we are not asking this court to overturn the fisk. we are not asking this court to said aside the verizon order. we're asking for an injunction against continued collection by the government. that could be put in place without saying anything to the fisk at all, only with an instruction to the government. that's what our challenge is. for that reason, it's understood as a challenge under the apa. even if that were not true, even if you characterize our challenge as one to a fisk order, i don't think that would change matters. the government itself filed -- it was challenging the verizon order said the appropriate avenue for relief was a district court case such as the one we are in appeal on. but that was the appropriate avenue. the government noted that it's true that a district court action may not achieve the same relief as was being sought in that case, vacating the fisk order, but the plaintiffs would be entitled to receive an adequate remedy, namely an injunction against ongoing and illegal agency conduct. >> what happens, now t

and i did not return to fisk. i will say this, i feel extraordinarily fortunate to have had two experiences, the historically black university, and yes, the predominantly small white college -- the predominantly white college that is a small liberal arts college. i would say that between the two institutions, i got myself a mighty good education. >> why anthropology? why northwestern? >> why anthropology? >> and what is it? >> that is easy. anthropology is the study of the human condition. but because i am a public intellectual, because i am a certain kind of anthropologist, i have to add that it is the study of the human condition in the interest of both understanding and helping to improve that condition. so, here i am at oberlin college, i know exactly what i will major in. since i was knee high to a duck, i have said it. you know how folk always as kids, what are you going to be when you grow up? as if a little kid knows. but i knew enough to say, i will be a baby doctor, because i could get a good response. s

the day after fisk released it, the national intelligence, there could not be a majority in the house that would vote for such a bill. if there were, quote, we well know there will always be one-third of congress firm enough to support the excessive tiff in refusing his signature to allow fraud in such dangerous circumstances, unquote. three days later the editors reported they had received many communications from the public regarding removal but would only print two of these until congress finished the debate. the first of these signed "justice" focused on the his and location -- the history of the location and development of washingt washington. the second had been handed three weeks earlier. but a lack of space and disbelief congress would discuss the subject as well as thinking premature prevented article's insertion at the time. the author laid out several reasons, good, mad, removal of the federal seat of government from potomac. the father of the country had chosen the location. contracts had been made with states and individuals, the binding force of which were guaranteed by

even if that were not true, even if you characterize our challenge as one to a fisk order, i don't think that would change orders. the government itself filed -- it was challenging the verizon order said the appropriate avenue for relief was a district court case such as up withe one are in appeal on. the government noted that it's true that a district court action may not achieve the same relief as whack being sought in that case, vacating the fisk order, but the plaintiffs would be entitled to receive an adequate remedy, namely an injunction against ongoing and illegal agency conduct. >> what happens, now that the mention that, what happens if -- there are now district courts at least two district courts which have come to opposite conclusions within a week and a half of each other on the issues before us. and they did it on the constitutional basis. supposing we were to affirm and the district court -- the d.c. circuit were to affirm. so you are have one circuit that says it's unconstitutional. here is an injunction. another one says, oh, no it's perfectly constitutional and we are no

even if that were not true, even if you characterize our challenge as one to a fisk order, i don't think that would change orders. the government itself filed -- it was challenging the verizon order said the appropriate avenue for relief was a district court case such as up withe one are in appeal on. the government noted that it's true that a district court action may not achieve the same relief as whack being sought in that case, vacating the fisk order, but the plaintiffs would be entitled to receive an adequate remedy, namely an injunction against ongoing and illegal agency conduct. >> what happens, now that the mention that, what happens if -- there are now district courts at least two district courts which have come to opposite conclusions within a week and a half of each other on the issues before us. and they did it on the constitutional basis. supposing we were to affirm and the district court -- the d.c. circuit were to affirm. so you are have one circuit that says it's unconstitutional. here is an injunction. another one says, oh, no it's perfectly constitutional and we are no

and check him out he looks like carlton fisk making sure that ball stays fair down the line.8th inning. big problems for the giants. and colton wong looked like he had the save. they wind up getting out of the inning. that brought us to the bottom of the 9th inning and the first walk off postseason home run for the giants since dusty rhodes in the 1954 world series. giants win it 6-3. they are going to the world series against the kansas city royals. i'm joined with scott reiss. veteran move. i sent him in and i stayed out here. >> i left the jacket so i would look good for tv. >> these celebrations never get old. >> the amazing thing about this group is they play on the field like they've been here. the difference is hunter pence is usually the one holding court. today instead of holding court he called on ishikawa. and ishi started the chant we're going to the championship. i got to talk to ishi and asked him is there really magic in this team? >> i don't know if it's magic or every single guy buy spwaos the never quit, -- buys into the never quit, never say die attitude. >

secession -- private wilbur fisk wrote home, "when we reflect that we are standing on the outer verge of all that is left of the american union and nothing but rebellion is beyond and that we are guarding our own homes from treasons usurpations, we feel a thrill of pride that we are permitted to bear a part in maintaining our government." by 1864, the emancipation proclamation had been released for a year. democrats hoped it would shore up anti-lincoln sentiment. but soldier letters and diaries indicated that this was not the case. black soldiers serving had made many soldiers believe that things could be shared. a soldier wrote that a discussion took place over the campfire about the race question. they took a straw poll and indicated the battery approved old abe 75 to 0. after the election jones noted, "thank god that the sin of slavery will be no more. i can bear all the deprivations of a soldier's life." lincoln took nothing for granted. he was concerned about troop morale. it was at this point he wrote the blind memorandum. the blind memorandum, by the way, was not taken out of t

to have long traditionally been held for decades as not protected by the fourth amendment, and owen fisk a few years ago wrote an interesting article where he tried to give a defense of this doctrine, and this is a doctrine more about consent than it is a doctrine about anything else and we ought not treat it as a reasonable expectation of privacy but more the concept is that when you take information and you put it outside yourself to a third party, we legitimately draw the lines to give you less fourth amendment protection. his other argument which is interesting is that the third-party rule has a vantage of not being a technologically driven rule, that is you ought to completely change it every time the technology changes. we have various ways we communicate that changes so his argument is that the rule is technology agnostic. it's an article well worth reading. so, where are we headed? i think we're headed for clearly there sees some discomfort on the supreme court by the third of-party rule, and i think in its present form it will likely see some change, and i don't think it will be

he would go to the campus of fisk university, or he would go to the campus of tennessee state where many of his friends were. so, you know, you mentioned the fact that he experienced a lot of difficulty at the university of mississippi, but all of my ut fans, he experienced a lot of difficulty at the university of tennessee. you know, tennessee is not exempt from the racism that he did experience. so when he looks back on his career and, you know, we all knew that perry would probably leave nashville is. i remember when the story came out, and i thought gee, perry, you really did tell truth. because a lot of us knew what he was facing. and i was glad, you know, potentially to see that he did tell the truth. because if you've ever been that pioneer, that only one, it's a difficult role -- row to hoe. and i could see where it would with cathartic. i'm a civil rights historian, and i talk to many people who participated in the movement in some way, shape, form or fashion whether you were talking about in sports, whether you were the first in a particular office, whatever your thirst might h