law-and-order. the characters of law and order or even go back further in time, the iconic attica's fans in to kill a mockingbird. all of these images go to frame what people think as young people think being a lawyer will turn out to be. in fact, one third of people who decide to go to law school make that decision before the era of high-school. another one-third make that decision before they have completed their sophomore years of college. there is another third who, i think, many of them wind up going to law school because it is a default solution because they cannot figure out what to do next. in the last batch of a liberal arts major hit is not know what to do next. for a long long time. but as a result of that all of them have a certain expectation about what being a lawyer is going to be. and the reality, it turns out, is dramatically different from that. and when you have that kind of disconnect between expectations and reality, it is a prescription for, i think, career dissatisfaction. how

you know, the insurance companies don't hate this law. they like this law. look what's happened to their insurance stock since the law was passed. it's doubled or tripled in value. that's because they had a seat at the table when this thing was crafted. it was crafted according to their liking. but who really wrote the nuts and bolts of the bill was a staff on the senate finance committee between thanksgiving and christmas. this bill, h.r. 3590, which passed the floor of this house three years ago, was a bill that had never had a single hearing in the house of representatives. never had a markup in a single house committee. h.r. 3590 had passed under suspension in the house of representatives july of 2009 as a housing bill. it went over to the senate to await further action. the further action was an amendment offered by harry reid, strike all after the enacting clause and insert -- and the health care language was inserted. it came back over here, languished for three months, nobody read it and then the speaker forced it through the house of representatives

the rule of law. all those people that are sitting around in the countries of the world that are inspired by the statue of liberty that want to come here, many of them are subject to an arbitrary no rule of law where they can be stopped and fricked in the streets and where the -- frisked in the streets and the police can squeeze some dollars out of you whether you got a speeding ticket. they don't think they get justice in the courts in the world. they don't have freedom of speech. they don't have freedom of religion. and they want to come here because we have everyone is equal under the law. remember the statue -- statute, . speaker, tricky to say statue here, i'm talking about a statue of lady justice. she's holding the scales of justice. and these scales are balanced. they are even. you see the pots hanging from the chains on either side. and generally when you see her she's wearing a blindfold. because we have equal justice under the law in the united states. the image of lady justice also retract

the law, most updated version of the law was 1954. and it said civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare in 1959, president eisenhower's irs, changed the word "exclusively" to "primarily" without any congressional or legal authority. they did it in what they call their guidelines for enforcement, which as you know, every agency does with things that come their way. they interpret the laws. that was a change of law executed by the irs. and as the president should know about, at this point in this story. the "new york times --" >> i don't doubt he knows about it and i don't doubt he is fully aware of the broader issues here, but i just want to be clear, whatever discussions may be had in the future about that aspect of our tax law and how it is enforced, that's one thing. the other thing is that the conduct that -- has been revealed by this ig report is unacceptable. and it needs to be dealt with. >> jay, i want to get to the benghazi e-mails. what was the delay

that is supplement state law. i think that's the suggestion of supervisor campos that locally the city could supplement state law. my response to supervisor kim and chiu's questions really go to our interpretation of state law, based on the ftpc's advice on the matter. this is not the conclusion the ftpc reached in this case. >> i think it was supervisor kim raised an issue about a third-party entity reviewing -- serving as a pass through for the dissemination for gifts or dollars donated. one, if this is in another jurisdiction. i also would be interested if there's a cost associated with in? sounds like there wouldn't be, but wanted to see if you could opine on that. >> if any board member wants us to pursue that as a possibility, i'd be happy to do that. under state law, that type of fund would be allowed because an individual, a third-party would be giving a gift to the city to be used for the beauty of the city offices and as long as it was reported on 801, that would be appropriately reported gift under stat

this is the law of war.instead of take no prisoners that you do take prisoners and you detained them. i think as a policy matter you matter you should detained them in a secure environment. we now have a prison in afghanistan, the only place that the courts have said we won't interfere with the prison in afghanistan but keeping prisoners there puts them at the center of the conflict and may be may be released at the if the prisoners overrun in conditions that are not favorable. but the fundamental thing is that what you do with those detained on the battlefield? you remove them from the stream of the conflict and you do so until the conflict is over. in normal poor settings you usually rely on a nation-state to somehow yield and say okay it's over and we will be responsible for keeping our people out of the conflict. it may be difficult sunday to know whether the war on terror is over but because you cannot ascertain that something has been concluded does not mean that it's never possible to ascertain that i

