this would be a shock to thomas jefferson, james madison and to our founders. who never concede the federal government would be so big that it would not be just as big as that would be incredibly much bigger than the collective states and cities that originally the federal government was to serve. but that's what we have come. and so my title in his particular view is that the further you drew from shore, the more likely or to be lost at sea. the premise is to me again, a common sense simple principle, that if i govern my own family, i can do that because i know my children. my wife and i have three children, they're all grown. every 30 for your son, 30 year old son and a 28 year-old daughter, two of those children are married. and for some reason, and i don't think it was intended, but we ended up once the kids all got grown and moved away, we ended up with three dogs so we did have three kids, now we have three dogs. the kids think that the dogs have replaced them. they also believe we treat the dogs better than we ever treated them. i simply tell them that t

have standing armies during time of peace thomas jefferson in seven hundred eighty seven when james madison his protege the father of the constitution the united states constitution and seven hundred eighty seven when the u.s. constitution was written madison mailed it jefferson was in france at the time he was the u.s. envoy to france and mailed it to his his mentor promise jefferson said what do you think you know what he thought and jefferson in a long list of well i like this in this in this and then he said and now i'll tell you what i do not like it here it is i'll tell you what i don't like first the omission of the bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sop ism for freedom of religion freedom of the press protection against standing armies restriction of monopolies jefferson although we didn't get the restriction monopolies just look around you of corporate america and he didn't get the elimination of standing armies but he threatened he got everything else he got the bill of rights in fact he threatened explicitly james madison and numerous others dozens of letters

alexander hamilton and james madison, famously disagreed about the meaning of general welfare. d the limits to congress' spending. madison wanted the clause to be very narrowly interpreted and hamilton wanted a bit broader interpretation. now alexander hamilton would walk into these doors of the u.s. house today, he would be absolutely shocked and chagrined at how much liberty we've lost because he never, as a federalist, envisioned the size and scope of government today. i think if you knew what was -- if he knew what was going on today a little over 200 years since the constitution was passed, ratified, he'd be arguing, just like i am today, yet founders, as pthalater laid out in the federalist papers, neither madison nor hamilton would have agreed with the modern day view that there are no limitations whatsoever on congress' power to spend and that general welfare means whatever congress, the president, and the courts says that it means. even those federalists would not agree that we have an open invitation to have whatever kind of government that we want to have. today, no p

you know, i served with james madison a long time ago.hter] he said that our government is by the consent of the governed. [applause] the second thing i hope that president obama remembers is that he talked about america's exceptional as some -- exceptionalism. there was a french nobleman who came over here in the 1830's to study america by the name of the tokyo -- de tocqueville. i will not accept anything less from obama then that america is an exceptional nation. we have a senator guest with us tonight. rand paul, give a great iowa welcome to rand paul. [applause] dynamite, out of sight ♪ [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. i am smiling because i am thinking of election night. my sons were on stage playing ac/dc for me. that was very exciting. thank you, senator grassley. those were very kind words. maybe half of what he said about me was true. one thing you will know within five minutes of meeting senator grassley is that he cares about the people of ottawa. there is nothing false or disingenuous about senator grassley. he c

james madison, -- i remember two things about him. i served with him a long time ago. [laughter] he said, our government is by consent of the governed. [applause] the second thing that i hope president obama remembers is he talked about america's exceptional some, see? in the first paper, the federalists, they talked about american exception allows them. you know, they say french nobleman came over here to study america, by the name of the total, and he talked about american exceptional listen. so i will not accept anything less that america is an exceptional nation. and we have a senator guest with us, rand paul. would you give him a great i will welcome -- to rand paul? [applause] ♪ "tnt" [applause] >> thank you very much. i am smiling because i am thinking of election night, and my son duncan and robert were on stage playing ac/dc for me. that was exciting. thank you, senator grassley. those were kind words. at least half of what he said might have been true. the one thing you will know within five minutes of meeting senator grassley is that he cares about iowa and

