then, in 1962, walter heller saw his chance. economy sputtered in '62 and i pushed hard for a tax cut. the treasury resisted a big tax cut. i wanted a down payment in '62 to make sure we didn't fall into a recession and go ahead in '63. he didn't buy that. in '62, he bought the idea of an across-the-boards tax cut. every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create new jobs and new salaries. these can create other jobs and salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding american economy. although kennedy agreed with him, heller had galbraith to contend with. every now and then his shadow would fall across the white house when he'd come home to report from india. the president would say, "galbraith's been lobbying against your tax cut." i had access to the president and expressed myself with some vigor that if we passed tax cuts they would become too popular with conservatives and they would be taken up by conservatives at the cost to the expenditures that were needed on behalf of needy pe

>> guest: the heller decision is being appealed. i think i was pleased to see last year through the course of my series coming out the city council moved to make the registration process a little less difficult. i counted 11 steps. it's not 17. it's 11 and obviously the leverage i had in writing the series and scaring them is this pending case. they don't want it to get back to the supreme court and get it knocked down again. it's a very d.c. centric issue. they want to be a state and they know the republicans and the congress are not going to allow either of those things while they have these unconstitutional firearms laws existing. that is why they have moved to change to the laws. >> host: your series in "the washington times" which was also called "emily gets her gun"? the laws that you describe and the absurdities that they result in our similar to those in effect in new york city and chicago. not in very many other places. when you say that you saw president obama tried to get similar laws passed around the country and perhaps

we still have the heller majority but until you guys make a decision, places like d.c. aren't going to do this area and i also say i didn't say it then to him that all for this country all five of these states that have gun control this year are facing lawsuits. new york, connecticut, colorado and they are all going to wind up to the supreme court because of limiting what you can carry has not been decided yet by the court so those are two things that i just am very hopeful what happens while the majority is still a program majority. and i just ask mr. sculley had if he was taking care of himself, if he was exercising regularly. and then shannon planted to his -- he said he was and then she pointed to his tuxedo pocket where he had a cigar and she was like what is this? he said only on special occasions. and fire was like mr. justice, we need you healthy. [laughter] >> host: to get to the point where we can talk with each other across the divide that divides people that support for gun rights and who support gun control, to get them to talk to each other about things th

we still have the heller majority. until you guys made a decision, places like d.c. aren't going to do this. all five of these states that have gun control this era are all facing lawsuit. new york, connecticut, colorado. limiting what you can carry has not been decided yet by a court. those are two things i am very hopeful happens while the majority is still approved. i just asked justice scalia if he was taking care of himself, if he was exercising regularly. and then he said he was. and then she pointed to his text in a pocket, where you have a cigar. he said only on special occasions. and i was like so just us, we need you healthy. postcode to get to the point where we can talk with each other across the divide that divides people who support gun rights and support gun control, to get them to talk to each other about things we could agree on that might make it safer, takes i think a recognition by each side. the justice and end up for the politics or political advantage. but when you react to a new town by saying there must be something we can do that have a lot

can you tell us sort of the story of how the heller case came into being? >> guest: well, the gun control orkin rights litigation is an illustration of sort of the orchestration of constitutional litigation over a quite long. so it was 20 years ago worst may be when legal academics partially support, financial support from the national rifle association, but partially for their own interests, examining the background of the and develop an approach amendment that was quite favorable to the idea of gun rights, the gun owners had an individual right to possess their weapons. so you have this body of thought is available to support litigation. one indication of this in 1986 i think it is, 76 and early 80s, both justice berg and robert ward discuss their skeptical views about the argument that control is unconstitutional and both of them were at the time quite conservative. but it developed afterwards and conservative jurisprudence on this issue shift. and then there's a series that's a very complicated story, which i don't want to get into here, but read it in

so we heller is the novelist best known by her novel the believer in notes of the scandal and adam is a columnist for tablets magazine and a senior editor at new republic as well as a published poet also we have a film critic and the founding editor of jezebel that is a popular web site. >> host: that is a nice selection. one of the things you mentioned is the of book world may be small. is it? >> guest: i think it can and feel that way especially if you are in it may be from the outside it may seem like it is the impenetrable force that doesn't lead in outsiders but i want to open that up. people continue to reap in the same numbers they always did well the number of book reviews has gone down i think people crave stories it doesn't matter on their phone or they take a book out from the library is a conversation people want to have what is good in what is worth their time. >> host: what about nonfiction books? >> here in our first issue we have a new nonfiction with reviews by a block called the unsinkable our readers look at nonfiction as well as fiction i read more non-fiction than