i don't mean by the rule of law the rule of lawyers. i mean the rule of law practice in our profession we are so adequately superior to the rest of the world that if we just have lawyers making the decisions it is not so. they made a number of adjustments and i think the war on terror a response to the pterosaur en masse is going to have to be a dynamic response. whenever we change what we're doing, we need to do it outside the box perhaps, but never outside the constitution. >> jack, one of the challenges edward levi faced and how the governor would of, how it came to light and how the attorney general responded to that situation. >> and sba program, counterintelligence program -- [inaudible] and the predicate for it and the basis for it was supposedly taking a positive step that one could prevent violations of the law would have become the foreign agents. they were aimed against gymnastics and civil rights organizations and war organizations and became in the post-watergate. for the watergate rhetoric for dirty tricks kinds of things.

to state law. and even though we have a situation where the ftpc had said where it's okay for the district attorney to accept this under state law, we're hearing the city attorney saying that their advice to any elected official in this situation is we would file an 801, so the challenge that i have -- i'd like to find a mechanism so that we can move forward and put this behind us -- we would be having a different practice with respect to this case versus cases going forward. we would be saying it's okay to accept this gift without an 801, but going forward everyone else has to file an 801 and so i actually like the idea of, i think as a compromise, approving this, but with the caveat that it will be approved once an 801 is filed, not because it's an admission that somehow the da did not follow the rules, or somehow in this particular case there was no compliance with state law, but simply because from a public policy perspective, we don't have a separate sef rules for one official as opposed to an

law. now more than ever, we ed bero our right to vote, not restricting it. we need to reaffirm our founding principle that our country is at its strongest when everyone participates. we need to guarantee a right to vote for everyone, so this week, along with my friend and colleague, congressman keith ellison from minnesota, i introduced a right to vote amendment to the constitution that will explicitly guarantee without a doubt the right of the american people to vote. the amendment is a simple as it is necessary -- is as simple as it is necessary. every american citizen has the right to vote in every public election where they reside and congress has the right and power to protect it. no more will americans have to prove their right to vote has been infringed, instead, the burden of proof will be left to states to demonstrate any efforts they take will not deny or abridge the fundamental right to vote. now, i know there are some out there who will say the amendment to the constitution is

we had the law firm. amy joined me at the firm and we had the law firm for, in the house probably about seven or eight years. now we have actual office space. >> so, you say that the whole scotus blog thing was a marketing ploy. >> yes, nobody was covering the supreme court on the internet. saying we're the site you go to. at the same time i had this law practice with amy and we've been doing it for a few years. i had the brilliant insight that said look, if we cover the supreme court on the internet, people who are looking for a lawyer in the supreme court will say, gosh these people must really know what they're talking about. it had -- i thought it would be a little bit of a public service. mostly i think in those terms, turns it was a really stupid idea. nobody does that. people who need serious supreme court counsel don't go get with a guy with a website. they want to talk about experience and how you've done and what you know about the court as a lawyer. so that didn't work out but after about three

for law-enforcement purposes? >> to the government generally. as opposed -- the fourth amendment applies to government generally. >> for reasonable non law-enforcement purposes it would no longer apply. >> i wouldn't say the fourth amendment does not apply. i would say it will apply no matter what i say. >> i am reading what you said. >> what we believe the biggest danger is is law-enforcement will use drones in an invasive manner, but we still want to create the ability of government to use drone xenon invasive matter. of firefighters a government agent they will still use a drone to investigate fire. we don't want to keep that happening. whether the fourth amendment applies which it does, it is not a search for law enforcement purposes. >> it seems pretty challenging, if one tries to play the fourth amendment to non law enforcement agency different from law enforcement agencies when the defect is the same. it is one of the issues we are grappling with for a long time. would anyone else on the panel like to addre