as i say, he has a clear idea of the path that james madison set us on i served with him all long time ago. [laughter] he said our government is by consent of the governed. [cheers and applause] and the second been that i hope president obama remembers is that he talked about the american exceptionalism. in the first paper of the federalist papers, and it was a frenchman who came over here who talked about that, and his name was de tocqueville we have a senator guest with us this evening, and if you could give him a great iowa welcome to rand paul. ♪ >> my song -- my son robert was playing. that was really exciting. the one thing you will know within five minutes of senator grassley is that he cares about iowa, and there is nothing false or disingenuous about senator grassley. you are very lucky. and the other senator, are you about to say anything about him? there is sort of a debate, and i try to say, "you know what? we could buy a lot more if we did not have to pay scale wages in iowa or kentucky." i do not think i got anywhere. so when i got to iowa, the governor was very nice, and

convention and didn't get his way he outlined these rights in a letter to his protege and best friend james madison a letter expressing his disapproval with the constitution in its first draft form and seven hundred eighty seven because it didn't include a bill of rights jefferson wrote i will now tell you what i don't like first the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly for freedom of religion freedom of the press protection against standing armies restriction of monopolies and the eternal and unremitting force of famous corpus laws and trials by jury ultimately a few years later jefferson would be successful in lobbying for these rights and a bill of rights would be added to the constitution and ultimately ratified in seven hundred ninety one although two of jefferson's concerns were left out of it protection against standing armies there was a fragment a remnant left over we call that the second amendment which originally banned standing armies during time of peace and the restriction of monopolies the federalist party which is comprised of people like treasury secretary alexander hamil

negotiation although president enter jackson as well as former president and father of the constitution james madison both weighed in that know what occasion was illegal. but today mostly in response to president obama's health reform law republican governors senators and representatives have been call it calling for the law to be struck down on the state level they argue that they have grounds to do this based on the tenth amendment which reads the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people in other words since providing health care isn't explicitly in the constitution republican governors feel they can ignore the law was that was the same thinking that led to the south seceding from a nation when it didn't like the laws the federal government was passing with regard to slavery and sure enough republican representatives zach wamp of tennessee recently hinted that secession may be the best option for those opposed to hope obama care and governor of texas rick perry said this back in two thou

it's called the power the james madison federal paper number 47. if all men [inaudible] no government would be possible to read our system is designed as a way of regulating competing interests federalists can putting the ambition against the ambition because that is, according to the founders, the safest way to prevent anybody from achieving absolute power which to quote the acting corrupt absolutely. that principle is sound and how we apply it to the specific circumstances of the 21st century and reasonable people and continue to disagree about that. suggested a different perspectives. [inaudible] >> i'm not hearing the part of the conversation. >> thank you. >> they're always going to be a conversation about the ego. >> we have three guys with pretty big egos of here. [laughter] >> how are we managing -- >> that is a corporation -- >> the federal government has allowed it. >> the states as well. you're right. the corporations are an american. >> my question is particularly -- >> can you speak up just a little bit? >> my question is for the profe

founding fathers practiced by george washington the first president thomas jefferson third president james madison father of the constitution it is a concoction that is totally and completely hollow and with regard to your statement about war the secretary of defense mr gates said in congressional testimony well of course if someone threw a tomahawk missile at new york city we're at war and there was as well that are we at war if we do the same at libya and he said yes of course we are who are not so i can't believe that anyone would still try to deny it but let's go back to your thinking about the carnage the founding farmers here writes of our first president let's go back to more recent history you also said that perhaps obama has been more bold than any other take away which is that of course let's look at perhaps clinton what about clinton and what we did in bosnia and kosovo to get in those cases there's no doubt that in my view they were flagrantly unconstitutional wars in fact it was a god to bosnia clinton ask congress for declaration he couldn't get it you've been bombed anyway and i wou

