, john turley, i think that president has crossed the constitutional line. andrew mccarty and supreme court of u.s., and david asman disagree. neil: and president bush was president, and issued far more executive orders. >> yes, and no. hold on. president bush did was put forward these orders, but this president is changing the laws, with obamacare he is not issueing executive orders but changing the specifics of the law, that is illegal. neil: that is going nowhere fast, time is wasting. >> supreme court is deciding on suing issues. neil: sabrina. >> i am sim theftic to -- sympathetic to david, we have a ballooning administrative state, and the executive orders are out of control, they should be limited. certainly michele bachmann is responding, i think that problem with political theater, pushing out real conversation about what needs to happen, i think that is where th the divide is. neil: and david, we raise a number of points, regardless of president, i worry about the frequency over the years, that is neither here more there, i am most concerned about

turley. thank you both for being here. ron, i was particularly interested in your comments. we had john on a number of times talking about a constitutional tipping point. you said you were naive to give obama the benefit of the doubt last year on the irs. why? >> thanks for having me on. because exactly a year ago i called for a special prosecutor because at the time, this was early on only six weeks into the scandal, it was clear to me we had probable cause for an investigation. it was clear to me the republican house was incapable, especially daryl issa of running a really they're r-- thorough deep investigation without grandstanding. and clear to me the white house if they wanted not to be credible to get the evidence out. i wrote in that column i'd like to believe if there was anything nefarious here it was not done with direction of the white house but we needed to get the facts out. what's happened since then in the last year is shortly after that column the white house started talking about a tony scandal which is ridiculous because we haven't gotten to the bottom of this yet. a

turley a decision has been made. everybody is talking about some sort of compromise or narrow ruling. will it come down to what the chief justice john roberts kind of decided? >> chief justice roberts is the one that snatched defeat away from the act last time. he was the deciding vote that decided the question for the individual mandate, something that he remains very controversial about with conservatives. the question is whether he's going to do that again here. the difference is that this really isn't a lethal threat to the aca, but it would cause great complications in the management of that act. the other one to watch is justice kennedy who remains the ultimate swing voter. >> let's see if that is the case. what is the decision, jeffrey? >> let me be honest. i have not read through the decision yet. i'm getting the gist of it so far. it is a 5-4 decision in favor of ll. hobby lobby does not have to pay for the disputed birth control techniques. however, as far as we can tell and then we're going to be sorting this out. justice alito's opinion says this only applies to what he calls closely held companies. remember, hobby lobby

turley, a law professor at george washington university. peter berg gan is a cnn national security analyst. good morning to you both. >> good morning. >> johne federal law? >> they did. i don't think the white house is seriously arguing they're not violating federal law. to make matters worse, this is a long series of violations of federal law. i testified twice in congress about this record of the president in suspending or ignoring federal laws. this is going to add to that pile. i don't think there's much debate that they're in violation of the law. what's fascinating, carol, is when this law went to the president, he used a signing statement which, if you recall as a senator, he opposed and ran against for president. but he actually used one in this circumstance and said, i'm going to sign this, but i actually think that notice requirement is unconstitutional. he's essentially arguing the very same principle of george bush, that when it comes to gitmo, he has almost absolute power, that it is his prerogative, his inherent authority to be able to make these decisions as he sees fit. >> does it matter, because the administration says the