walter heller chaired kennedy's council of economic advisors. kennedy was our first keynesian president. it isn't that others hadn't done some keynesian things, but kennedy did it in an avowed and perceptive way. he was very cautious at first. he finally saw a more liberal approach was needed to stimulate the economy. it took the form of a massive tax cut proposed in i962. this net reduction in tax liabilities of $10 billion will increase the purchasing power of american families and business enterprises in every tax bracket. but john f. kennedy didn't live to see his programs enacted. instead, on that fateful november day, lyndon baines johnson was sworn in as the 36th president of the united states. johnson pursued kennedy's economic proposals and pushed the tax plan through congress. how well did it work? perfectly. business week, which isn't exactly a liberal pro-kennedy publication, said it probably was the most successful tax cut in history. it came out of the textbooks. it went back into the textbooks as the fiscal measure that came close

zoe heller is in the first issue, and she's paired with adam kirsch. zoe heller is, of course, a novelist perhaps best known by her recent novels, "the believers." adam kirsch is a columnist for tablet magazine, an online publication, and a senior editor at the new republic as well as a published poet. we also have in coming weeks dana stevens who's a film clinic from slate, ann a holmes, the founding editor of jezebel, part of the gawker media group. let's see, jennifer sly is another columnist and francine prose who has written more than 20 books, fiction and nonfiction. >> host: that's a nice selection. we appreciate your naming some of those. pamela paul, one of the things you mentioned is that the book world is or may be small. is the book world small and insular? >> guest: well, you know, i think it can feel that way, especially be you're in it -- if you're in it. from the outside it might seem like it's this huge, inpenetrable force that doesn't let outsiders in, but what i really want to do is open that up. i think that people continue to read

zoe heller is in the first edition paired up with allen hirsh. zoe heller as a novelist known by her recent novel "the believer" and the scandal that turned into a film. album is from a magazine and online publication and senior editor at the new republic as well as a published poet. we also have in the coming weeks dana stevens is a critic from slate and part of the media gawker group. jennifer is another columnist and france team has written more than 20 books. both fiction and nonfiction. >> that's a nice selection. we appreciate your naming some of those. one of the things you mentioned is the book world is or may be small. is the book world small and insular? >> i think it can feel that way. especially if you are in it from coming outside it might seem like it is a huge in punishable force that doesn't let outsiders in. but what i want to do is open that up. i think that people continue to read in the same numbers that they always did. while the number of book reviews and newspapers in general have gone down i think people crave stories and

this is kate lynn heller. >> oh, my goodness. >> a move so hot that she unfortunately fell. she made this video for her boyfriend, my goodness. i'm veronica de la cruz. this is "first look." >> her boyfriend. >> "way too early" starts right now. >> play action and a screen pass that is almost intercepted. ware is there and he gets it. he does pick it off. >> the giants, on the ground -- >> taken down by hayden and it's church going to the end zone. it goes and it's intercepted off scott's hand. carr running the gap. touchdown, dallas. >> in a wild and somewhat strange unless you're a giants fan entertaining game, the giants prevail. >> the giants give one away to cap off a wild first sunday in the nfl. we'll have the high and low light as head in sports. >>> good gossip is expensive and it's about to get more so for one particular publication. for me there's no difference. i get it all in the dentist's waiting room. but on a more serious note as all hands on deck for president obama as he tries to sell the importance of a strike on syria to the american public. this is "way

but can you explain what that is and how it came into play in this heller case? >> there is an interesting place from my point of view, intellectual history about this. it was first proposed as a counter to a lower court liberalism. it was a method that was going to have content that would be non-warranted. so originalists who originally began by criticizing a lower court. something about the original part of the constitution. it started out as intention. what the framers of the constitution intended. it turns out that that is a very difficult position for a variety of reasons. ritualism became informed by trying to make it better. this is not a criticism of the position. they confronted challenges and they thought about how to address the challenge. and they teamed up with a current version, which is as you say, original public meaning, which comes in various flavors, but the core idea is there our words written in the document. try to figure out what a reasonably sane person in 1791 would have thought those awards man. what they would have understood the words

it's caitlin heller of kansas city, doing a twerking hand stand, and suddenly catching on fire., though, was it real? >> girl on fire. >> the girl in this video, was trying to make a sexy twerk video for her boyfriend. >> reporter: did this woman really accidentally set herself aflame, twerking? talk shows everywhere wanted to interview her to find out what happened. and lo and behold, last night, jimmy kimmel said he scored an interview with caitlin heller. >> i think most people wondered why the video stopped so suddenly. >> it got a little intense. i do have the rest of the footage. >> i think it would be better if we do this together, actually. excuse me for one second. >> sure. >> all right. how are you doing? should we show the director's cut? >> i think it's time. >> i think it's time, too. let's roll that. >> oh, my gosh. [ screams ] >> thanks, jimmy kimmel. >> all part of the job, ma'am. we shot that video two months ago. we posted it on youtube. >> my name is daphne avalon, and i am a stuntwoman. >> reporter: it was jimmy and his team who made the video. proving how a

