature cannot be convened against domestic violence. the guarantee clause clearly dictates that the federal government has a constitutional duty and obligation to

this is hosted by the national constitution center. hello friends welcome to the national constitution center and to today's convening of america's town hall i am president ceo of this wonderful institution before we start let's inspire ourselves as always for the discussion ahead by reciting to get the national constitution center at mission statement. here we go but national constitution center's only institution in america chartered by congress to increase awareness and understanding of a constitution among the american chpeople on a nonpartisan basis. friends, if you are joining us on c-span live please check out all of the ncc great america town hall programs. we have a wonderful once coming up next month on december 4 we l talk about the history of the espionage act and the first amendment. on december 11 robert post of yale law school introduces wonderful new homes on the taft court i cannot wait to discuss that with him and on december 13 will have a discussion of the origins of partisanship during the revolution. you can alway

according to the constitution of ukraine, are you out of your mind?ged on. form of complaint against the judge, who disgraced the judicial mantle for more than a year, the disciplinary chamber of the vrp recommended the dismissal of judge babenka only in march this year. somehow, by the way, the ethical council, which checked the members of the supreme council of justice, did not leave, did not find major problems in this and left her in office to serve, let's say, this term. this, by the way, is another unnecessary example of the fact that this ethical council, which was formed according to the same principle, where there are three international. in three ukrainians delegated by the judiciary, well, it does not always and does not work very well, to the constitutional court, despite the negative opinion of the public council of integrity and questionable property, and the judge velika chamber of the supreme court of ukraine oleksandr prokopenko. some of them also, for example, have negative conclusions of the public council of integrity, if we talk a

we're unified by one constitution and one rule of law, and then the values under our constitution. an aspiration. it's a challenge to us. the constitution shouldn't be some kind of fetish document. it should be the living commitment that we all have to make democracy work in service of the common good. that is the constitution that comes out of the civil war and reconstruction. that is the constitution that we've been fighting for since then. and we've got to keep fighting for it. crowd: trump! trump! trump! trump! trump! trump! trump! trump! trump! trump! (crowd applauding) chief justice roberts: please raise your right hand and repeat after me, i, donald john trump, do solemnly swear. president trump: i, donald john trump, do solemnly swear. man: who is free? crowd: no one is free. man: who is free? crowd: no one is free. president trump: to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states. so help me, god. chief justice roberts: congratulations, mr. president. man: yeah! ♪ (protesters chattering) ♪ (bomb exploding) (bomb exploding) man: fuck you, man. woman: wh

it's in the constitution, and they amend the constitution. the 14th amendment could not have been any clearer. it says all persons born or naturalized have due process and equal protection. what part of naturalized and equal don't people understand? so there's a supreme court case schneider v. russ where it says naturalized citizens cannot be second-class citizens. it's not a small thing. it's small to people who are not naturalized citizens. they think what's the big deal, you can't run for president. that's tiny. >> no, first of all, it's not true. that is deeply bothersome to begin with, but what we hear is you guys are really not americans. we are playing along with you, but you're second class, dirt, and you cannot lead us because we don't really trust you. you may hand us over the hopsburg dynasty. all of you who bled and died for the country, you're just second class. it's a discriminatory part of the constitution. there's a lot of discriminatory parts that were amended out, and specifically by the 14th amendment, and so we are going t

, he loved the constitution, he defend the constitution.id the constitution is not the problem. we need virtue and public office who follow the constitution and live with the constitution. there's a lot more on the book and i hope people check it out. >> there is a lot more of that in this fantastic book, the democratic party hates america. a little bit more on the other side. heat makes it last. feel the power of contrast therapy. ♪ so you can rise from pain. icy hot. there once was a tree lovingly made to look real. so real, something magical happened. it helped create very real memories. balsam hill. ♪ ♪ ♪ we have only got eight minute left it. i think the best way to end the discussion is the quote you have in the back of the book if i may read it. inevitably the democrat party infinite cultural economic and political interventions always in the name of the people in some virtuous and worthy cause lead to the steady decline of liberty and the steady rise of the people. fewer and fewer masterminds with an ever in ever-increasing armyf bu

because we will uphold our constitution. now it's up to congress to confront disagree just assault on our democracy. and after this we will walk down, and i will be there with you, we will walk down to the u.s. capitol and we are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we are probably not going to be cheering so much for a couple of them. because we will never take back our country with weakness, we have to shows -- show strength and we have to be strong. we will fight and fight like hell. if you don't fight like hell, you won't have a country anymore. it has not yet begun. for our children and for our beloved country. i say this, despite all that's happened, the best is yet to come. so, we are going to walk down pennsylvania avenue, i love pennsylvania, and we are going to the capitol, and we are going to try -- the democrats are hopeless, they never stand for anything. not even one vote. but we are going to try to give our republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don't need any of our

because he has sworn to uphold our constitution.t is up to congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. and after this we will walk down, and i'll be there with you, , we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down anyway what but i think right here we will walk down to the capital. [cheers and applause] and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we will probably have to be cheering so much for -- [inaudible] because we will never take back our country with weakness. you had to show strength and you have to be strong. i said something is wrong here. fight. fight like hell. if you don't fight like hell you will not have a country anymore. [inaudible] -- have not yet begun. my fellow americans, for our children and for our beloved country, and they say this despite all that happened, the best is yet to come. [cheers and applause] so we're going to call we are going to walk down pennsylvania avenue. i love pennsylvania avenue. we are going to the capital, and we're going to try an

of the constitution.e of law democrats, rule of law conservatives, rule of law libertarians, we should all embrace substantive canons in the enforcement of the constitution. why do we insist that's neutral textualism. there is no rule of law with neutrality. we need some commitments. it's important to recognize this is not a bad thing to recognize. i could say more about why there is a reasonable argument for the nondelegation doctrine but i will see if it comes back to that. let me leave it at that. two words. mike ramsey at the university of san francisco, the same workshop, a very interesting argument for the major question doctrine rather than the nondelegation doctrine. is point, he's extending the target. he observed in scalia's jurisprudence, a case called whitman around 2000, a nondelegation case recognizing a nondelegation doctrine but not enforcing it. mike ramsey says not in that case but scalia said the nondelegation doctrine is so hard to delineate what the boundaries are that it should be un