it's called the power the james madison federal paper number 47. if all men [inaudible] no government would be possible to read our system is designed as a way of regulating competing interests federalists can putting the ambition against the ambition because that is, according to the founders, the safest way to prevent anybody from achieving absolute power which to quote the acting corrupt absolutely. that principle is sound and how we apply it to the specific circumstances of the 21st century and reasonable people and continue to disagree about that. suggested a different perspectives. [inaudible] >> i'm not hearing the part of the conversation. >> thank you. >> they're always going to be a conversation about the ego. >> we have three guys with pretty big egos of here. [laughter] >> how are we managing -- >> that is a corporation -- >> the federal government has allowed it. >> the states as well. you're right. the corporations are an american. >> my question i particularly -- >> can you speak up just a little bit? >> my question is for the profes

it's called the power the james madison federal paper number 47. if all men [inaudible] no government would be possible to read our system is designed as a way of regulating competing interests federalists can putting the ambition against the ambition because that is, according to the founders, the safest way to prevent anybody from achieving absolute power which to quote the acting corrupt absolutely. that principle is sound and how we apply it to the specific circumstances of the 21st century and reasonable people and continue to disagree about that. suggested a different perspectives. [inaudible] >> i'm not hearing the part of the conversation. >> thank you. >> they're always going to be a conversation about the ego. >> we have three guys with pretty big egos of here. [laughter] >> how are we managing -- >> that is a corporation -- >> the federal government has allowed it. >> the states as well. you're right. the corporations are an american. >> my question is particularly -- >> can you speak up just a little bit? >> my question is for the profe

. >> host: along the line, i remember, i don't know the expect quote by james madison basically said i'm certain that washington would not have taken a crown as i'm certain that the people would not have offered it to him. and i almost feel myself that if washington had desired a crown, which i agree with you 100%, that's the furthest thing from his mind, he would have almost been like a benedict arnold at large. who we can trust now? we thought we had a man that was the embodiment of revolutionary virtue and turned out to be a scoundrel and wants to be a caesar-type figure. happily, that wasn't the case. i don't think the american people would have said yes, be a king. they would have been crushed and disappointed by him. but i know that's wildly believed. you want a discussion. another thing that many, many people who know something about washington believe in this indian prophesy that said that washington when he met an indian chief said i tried at the battle, at the monag ahill. he and others had fired shots at washington. she had this kind of investibule shield around him. it wa

. >> host: along that line, i remember -- i don't know the exact quote, but james madison basically said that i'm certain that washington would not have taken a crown as i'm certain that the people would not have offered it to him. and almost feel myself that if washington had desired a crown, which i agree with you 100% that's the furthest thing from his mind, he almost would have been like a benedict arnold writ large. i mean, who can we trust now? we thought we had a man who really was the embodiment of revolutionary virtue and he turns out to be a scroundl and he be a caesar. the people would have been crushed and disappointed by him. but i know that's widely believed in one of the discussions. one of the things many, many people who know something about washington believe in this indian prophesy that said washington -- when he met an indian chief he said i tried at the battle -- it's always difficult word were to say that he and among others had fired innumerable shots at washington and he had essentially this invisible shield around him, and it was recognized that the great spirit

we passed a statue of james madison and gave a lot of thought to war and what the president should do and hall of americans should get into war. if he came back and asked you to tell him why we went into war with iraq what would you say? >> the answer would be that the congress of the united states passed a resolution overwhelmingly favoring regime change in iraq in the 1990s by an overwhelming vote and it was signed by president clinton. the united nations issued some 17 different resolutions advising iraq that they should conform to the resolution, the request of the united nations security council to allow the inspectors into their country to provide the information on their weapons of mass destruction and the united nations had been repeatedly rebuffed. president george of the bush made a decision when he first came into office that he was concerned about the fact that iraq was firing regularly at the united states and united kingdom aircraft that were supporting the united nations's no-fly zone and patrolling in the northern and southern portion of iraq. those planes were being s