heller, yes. >> if you mean enforcement by there will be no in ourment on these laws county. [applause] >> let's not mistake a sheriff's work as a doing any success. that is just how they do it in well county. >> why don't you come up and john?, my deputy is waiting for you. but since i made that statement, with the 23 me out edicts that i was not going to help the federal government the state m and when passed the laws i said i'm not going to enforce them i put out procedure so if any deputy charged somebody with disciplined ld be and maybe terminated. e also did a training -- >> [applause] >> we also did some training for everybody in the agency to say why these laws are unenfirst elieve and unconstitutional so every deputy knows that they are not to enforce it. and i have to admit every single of my deputies that i know of that have had the guts to talk to me about it agree with me. now i kaepcan't guarantee in de the enforcement rules are. >> big question. in the history of machine governments have killed more so we than anybody else are talking small ball. the big discus

can you tell us the story of how the heller case came into being? >> guest: the gun control or the gun rights litigation is an illustration of sort of the orchestration of constitutional litigation over a quite long period. in some sense 20 years ago maybe when legal academics partially with support -- financial support from the national rifle association but partially for their own interest and started examining the background of this amendment and developed an approach to the second amendment that was quite favorable to the idea of gun rights come to that gun owners had an individual right to possess their weapons. you have this now body of thought to support litigation. one indication of this in 1986, 76 and early 80s both chief justice burger and robert -- expressed skeptical views about the argument that gun control is unconstitutional and both of them are at the time quite conservative. this body develops afterwards and serves jurisprudence on this issue. and then there is a series -- and it's a complicated story with i don't want to get into

billy heller is a novelist.est known by her recent novels, the believers, notes from a scandal which was turned into a film. adam cursed is a columnist for an online publication and a senior editor at the new republic as well as a published poet. we also have in coming weeks a film critic from slate, the founding editor of jezebel, a very popular website, part of the media group. jennifer is another columnist. francine has written more than 20. >> that is an nice selection. one of the things that you mentioned is that the book world this war may be small. is the book world small and insular? >> i think it can feel that way, especially if you are it from the outside. it might seem like it is a huge, and penetrable force. what i want to do is open that up. continue reading the same number as they always did i think people create stories, and it does not matter where they read on the phone or take the book got from the library. this is a conversation where people still want to have it and no what they can read, wha

the washington policymakers and economists led by academic neo-keynesians paul samuelson and walter heller, suggested that a little inflation induced by managed currency -- say 2 or 3% -- was controllable and desirable. at the end of the 1970s, inflation had reached the annualized rate of 15%. now, since the u.s. dollar was the primary reserve currency under the bretton woods treaty, foreign central banks were, in effect, required to purchase the undesired dollars in their banking systems against the creation of their own domestic money. foreign central banks held these dollars as official reserves. they didn't bury them in vault as. they promptly reinvested these dollars in the new york money market, thus enabling americans to buy again with the original cash balances used before to buy the goods abroad. in a word, this duplication of purchasing power under the reserve current is si system of bretton woods, unassociated with the production of few output, caused aggregate demand to exceed aggregate supply. inflation must be the ultimate result. this, in a word, is what my colleague john mu

joining us with insight, is two former federal reserve governorers, robert heller. >> and, again, wewith the taper, mark. a lot of conventional wisdom keeps toing around the $10 billion, $15 billion number. does it make sense to you? >> it makes sense to me. the important thing is we're going to actually fix the -- have something certain on the taper and the fact that there is a taper. i think that the markets are looking for a date certain, while i think the members of the fomc are more focused on the economy and they'll let that be the judge. the number sounds about right. >> robert, is it the economy or is financial stability becoming more important? and i ask that, because a couple of facts just this morning, bob pisani pointing out we haven't had a correction all year, stocks never dipped below the year-end level. we haven't had a 10% correction in almost two years. do you think that's entering into the calculus here? >> well, i think the fed has to be very careful that they're not creating a bubble economy. and they've got to be mindful, also, of early next year when the fed bo