i love the rule of law. [indiscernible] >> you know, i think -- i am going off script, as you might expect here. [laughter] [applause] the voice of that woman is worth paying attention to. [applause] obviously, i do not agree with much of what she said. obviously, she was not listening to me in much of what i said. but, these are tough issues. and the suggestion that we can gloss over them is wrong. and when that judge sentenced the shoe bomber, he went on to point to the american flag that flew in the courtroom -- "that flag," he said, "will fly there long after this is all forgotten. that flag still stands for freedom." america, we have faced down dangers far greater than al qaeda. by staying true to the values of our founding, and by using our constitutional compass, we have overcome slavery and civil war, fascism and communism. in just these last few years as president, i have watched the american people bounce back from painful recession, mass shootings, and natural disasters like the recent tornados th

law. to change the recommendations. that is just what they are. recommendations. they are not a lawmaking body in that regard. they can make recommendations and incentivize states. let's go first up to the comments of the ntsb traffic safety director, who lays out not only the .05 standard that other recommendations by the board. here is a look two weeks ago. >> good morning. before i begin my presentation, i would like to thank staff for all of their efforts in its last year. staff collaborated with experts and completed a systematic review of countermeasures to identify those actions most likely to result in meaningful reductions of impaired driving injuries and fatalities. this was not an easy task. there were no silver bullets to attack this problem. staff focused on the data and the four sides based solutions. -- and looked for science-based solutions. alcohol impaired driving crashes continue to be one of the country's greatest and most persistent threat to public safety. much more n

this country has had a shield law since 1791 when the first amendment law -- >> a shield law wouldn't>> the problem for all of us, this isn't directly linked to the oval office or the west wing. but, the bigger picture here is, this is all we have talked about all week the president had probably nine months to get his agenda through. in congress, on capitol hill, it's scandal that's the only discussion here. this is a big problem in terms of undermining the trust of -- >> there is a related scandal. i mean, we're talking about the ap as we should know. with a few exceptions. the "new york times," where has the coverage been in these last few years? when you have seen spying on american muslim communities, on dissidents. patriot act passed through without much thought. the act that allows journalists to be eavesdropped on. this isn't an apology for the obama government. so, there's a transpartisan problem. which we might -- >> that is a sentence. >> i'm glad you asked that question. what are the investigations into muslim communities? the associated press, did an investigation into pro

to prop up the law.have seen craniums rather than being decreased -- premiums rather than being decreased, increase to the tune of 3000 dollars. most importantly, a drag on the economy and jobs. the uncertainty surrounding the president's health care law has cost about 7 million jobs. or, will cost millions and millions of job. a lot already proven to of people that we will have layoffs. i am pleased the house will be working on the appeal vote today. after months of misleading testimony and evasive answers the question about whether whether or not the irs was targeting taxpayers and entities based on their political beliefs, they have now been caught red-handed. if we are going to get accountability back in the government, you have to have accountability to create certainty. we will get to the bottom of this. i can tell you right now, this culture of rot and abuse at the irs will be rooted out. the ways and means committee will be working with the other committees in congress to ensure this happens and

about immigration laws.i wonder if our grandchildren will look back on this day in the same way we look back at the nation laws of 40 years ago. and they ask, how could the supreme court even have had to decide the matter of loving persons? why were those laws even on the books and respected and upheld? where is the congress that should have spoken up? but, i would certainly hear from the senator to speak. and the senator from arizona. then, we will decide where to go from here. i have respected every single senator on the committee. i have held this to the end so we could get to all the other amendments. emphasize enough to the senators how strongly i feel about this. >> i just want to say from the outset what a pleasure it has been to be so new in this senate and involved in a process like this. for years, we have been hearing about this function in the congress and we have all suffered our public opinion polling and what people think of this lace. the process we have gone through in the last couple of day