. >> along that line i remember, i don't know the exact quote, but james madison basically said that'm as certain that washington would not have taken a crown as i'm certain that the people would not have offered it to him. and i almost feel myself that if washington had desired a crown, which i agree with you 100% that was the furthest thing from his mind, he would have almost been like a benedict arnold writ large. who can we trust now? we thought we had a man who really was the embodiment of revolutionary virtue, and he turns out to be a scoundrel and to be a caesar-type figure. happily, that wasn't the case, but i don't think the american people would have simply said, oh, yes, be a king. they would have simply been crushed by and kiss appointed by -- disappointed by him. but i know that's widely believed in one discussion. another thing that many, many people who know something about washington believe in this indian prophesy that said that washington, when he met an indian chief, he said i tried at the battle -- >> monaga hill. >> that's always a difficult word to say. that he

james madison said the constitution's opposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to war. therefore the constitution has with studied care given that power to the congress. it was a division of power. it was checks and balances, very important to our founding fathers. we need to have a debate over that. i hope to force just such a debate when we go back. as we move forward into the next cycle, i think there is every chance that we can have great success. we had great success in 2010. i think we can do it in 2012. what i ask by what is help us find the right person. thank you very much. [applause] >> now, a republican and democratic strategist look at the week ahead in congress. this is about 35 minutes. host: we have our roundtable with kevin madden, former aide to mitt romney, democratic strategist steve mcmahon. we have been talking about the president announcing his reelection campaign this week as a way to raise money. how expensive will this race be? guest: his aides are predicting that they can hit that number or better -

it's called the power the james madison federal paper number 47. if all men [inaudible] no government would be possible to read our system is designed as a way of regulating competing interests federalists can putting the ambition against the ambition because that is, according to the founders, the safest way to prevent anybody from achieving absolute power which to quote the acting corrupt absolutely. that principle is sound and how we apply it to the specific circumstances of the 21st century and reasonable people and continue to disagree about that. suggested a different perspectives. [inaudible] >> i'm not hearing the part of the conversation. >> thank you. >> they're always going to be a conversation about the ego. >> we have three guys with pretty big egos of here. [laughter] >> how are we managing -- >> that is a corporation -- >> the federal government has allowed it. >> the states as well. you're right. the corporations are an american. >> my question is particularly -- >> can you speak up just a little bit? >> my question is for the profe

as james madison wrote in federalist number 45, the powers delegated by the proposed constitution are few and defined. those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. so, mr. speaker, as i would like to read again the 10th amendment of our constitution, the powers not delegated to the constitution arery served to the states and to the people. i submit to you, many of the programs that the federal government currently not only operates, but also is proposing under several different bills over the past several years really are overreaching into the state governments' responsibilities and into what they are fully capable of doing. many times, the frustration that we had of dealing with medicaid, and the mandates that were handed down to the states were tying the hands of our state governments. coming from the state of indiana, i'm very proud of the fact what has been accomplished because of those who respect not only the simple economics of balancing budgets and realizing that you can't spend more money than what you have, as a member of the indiana house

thomas jefferson and james madison were not keen on the federal government taking on the individual debts from the revolutionary war for the former county it -- colonies, but hamilton had the wisdom that we would be taken seriously as a player in the international community. we have paid our bills and obligations ever since. the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling, not doing the right thing, and not demagoguing that, are almost too horrendous to complicate -- contemplate, and i fear we could send the global economy back into a recession if we were to do that. the congress, as john boehner said when we first widget he first became speaker, we need to have an adult conversation and act as adults on this challenging subject. host: this tweet -- why not bring the ryan plan to the senate, find out who supports it? guest: i am all for having a vigorous debate about the plan, and let's see where everybody stands on that. we had that debate, we have a vote in the house. was a strict, party-line vote with four exceptions on the republican side. not a single democrat voted for, which is no