the supreme court has said in the heller case that what you can't ban, the arms clearly protected by the second amendment, are those which are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. in our case, we don't get into the theory of a hundred round magazine or something like that, things that don't really work very well, and then are rarely owned by people other than a novelty item. what we say is clearly unconstitutional is the magazines which are indisputably typically owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, which for handguns is magazines up to 20 and rifles is magazines up to 30. that's all we bring up in this case because that's enough to say that a ban on 15 is unconstitutional, categorically unconstitutional under the supreme court's precedent in district of columbia versus heller. one of the -- what you can -- just by observation, people you know, all around, talk to gun owners, lots and lots of them own standard capacity magazines. not because they want to kill a lot of people at once because they own them for good purposes of lawful self-defen

said ineme court has the heller case that what you areot ban are those which typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes. toour case, we do not get in the theory of 100 round magazine. these things that are rarely on people except as a novelty item. what we say is unconstitutional is those magazines which are indisputably owned by law- abiding citizens for lawful purposes. for handguns, it is magazines up to 20. for raffles, it is magazines up to 30. that is enough to say that a ban on 15 is necessary -- is unconstitutional under the supreme court's precedent in heller. observation, the people you know around, lots and lots of them own the standard capacity magazines. not because they want to kill a lot of people at once, because they on them for good purposes of lawful self-defense and recreational shooting. they are commonly possessed by sheriff's and deputies. , ory handguns, a glock smith & wesson the may have a 19 round magazine. and in patrol cars of almost every lawn forced organization, you'll find a rifle with several 20-30 round magazines. though share of c

i thought heller clinton was out of politics. stuck out clinton was of politics.y second point is international losses says that we cannot go to another country and try to take up ahead of that state, that is breaking international law. we don't have a friend in the world to go with us. we would go by ourselves and start a war. we are starting a war. that's what we are doing. the democratic people better get this on their brain. i don't think they know what they are talking about. i want you to hold them up on that right there. some of the president, some of them don't. -- some of them back the president, some of them don't. why would they not back the first black resident in office? -- first black president in office? here's my question to the president, how can i trust you -- said that food women to lie like a dog. host: he brings up a few points. political -- according to politico hillary clinton will make her first public remarks about syria -- we want to point you back to our c-span facebook page, where we have that whole that is ongoing. syria andupporting c

of the problems with this is the role that the bill of rights might play or -- we know as of the heller decision the supreme court has held the right to keep and bear arms is a protected individual rights or of rats that will constrain the treaty -- the exercise of the treaty power. with this case raises and infected is settled law that the bill of rights or the rights enumerated in a constitution does constrain the treaty power. it does constrain the ability of congress to make laws to execute treaty. they cannot make laws to execute a treaty that protects the bill of rights of that has been established. now the question presented by this case is there is a comparable restriction on the ability of congress to regulate activities that would violate what we might call the structural principles of federalism? in this case the principle the kind of offense that took place here which was engaging in this awful behavior in which resulted in your good friend and neighbor from getting burned is actually the kind of offense that is not something that is within congress's power to breach. it is

specifically guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, because the supreme court in a case called heller treaty cannot apply. >> steve: if it were just an everyday law like obamacare, when you put those kind of laws together, a law passed by congress, whereas something in the constitution, that's -- >> theoretically, the constitution should trump anything that is inconsistentents with it. we know that doesn't happen because of obamacare. >> brian: right. >> absolutely inconsistent with the constitution and they found some crazy never used before nonsense about it's a tax, therefore it's lawful. so if the government doesn't like pink dresses, it can tax them. you can't wear them -- you could always afford them no matter what the tax is, but you know what i mean. >> elisabeth: domestically this has a bunch of people riled up. what would be the next step here? >> the president would need to refer it to the senate and in my view and the view of those of us who watch this stuff for a living, it will never even get out of a committee. not only would the senate not ratify it, then won't even be

senators enzi and heller, johnson, many others. i know i'm missing several. there are several house members led by congressman ron desantos of florida working on identical house language, they are hard at work particularly in the context of the c.r.. the bottom line is this, there should be no special washington exemption from obamacare. all laws that we pass should apply to us every bit as much as other americans. and certainly we, as is the clear language and is the clear intent, should live under that fall-back plan of the exchanges just like every other american does. and no other american gets this special subsidy that the o.p.m. rule gives to us. folks in this class under my amendment and bill would be able to qualify for a subsidy if it's the same subsidy that's available to other americans, according to income category. so if you qualify by income, fine. but this is way beyond that. this is a special deal, a special exemption for congress, and we need to say there should be no washington exemption. this bill, this amendment does that clearly and categ