law. the american citizens i know, from all backgrounds, they support the rule of law. that means that you do not sacrifice your principles for political expediency, that is the wrong direction to go, that undermines what has made america a great country and so i'm going to be doing what i do based on what i think is in the best interest of america and i let the voters decide whether they agree with my approach come the next election. >> we'll break away here as the u.s. house gaveling in for legislative work. three bill this is afternoon, votes at 6:30. any recorded votes on pros posed questions will be taken -- proposed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that the house suspend the rules h.r. 180. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 32, h.r. 180, a bill to encourage, enhance, and integrate blue alert plans throughout the united states in order to disseminate

there are report whose want a shield law.s i teach my students at law school, anything that is a sword can be a shield and the government can take this law to shield reporters and then use it against them. but clearly we need to have a check on the depth and length of executive hunts for leakers. that's being intimidated here. you're not going to intimidate men and women who do investigative stories. that's not their nature. they write about mobsters and killers. but the people who blow the whistlers, they want to hide. they are the ones that the government wants to intimidate and frankly try to put in prison. >> cenk: i want to show one more quick clip here on what the president is actually telling eric holder to do. >> obama: i've raised these issues with my attorney general who shares my concerns. he's willing to review the existing guidelines governing that involve reporters and he'll hear their concerns as part of that review. >> cenk: is that good enough and what steps would you want the president to take to make sure h

under domestic law and international law the united states is at war with al qaeda, the taliban, and their associated forces. we are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many americans as they could if we did not stop them first. so this is a just war. a war waged proportionately in last resort and in self-defense. and yet as our fight enters a new phase, america's legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. to say a military tactic is legal or even effective is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. for the same progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to could not strain that power or risk abusing it. that's why over the last four years, my administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists. insissing upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in presidential policy guidance that i signed yesterday. in the afghan war theater, we must and will continue to support our troops until the tr

it's in the intentional invasion of privacy under tort law, it is peeping tom laws, trespass laws, and of course, california specific paparazzi law as well. so, i think that unlike the fourth amendment government context, where it's largely unregulated and the committee needs to focus, ooh there is a fair amount of existings law and may be appropriate to see how that plays out before we do a lot of legislating in the private use area. >> anyone else? you know, when i learn about some of the drones being so small, like the size of a bird or whatever, how do you see in the future that being regulated? i mean, what is to stop an individual from just getting that without faa approval? >> well, i think there's already a hobbyist exception for unmanned aircraft, model aircraft, as defined in the legislation, and i think, frankly, it's very important to provide exceptions to hobbyists and so that a parent who goes and flies a model aircraft at a flying field with his or her child doesn't need to get faa approval before doing so. so, at the very small enthere's going to be some flexibility in

law for everybody?e difference to get between republican and democratic administration is just in those gray areas, the decisions about how things are done. for instance, tom perez, when he came, he said i'm going to dust off the legal theory, which is a way to determine whether something is discriminatory. he has used that in a way that previous ministrations did not. previous administrations. housing laws, financial fraud, immigration, voting rights, education. charles, alabama, democratic caller. go ahead. caller: yes, i was going to make light of selective service for all males who automatically had to sign up for that when they turn 18 and they are still eligible when they're 25 or responsible for that. also, one thing i wanted to make light of is in the wake of -- i hate to bring up bad news but anyway give these guys that were over here illegally and did the bombing thing in boston, how do you think perhaps the department of homeland security is going to implement better regulation on immigration

enforcement -- we don't have a lot of laws in place. i say all the time "it's not illegal to be mean to each other" and i tell that to adults and i can't tell you government officials "i have free speech. i can say what i want" and they have good arguments. i will give them that but you need to show them -- and law enforcement needs to show them it's not okay and we take it seriously and i do counseling for issues that originate at school and social media, whatever it is but as part the solution and we are standing up together and saying it's not okay. >> and holly this is no longer a local program, correct? >> it's amazing the response and law enforcement and everybody is looking for tools and answers to get some solutions and so we took it to washington dc earlier in the summer, so we have been working with maryland and virginia and all over california and hopefully washington soon and really excited to get everybody interested with the information. >> somebody asked how do you implement a restorative justice program? do you have that