arguing for a strong centralist government, we have enumerated very limited and fine powers as james madison states. thomas jefferson states. former u.s. senator one time said, when he feels the heat he cease the light -- he sees the light. members of congress in the house and the senate need to see the light. by feeling the heat of we the people. you see, psalm 11 god asks a question, if the foundations be destroyed, what are the righteous to do? god's given us a free will. he's given us freedom. he's given us lipt liberty. unlike any society ever in history has ever said, ever seen , ever experienced. but we lose it. and the only way we're going to put it back on the right course is for people to become knowledgeable about the foundational principles so that we can put this country back on a solid foundation, so that it's not built on shifting sand, so that we can change the course of history. the direction we're heading today is going to destroy everything that's been good about this country. it's going to destroy our liberty, we're not going to have the freedom that we've enjoyed. even i

and i don't think -- i think hamilton would be okay with that but i know james madison wouldn't havebeen okay with it. and certainly not something foreseen by any of the founders. i think even hamilton in his wildest families -- panties could have enjoyed this much. can we bring an end to this cycle where of the clinical frustration presidents claim more power and in that way produce difficulties for themselves politically and also i think produces some unbalanced in the national political system. the constitutional implications of this are very large, as mitch was indicating with a unitary presidency. so i hope you ask some questions about this, and anything else that other people have brought up in the panel but it's been a wonderful experience for me, and we look forward to your questions. [applause] >> thank you, steve. i clearly am satisfied. for a while at least. it is your turn. welcome your questions. please come to the microphones with questions or requests to discuss something that they'll may not have yet put on the table. don't be shy. please. >> hello. i'm an internation

we just passed by a statue of james madison in the other room. as you know madison gave a lot of thought to war and why the president should do and how often american should get into war. if he came back and just asked you to tell him why did we go to war in iraq, what would you say? >> the answer would in the united states passed a resolution overwhelmingly favoring regime change in iraq in the 1990s by an overwhelming vote and was signed by president clinton. the united nations issued some 17 different resolutions, advising iraq that they should conform to the resolutions, the request of the united nations security council to allow the inspectors in to their country to provide the inspectors the information on their weapons of mass destruction, and the united nations had been repeatedly rebuffed. president george w. bush made a decision when he first came into office that he was concerned about the fact that iraq was firing regularly at the united states and united kingdom aircraft that were supporting the united nations no-fly zone and patroll

james madison later wrote in his federalist paper number 56 that the water to be the objects of federal legislation, he's addressing that question of where are we to go with legislation, and he said those which of most importance which seem to require local knowledge are commerce, taxation and the militia. so he was visualizing a very limited role for government, a very strict role for the constitution and one of the elements of that constitution was to be the commerce between states. so in our constitution in article 1, section 5, clause 3, it's in the constitution is delineating the powers of the government and one of those was to regulate this clause 3 states that the congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the indian tribes. and so that's the limit of the commerce clause. and early on our founding fathers had actually had a very limited definition of that. but that commerce clause definition has been expanded over time so that one of the -- if you will research, if you'll google commerce/u.s. law abuse you'll begi

we just passed by a statue of james madison in the other room. as you know madison gave a lot of thought to war and why the president should do and how often american should get into war. if he came back and just asked you to tell him why did we go to war in iraq, what would you say? >> the answer would in the united states passed a resolution overwhelmingly favoring regime change in iraq in the 1990s by an overwhelming vote and was signed by president clinton. the united nations issued some 17 different resolutions, advising iraq that they should conform to the resolutions, the request of the united nations security council to allow the inspectors in to their country to provide the inspectors the information on their weapons of mass destruction, and the united nations had been repeatedly rebuffed. president george w. bush made a decision when he first came into office that he was concerned about the fact that iraq was firing regularly at the united states and united kingdom aircraft that were supporting the united nations no-fly zone and patroll

i don't think -- i think hamilton would be ok with that, but i know james madison would not have beeny with that. it is not something foreseen by any of the founders. even hamilton in his wildest vesey's could not have enjoyed this much. can we bring into a cycle were at a political frustration, president's claim more power? i think it produces some unbalance in the national political system. the constitutional implications of this are very large, as mitch was indicating with the unitary presidency. i hope you ask some questions about this and anything else that other people have brought up in the panel. it has been a wonderful experience for me, and we look forward to your questions. [applause] >> thank you, steve. i clearly am satisfied, for a while, at least. it is your turn. we welcome your questions. please come to the microphones with questions or requests to discuss something the panel may not have yet put on the table. don't be shy. >> i am an international relations major from argentina. i had a good time listening to your great presentation. my question is, how would you eva