in the heller case in 2008, in a 5-4 decision, the supreme court held that the second amendment guaranteesthe right of law- abiding, responsible individuals to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. that was the extent of its ruling. the court made very clear that the second amendment is not absolute and that it is consistent with a wide variety of gun laws. the bad news is that that written, a poorly decision, open the floodgates to litigation around the world -- fortunately, the rest of the world does not have the second amendment -- around the country challenging our nation's gun laws. the good news is that those challenges have been unsuccessful. we reviewed over 700 decisions, and the courts have consistently upheld our nation's gun laws, including those restricting the carrying of concealed weapons in public. the bottom line is that the second amendment does not have anything to do with stand your or anyshoot first laws laws that do not prevent a law- abiding person from possessing a handgun in the home for self- defense. strong gun laws are constitutional. they simply requi

with many colleagues in the senate and i want to thank all of my cosponsors, senator enzi, senator heller, senator -- several others -- excuse me, i'm forgetting the entire list -- and members of the house who have identical legislation and identical language. they're led by congressman ron desantos of florida. ron john is another colleague i was trying to think of business who's a leading coauthor. i want to thank of them for leading this fight. and our language does two simple things. first of all, it negates this illegal obama administration rule. that's a special exemption, a special bailout for congress against the clear language and intent of obamacare. secondly, it broadens that rule and also applies it to the president and the vice president and all of their political appointees. that is the no washington exemption language. that is vitter amendment here in the senate, with many other cosponsors. that is the desantos amendment in the house with many house cosponsors. and i urge all of my colleagues to come together around that commonsense, fair language which again simply ensures

heller: i rise today to speak in favor of the vitter amendment to the energy efficiency bill but beforemy remarks i want to first recognize the horrific events that occurred yesterday just a little over a mile from here. yesterday's tragic and senseless shooting devastated families and changed lives forever. we continue to hold the victims and their loved ones in our thoughts, and we're deeply appreciative of law enforcement and first responders who helped save lives and to prevent further violence. mr. president, senator vitter's amendment to the energy efficient bill addresses a serious concern that i along with many of my constituents have expressed about obamacare. specifically, this amendment seeks to eliminate special washington, d.c. exemptions in the current law. it requires congressional staff, including the committee and leadership staff, as well as the president and the vice president and all political appointees in the administration to participate in the same exchanges that obamacare forces on everyday americans. i've cosponsored this amendment with some of my colleagues, i

introduced by my friend, senator kay hagan from north carolina, and supported by myself and senator dean heller so we're training the next generation of employees to have 9 skills that employers need. -- to have the skills that employers need. we should finish our work on a five-year bipartisan farm bill that the president can sign into law. american farmers deserve that certainty. we should also cut red tape to encourage private investment in infrastructure. i'm working with senators portman and mccaskill on a bill that would cut red tape to improve the permitting process for big infrastructure projects, helping private industry create jobs in indiana, in ohio, mr. president, and across the country. fights to and possibly beyond the brink about whether or not to have the government up and running and whether or not to pay the government's bills, our bills, in a timely fashion has a devastating effect on confidence and on our still recovering economy. when, however, we do the responsible thing? when we actually do our jobs, we can help the economy and we can help our constituents, and just mayb

in the heller case in 2008 and in a very narrow decision, the supreme court held that the second amendment guarantees the right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. it was the extent of the ruling. the court made it very clear the second amendment is not absolute and that it's consistent with a wide variety of the gun law. the bad news is that a decision which was a poorly written decision opened the floodgates for litigation of of the world. fortunately the rest of the world doesn't have the second amendment. they're not country challenging the gun law. those challenges have been overwhelmingly on successful. we have reviewed over 700 decisions and the courts have consistently upheld the nation's gun laws including restricting the carrying of concealed weapons in public. the bottom line is the second amendment doesn't have anything to do with stand your ground or should first laws or any other laws that don't provide a law-abiding person from protecting for self-defense. the gun laws were unconstitutional. they simply require political will. the idea that the nra is just a m

we know as of the heller decision, that the right to keep and bear arms is a protected an individual right. so that could constrain the treaty power. it is settled law that the bill of rights and the constitution does constrain the treaty power and it constrains the ability of congress to make laws to execute a treaty and they cannot make laws to execute a treaty that protects individual rights. that has been established. and now the question presented by this case is, is there a comparable restriction on the congress to regulate activities that would violate what we might call the structural principles of federalism. the kinds of them that took place here which resulted in your good friend and neighbor's thumb getting burned, it is actually the kind of offense that is not something within the power to reach. it is historically within the state's power to reach and the question is, can congress have a broader power to reach this activity that wouldn't normally have because the senate has ratified the treaty that the president has entered into. so that is really the issue. let me just