the law.re transcendent law. >> and you and i know that there wasn't law like that unless god exists. but that's a separate story. >> but the point is that whoever controls the laws controls the country. >> i quote someone in my book as saying show me your laws and i will show you your god. see, if i make up my own laws i'm my own god. if the supreme court makes up its own laws and there is no authority above the supreme court, it becomes its own god. >> and of course, in america today we have jetson the ten commandments taken supreme law giver and removed them. i remember being in one the great states in united states and being in the supreme court of the capital of this state. >> and the ten commandments were washed out of all of the literature that they had. they had this big board which they couldn't get rid of. the plaque. but it was all stroked out. because you know you can't allow god into law or the ten commandments. now, you can understand why there is such a big issue when it comes t

that's a state law requirement. an example of that is if the city attorney's office received 500 dollars to send someone to a conference and they decided to send me, we would file a report saying we resied the do nation, john got the benefit even though it's city business and then whoever made the decision to send him. the question that's been raised in the budget committee discussions, and i think this is raised to your point, is whether furniture used in a particular person's office bestows a personal benefit. the fair protocol practices commission, which is the agency that oversees these laws, has issued written advice in the past including advice to the mayor of san francisco indicating that when a gift is given to an office that supports -- say in our case the mayor's car used for city business -- the city car that the mayor uses, or when a gift of art work is given to a community college and then placed in the college president's office. even though those are gifts that are used for city business and go to cit

so what if it was a bad law. i mean why why why don't we all agree that we should all know if somebody is trying to influence the discourse in america in america whether it's political or whether it's economic for that matter i mean you know monsanto went into california spent millions and millions of dollars to defeat a bill that would have required the labeling of genetically modified organisms i think there are a lot and i think there are a lot of good examples of this so i mean if you let me say if you're going to spend that money you have to disclose who you are spending them no i don't think you should i think there are many of them popular causes over time where people are not willing to join groups if their names are going to become public so it's a government of iran wants to support a political candidate the united states or a prince or a particular ballot where two meeting about two different thing oh the government of iran get easily set up a five a one c four in the united states through an american

law. as a doctor, i'm extremely concerned with many different aspects of the bill, which is broad and overreaching. when this law was passed, i was in northern michigan treating patients and wondering how this bill will change the relationship between doctor and his patients. i can tell you from my 30 years of experience, after continuing to speak with doctors, nurses, hospital administrators and patients across northern michigan, there are enumerable problems with the law and it needs to be repealed. thanks to obamacare, we will face severe problems with access to quality health care. we are looking at massive cuts to reimbursements to hospitals and other care providers, cuts that will end up limiting access to care. obamacare does not fulfill the most basic promises that were used to pass this law. health care costs have not gone down. my constituents are not able to keep their plans. these are just some of the reasons i urge all my colleagues to support this bill so we can work together

old for an america that flouts the rule of law. our allies won't cooperate with us if they think a terrorist will end up a get more. during a time of budget cuts we spend one hundred fifty million dollars each year to imprison one hundred sixty six people almost a million dollars per prisoner and the department defense estimates that we must spend another two hundred million to keep good maltman at a time when we're cutting investments in education and research here at home and when the pentagon is struggling with sequester and budget cuts. as president i have tried to close gitmo i transferred sixty seven detainees to other countries before congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries or imprisoning them here in the united states. these restrictions make no sense. after all under president bush some five hundred thirty detainees were transferred from good mo with congress to support when i ran for president the first time john mccain supported closing gitmo this was

if the laws are bad, change the laws. if we need to have a different metrics, but whatever that matrix is, whatever the standards are, you have to enforce it or else you become an open border society and you promote something different than the rule of law, i.e., criminal conduct, and we cannot afford anarchy if we're going to have a democracy. >> one more thing to that. , i we talk about hispanics know the democrats have spent a lot of money trying to villeify us, but the hispanics i know generally speaking have a faith in god. they love their families and they have a strong work ethic. those are three things i think made america great, that i think have been waning in recent years. so i think the hispanic culture has so much to bring and can help rejuvenate america. and i have confidence that once people have done the research and see which party stands for what and see which party is more pro-life and more pro-family and embraces a faith in god that they'll become republicans. i have great confidence that a majority wi