. >>> huff returning to the buzz cut, pirates, james mcdonald went six scoreless giving up just four hits. in the second madisono looking looking for looking -- last chance, two on, one out for tejada, he grounds in to the double play and the giants loose. >>> tommy, out past his bedtime. a 4:00 start for the a's in anaheim. ross was much better in his second outing. seven shut out innings and only four hits allowed. a's up in the 9th. brian blows his second save in eight tries, bobby smacks the rbi do tie the game. runners on the corners, jackson chopping up the middle. it wasn't pretty but the a's will take it. oakland avoids the sweep winning 2-1. >>> we start the top five with manny who is boxing best pound for pound fighter. just don't expect him to serenade mosley next month. ♪ [ music ] brings it back for the out. . >> back to the giants game, pedro reaches over the tarp and brings it back. >>> upton showing why he was a number one pick robbing ben, unfortunately the phillies win. >>> number two, scoring 41 points, matching his best playoff performance, the thunder knock off the nuggets and advance to th

. >> reporter: yes, baby james and jackson are identical twins. and babies mia and madison, who had trouble getting pregnant, had in vitro fertilization. two embryos were implanted. at most, two babies, right? but both of them split, creating two sets of twins. experts won't even guess how rare it is to have two sets of twins. >> i really was only able to find two others. and that was it. >> reporter: no surprise, that the double-double trouble has turned the crawford home from a well-oiled machine to -- >> controlled chaos. >> reporter: having spent an afternoon in baby central, it seems the miracle has been handed to the right pair. they are both professional nurses and are organized. >> that's my duty. i'm on bottle duty in the morning. those are all ready to go. >> used to multitasking. used to doing a lot of running around. >> feed them, lay them down for a minute. get them up shortly after. bathe them. feed them again. nap. >> reporter: unbelievably, they haven't had any formal help since a batch of friends and relatives pitched in in the early days. >> after that, we

madison garder is on the mound . andrew mccompaniin and swing with the fast ball and chris snyder it looks harmless and aaron rowan and one nothing pirates and james mcdowel came in with six shut out frames x. pedro alvarez reaching out that. is spectacular . the gines get nothing and lose two-nothing . ola from anaheim. he's trying to avoid the weep against the angels and sen scoreless and struck out three . cend rick cannot feel it cleanly and throws high and takes the head off . lands on the second part of the play and scores on a sack fly and unearned run and former a's pitcher. angels tied in the mineth and tied at one. sharks getting ready for round two of the playoff a clash with detroit. the schedule did not say officially and game one in san jose and game two on sunday. sharks took care of the business . knocking them out in five games . and completed regular season. it is a new seris and it doesn't matter how many. it is a good series and it is a great team and so are we. we have had a long hospital against detroit and so it is a fun match up. it is another ruling against the nfl and the lock out stays in effect. >> good night oprah: r r

james madison said we can safely rely on the disposition of state legislators to erect barriers against the encroachment of the national authority, and of quote. and my author fever quote is thomas jefferson. he said our government shall be drawn to washington as the center of all power it will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. and of quote. the question is, my friend, when the government goes too far, when the federal government thinks that it owns everything, our air, water, land, education, children, health care, every facet of our lives to whom can the people turn for peace, safety and protection? its local officials having the courage to stand for state sovereignty. where do you think the tenth amendment is going to be enforced? where do you think state sovereignty is going to be in force? who's going to enforce the ten demint and? are you waiting for barack obama to pick the state sovereignty sar? that's probably not going to happen. the states are sovereign. and as horrible as the division between the south and the north might have been, th