find out more at connectamillionminds.com >> if you don't know representative jerry nadler, you should smartest members of congress and his views don't shift with the political winds. even though he avoids partisan bickering, when house republicans provided a provision in the keystone pipeline that was too much for the normally reserved jerry nadler. >> for a year avenue, republicans refused to work with democrats, completely offending the historical traditions of our committee. >> joining me now the aforementioned congressman jerry nadler, thank you for being here. >> it's a pleasure. >> let's begin with the transportation bill. what happened, and why is the republican party doing so out of line and out of historical mode? >> that's a good question. historically the transportation committee in the house has been one place where things were done on a bipartisan basis. the bill developed on an bipartisan basis by the two staffs. this year they refused to do that. they did their own bill. they put a million poison pills in it knowing that democrats could not possibly vote for it. they ch

. >> and jerry nadler is completely wrong with he says this.he difference is that the marijuana decision is based on someone voluntarily doing something. the reason this is going to fall is because this is someone not taking an architects which is why you got the question, can you create commerce to regulate it? that's why it's going to fail. >> okay. >> people are going to be happy, it's going to hurt the democrats. >> you're getting way too legal on us, tom, but i understand what you're saying. let me ask you one more quick question. the issue of mitt romney's tax returns. because that was another issue that popped out today n. fact, there's been a whole slew of trending tweets from twitter saying, what is he hiding? so he has not released his 2011 tax returns. he released the 2010 and he released some sort of estimate of 2011. so the question is, i don't know if you know the answer, but what is he hiding, tom? >> i think he is in part anesthetized from this issue because obama is raising a billion dollars, so the money thing doesn't work as

jerry nadler, randi wine garden and bill fletcher, author of "they are bankrupting us and 20 other mythsor joining us. we'll be back saturday and sunday at 8:00. david frum, former speechwriter for george w. bush will be here. get more info by liking up with chris on facebook. up next is the one and only melissa harris-perry. what do you have today? >> we have got a very emotional and i think inconsideredibly important discussion about the death penalty this morning. of course, as you know, connecticut just repealed it, california might be next and we'll ask whether or not we're really on the cusp of a major change of this issue here in america. berry sheck from the innocence project and the mother of a dait row death row inmate. and honestly, i'm quite sick and tired that somehow food stamps are causing the recession, so we're going to ask about whether or not ending welfare as we know it actually contributed to poverty in this country and then, of course, we'll talk about obama being cool. that will be fun. >> slow jamming the news, as only melissa harris-perry could do. we'll see you

democratic congressman jerrold nadler, and i might add two additional things, a good friend and perhaps the smartest member of the house. and i set you up with that a little bit jerryudicial activist what is it? >> aside from a general ep thet one is the likelihood the propensity of the court for overturning acts of congress. this court overturned x-number in the past years, and the second definition is how likely is this court to go against his prior precedence. what the president was talking about, judging from the precedence, the constitutionality shouldn't be a close question. if the court goes along with the precedence of its own rulings, the bill will be ruled constitutional. if it goes against it it will be activist in the sense of changing what it has done in the past. >> i want to summarize what you just said. in other words if a court declares a stat ought to unconstitutional by writing new law, then it is being activist -- >> i wouldn't put it that way. a court can -- can properly find a law unconstitutional, if it easily does so often, or against its own precedence then -- >> it would be an activist step to rule statute unconstitutional if doing so requ