>> i would say yes. >> violative of the law, which is to say against the law. the irs in 1959 without authority from congress changed congress' intent in 501(c)4 organizations, and they suddenly had to be primarily for social welfare, which meant from that day forward irs agents somewhere, washington or cincinnati or somewhere were going to have to evaluate how much politics a 501(c)4 applicant was going to engage in. but by either standard, standard of the law written by congress or standard of the regulation as misinterpreted by the irs, any organization with the name of a political party in its title of any size for the democratic party to the tea party to local tea parties to socialist workers party to the green party, every single such application should have been rejected for 501(c)4 status as a matter of law. >> not a single application for this status, this tax exempt status, was denied. >> and so the real scandal here is not that the applications were delayed but that they were ever approved. once the political media latched onto the paradigm of a scan

how the by law works is that our by law officers, any graffiti that comes up is at their discretion. so, whether they determine what is on the property is a nuisance and it allows us to keep our mural programs running. it allows us to look at individual situations. early on we had one situation where there was a property owner dispute between two neighbors where one had painted a sunflower on her garage and the other neighbor didn't like it. and the officer clearly made the distinction it was put on with permission. so, permission is considered in the decision-making process, but it's not an overall factor. so, if the by law officer had determined that that was a nuisance, the property owner would have been forced to remove it, but in this situation made a determination that it wasn't a nuisance, that it was put on, it wasn't detracting from the neighborhood and it was allowed to remain. it gives the officers a lot of leeway. we are looking at what toronto is doing right now in terms of possibly coming up with a way of retroactively approving pieces of art that are on murals that at

and i don't mean by the rule of law, the rule of lawyers. i mean the rule of law. sometimes it's -- if we would just have lawyers making all the decisions, do it, not so. so we made a number of adjustments, and i think the war on terror or response to the terrorist war on us, is going to be a dynamic response. but whenever we change what we are doing, we need to do it outside the box perhaps, never outside the constitution. >> so, jack, one of the challenges that edward levi faced had to do with how the government would read just itself so as to avoid some of those abuses. readjust itself. could you talk about how came to life and how attorney general levi responded to that situation? >> so, it was an fbi program, counterintelligence program. it was, the product, the basis for it was supposedly that by taking steps of action one could prevent violations of the law. what it had really done was a program which they were directed against foreign agents, but the ones, those are typically not the ones that were controversi controversial. the ones that were very controve

>> well, the law is the law, but i think that if we chose to prosecute everyone who was violating this law, then we wouldn't even have room for all the cases in the courthouse. i believe that times have changed a little bit since the law's been put into place, and other states have recognized this, i believe the state of georgia has reduced this to a misdemeanor, the state of wisconsin has set it out on a first offense you attend a class and there is educational counseling for you and once you complete that, there are no charges brought against you. i just believe the laws of the state of florida need to be changed, and unfortunately, we're here with the law as it is, but we're hoping that as we said earlier, common sense can prevail and we can get both of these girls out of this without completely destroying them. >> julia, what would common sense look like for you, what would be a fair, just outcome to this situation? >> a fair, just outcome for me would be a misdemeanor charge. i have never once asked the state attorney's office to just drop the charges. i understand that what katel

it would be the 38th vote to roll the law back. but the first one this year. >> we've got 70 new members that have not had the opportunity to vote on the president's health care law. frankly, they have been asking for an opportunity to vote on it and we'll give to them. >> want to bring in the "washington post" and political editor. perry, what does it say that we're now three years since its passage, the president still trying to promote the law. there are ads trying to get people to sign up and be aware of it. and republicans are still trying to repeal it. seems like we're in the same place. >> i don't think we're in the same place, richard. in terms of the law itself on october 1st, we have a big deadline coming up where people can actually start formally signing up for the law itself and signing up and getting the subsidized insurance. so it's the first time people can actually get insurance through the law who are uninsured. and the white house is holding the event in part because their view is people don't necessarily know th

they passed a law. it is a law. they could certainly alter the law. bake in changes to make it more favorable and work with other people, but they would rather a huge section of our country go without health care because it would maybe cost them a little extra money. the people that would be paying that extra money, the one screaming loudest, are paying huge amounts of money to government so that they're not affected, they don't ask to do anything. we are no longer a united states of america. we are a bunch of individuals that have no direction anymore. from wisconsinon on our democrat line. a couple tweets -- if you're calling to express your thoughts on yesterday's votes, stay on the line a few minutes. we want to tell you more about the hearing that takes place at 9:00 today? looking at the irs. correspondentl joins us to tell us more. shane goldmacher, tells more about the strategy that republicans and democrats will take in this hearing today. guest: this is the first time congress is getting a bite of the apple since the scandal broke. the line

we look to ourselves as a standard setter for international law, the rule of law. we undermine our own status, are legitimacy, and our ability to argue for a rule of law approach, if we don't recognize that limitations we want -- might want for others are the ones we have recognized for ourselves. there i want to talk very quickly about some facts. the reality is that the majority of the people who are being killed now part not senior level al qaeda leader's. they are low-level insurgents who don't necessarily pose a threat to the united states but may pose a threat to pakistan, yemen, and other countries. at least, we need more information and debate about where we aren'? why? and for what reasons? in order to be booked on a sound policy going forward on these issues and an informed public debate based on which u.s. people can let their policy- makers know what their thoughts are. >> any response to what was said? >> i don't disagree entirely with john. [laughter] is right about the human rights paradigm that is out there. i think the people paradigms' i'm describ

i will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. so what exactly does the a u m f make possible anyway well here are a few things that might not surprise you number one the bush administration used the a u a math as a legal framework for torture and legal documents drafted under attorney general alberto gonzales the mouth was cited as a justification for the use of force on individuals with specific foreign policy knowledge number two the e.u. a math keeps get moment jed's while the doesn't explicitly give the president detention authority the resolution was interpreted to allow the bush administration to open guantanamo bay that detention facility for suspected foreign terrorist in two thousand and two and eleven years later it remains open while the length of time a detainee can be held is not specified holding enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities is just part of the necessary and appropriate force congress granted the president under the a u a math now with over one hundred detainees on hunger strike there to protest

if the laws are bad, change the laws. if we need to have a different metrics, but whatever that matrix is, whatever the standards are, you have to enforce it or else you become an open border society and you promote something different than the rule of law, i.e., criminal conduct, and we cannot afford anarchy if we're going to have a democracy. >> one more thing to that. when we talk about hispanics, i know the democrats have spent a lot of money trying to vilify us, but the hispanics i know generally speaking have a faith in god. they love their families and they have a strong work ethic. those are three things i think made america great, that i think have been waning in recent years. so i think the hispanic culture has so much to bring and can help rejuvenate america. and i have confidence that once people have done the research and see which party stands for what and see which party is more pro-life and more pro-family and embraces a faith in god that they'll become republicans. i have great confidence that a majority

it is not just about enforcing the laws that make it clear how the laws apply. it is, though, as we said, you can't get at this through enforcement alone. this is a culture that tolerates this and in too many ways promotes it. as tom mentioned we have an unprecedented partnership not just between our agencies but agencies across the federal government that the president has convened to bring our best resources and minds to bear to do something about it. there is now a web site, stopbullying.gov where a tool kit is being developed and these kinds of best practices are being promoted. the center for disease control, the division of violence prevention, an effort to use good data in research, they have released a come pend yum of common bullying tools. that's also available online. we are doing these conversations with community and the president has convened now two bullying summits where we bring the best practices to bear and learn locally. we've been doing webinar series across the country, you can find the dates for those on the web site. tom also mentioned ab

we're hoping seth's law is the first of many. in addition to their reporting you also have to document, we feel like this is the science of it which, you know, sounds a little sterile when you consider the emotional loss, but that you document each incident as it happens so you have a record and you also look at the climate, the culture, and also the perpetrator. we have a second piece of legislation that calls for the restoretive justice element that people were talking about with regard to bullying, not just lgbt kids but in general. there was a sect committee this year of men and boys of color and that committee came out with a number of pieces of legislation all based on alerting to more programs, actually codifying the issue and also consequences and solutions and particularly with an accent on looking on is suspension automatic, is expulsion automatic. cyber bullying, another dimension of all this, the new technology, we're all catching up, there are two, three pieces of legislation that i co-authored, i am not the sponsor,

governor o'malley signs new gun control legislation into law this week but the fight over firearms is not over yet. now gun control groups pushing to get this issue before voters and tonight wjz has exclusive video of the new ads supporting the governor's law. wjz is live, derek valcourt with more on the new ad that's about to hit air waves. >> reporter: with a referendum effort in full swing right now the ads are aimed at boosting support for the new law and the politicians who backed it. governor o'malley's signature on the firearms safety act means it's scheduled to take effect october 1st , but it is signatures on a referendum petition that could stop the law another 18 months when voters would decide whether to shoot down the law which bans assault weapons purchases, puts a 10 round limit on magazines and requires handgun purchasers to go through fingerprint and firearms printing and pay licenses and renewal fees. >> my guess is we'll get well over 100,000 at least. people just can't wait to sign it. >> reporter: facing such staunch opposition supporters of the law are fighting b

we have laws on the books now. those laws are not enforced. then it raises the question of confidence. >> right. >> sean: if we are not going to force the law now and arizona passes a law with the same language as the federal law and they are beaten up for doing what they wouldn't do nationally why would people have the confidence this would work this time? >> that is the problem is the lack of trust. republican administrations failed to do this, too. you don't get to 11 million people in the country illegally overnight. this took a couple of administrations or more for the problem to build up to the level that it has. let me describe some of the laws are not enforced because we don't have the mechanisms to enforce. it is illegal to hire an illegal alien. business dos not have a reliable way to determine if that is truly the person. they show you a social security card. even if you ran it through e-verify you could get a false neglect seven. people who overstayed their visas, we track them when they come in but not when they leave. the boarder

the laws in this area are strict compliance laws, and they are very specific. the federal law since 1990 indicates issues from 1998. all businesses, such as a grocery store, a dentist's office, restaurants, a doctor's office, virtually anything that a member of the public comes into the -- comes into needs to be a barrier-free. we will go over what barriers are. every public accommodation needs to be wheelchair-accessible. there are also other other forf disability. most of the issues we are hearing about are wheelchair accessibility issues. there is a small group of private individuals who are wheelchair-down that go around the city and they look at small businesses. and i dare say anybody in small restaurants have some accessibility issues. it is another attempt at making your building wheelchair accessible. i am not sure which of you may be merchants and which it may be landlords. the law applies to both. and that means you were 100% liable for any barriers to access and any damages that may be associated with those barriers. there are ways you can defend yo

>> i can't speak to the law here. the law is irrelevant. the activity needs the stopped. >> you don't mean that the law is irrelevant? >> it's not important to the fact that the conduct doesn't matter. the department of justice said they're looking into the legality of this. the president isn't going to wait for that. >> going forward, there are going to be real questions about what kind of impact this is going to have on the rest of the president's agenda. sarah hall is now overseeing the treasury department's oversight of the president's health care plan, that's raised a lot of questions, among republicans on capitol hill, they say that she, given her previous experience, is exactly the wrong person to be overseeing obama care. your response? >> they're going to do a top-down review, anyone who did anything wrong is held accountable. to date, this individual you're referring to, is not mentioned in the report. let's get the facts before we indict this person in the court of public opinion. >> she did nothing wrong. so the president believ

should we call them lawful targeting of combat ants, lawful under the law war? no problem if that is the case. should we call them murders extra judicial killings as many human rights groups asserted? we don't have a principled basis for deciding anymore. i worry about the precedents we're setting for less scrupulous states such as russia, china, et cetera. all of this i could talk about in much more detail and would be happy to during the question period. what it comes down to senator durbin, senator cruz, right now we have the second i have tiff branch making a claim it has the right to kill anyone anywhere on earth at any time for secret reasons based on secret evidence in a secret process undertaken by unidentified officials that frightens me. i don't doubt their good faith but that is not the rule of law as we know it. in my statement submitted for the record i do suggest a number of reforms that might improve our ability to insure oversight and accountability. i don't have time to discuss them now but i very much hope we will address those issues later. i