go. >> [ inaudible ] what the law is? >> the intent of the law? well, the intent of the law when president clinton signed it, the intent of the law when i signed it was to give the courts in our state the highest level of scrutiny in cases where people feel that their religious liberty is being infringed upon by government action. i'm sorry, let's go here. >> you talked about the perceptions up there and the smear. how does the state of indiana get its good name back? >> well, first, the state of indiana has a good name. this law has been smeared. but, look, i'm going to mark our 200th anniversary next year. and the name and reputation of the people of indiana is strong and secure, but the reputation of this law, and the intentions of our legislature have been called into question. and i believe we need to deal with it. i believe we need to deal with it this week. and we will. we will fix this. and we will move forward. that's what -- that's what hoosiers do. >> [ inaudible ]? >> no comment. tom? >> what exactly do you want to see in the clarifica

it's a good law. >> what activities fall under the umbrella of the law?sure, not in the united states, we haven't had one, in texas, a native american was not forced to cut his hair to comply with a dress code. hair length - that was an element of his native american religious community. in kansas, a woman, a jehovah's witness wanted a liver transplant, but wanted one without blood transfusions. nebraska could do it, but had a medicaid rule saying we can't spend money in another state. she, unfortunately passed away. if they had an rifra that state legislation would have been swept awry. a prisoner in arkansas was allowed to have a nicely shaven and cared for beard as part of the islamic faith even though the department of correction said no hair at all. in philadelphia, they wanted to give food to people in a park. the city didn't like it. three or more cannot be fed in one time in a park in philadelphia. rifra took it away. it's important to know, not one rifra case was used for same-sex. no one can give us the name of one bern who had their actions und

have been asked about this law either -- haven't been asked about this law either. so it's ironic it's about religious freedom but we were not consulted in the first place. >> edgar, thank you for your time. >> thank you for having me >>> the issue of religious freedom is also front and center in arkansas where law makers could approve a similar law today. >> shame on you. shame on you. >> protesters for gay and lesbian rights took their chants to the state house there on monday. the governor has promised to sign the bill when it reaches his desk >>> turning now to switzerland where negotiators are up against a fast-approaching deadline for a framework deadline on iran's nuclear program. negotiators say they have made progress but also say key gaps remain. here's the latest. >>reporter: we have now nine hours left for that deadline. now, remember these talks have been going on on and off for 12 years. over the past couple of weeks we've had 12 days of talks here. we really are in the final phase of this. meeting right now as we speak, the p5 plus 1 countries, the fi

it's a good law. >> what activities fall under the umbrella of the law?sure, not in the united states, we haven't had one, in texas, a native american was not forced to cut his hair to comply with a dress code. hair length - that was an element of his native american religious community. in kansas, a woman, a jehovah's witness wanted a liver transplant, but wanted one without blood transfusions. nebraska could do it, but had a medicaid rule saying we can't spend money in another state. she, unfortunately passed away. if they had an rifra that state legislation would have been swept awry. a prisoner in arkansas was allowed to have a nicely shaven and cared for beard as part of the islamic faith even though the department of correction said no hair at all. in philadelphia, they wanted to give food to people in a park. the city didn't like it. three or more cannot be fed in one time in a park in philadelphia. rifra took it away. it's important to know, not one rifra case was used for same-sex. no one can give us the name of one bern who had their actions und

this is a law that mirrors what president clinton signed into law in 1993 and is the law by statute or court decisions in some 30 states around america. the religious freedom restoration act is a framework for courts to balance various interests of citizens in a way that respects our nation's strong and long-standing commitment to the importance of religious liberty. >> governor pence also pushed back against critics with an op-ed published in "the wall street journal," saying the law has been grossly misconstrued. meanwhile, republican leaders in the state legislature are scrambling to clarify language in the law, but that is not quieting the growing voices speaking out, including nine ceos who signed onto a letter hand delivered to governor pence, saying they're quote, deeply concerned about the impact of employees and reputation within the state. >>> indianapolis set to host the final four ncaa is vowing to re-examine ties with the state beyond this weekend. john yang joins me from indianapolis. john, i am keeping an eye on the news conference that should start soon with the governo

the law itself.t does it do, what does it not do, and what do critics say this law is doing something that's worse than any other of its kind? we'll break it down for you ahead. "wow, how is there no wayht, to tell the good from the bad?" so we gave people the power of the review. and now angie's list... is revolutionizing local service again. you can easily buy and schedule... ...services from top-rated providers. conveniently stay up to date on progress. and effortlessly turn your photos into finished projects with our angies list app. visit angieslist.com today. it begins from the second the pursuiwe're born.ier. after all, healthier doesn't happen all by itself. it needs to be earned... every day... using wellness to keep away illness... and believing that a single life can be made better by millions of others. healthier takes somebody who can power modern health care... by connecting every single part of it. for as the world keeps on searching for healthier... we're here to make healthier happen

i can't just make the laws up myself. we can't ignore the law.ese are series of comments the president made before this action. after repeatedly acknowledging his duty to faithfully enforce the immigration laws passed direct d his homeland security to do just that and change tlau. to quote the president himself, he said, i just took an action to change the law. a coalition of states brought suit in federal court to join the president's unilateral action. requires the president take care that the laws be faithfully executed. during the korean war, president truman relying on the war unilaterally seized the steel mills. president truman justified unilateral action because congress refused to pass a statute authorizing his action. they were ruled unconstitutional. here the federal judge presiding over this case has observed. not only ignores the dictates of congress, but thwarts them. the case was held unconstitutional by the supreme court. we think president obama's unilateral action here is unconstitutional. second, federal statutory law, namely t

sanchez with that lets step back into the policy realm what is working about the law the law seeks to enable folks to participate in short-term rental awhile protecting the housing stock the city law sees no harm in seeing the home sharing it can help the residents meet the high costs of living as well as we can protect that housing protection of existing housing it the derivative of our enforcement efforts some loopholes that facilitate misuse broader and more short-term rental frequency the allowance for hosting rental to occur 365 and the only stating restraining order safeguard it impossible the host is not fellowship present during the rental there is a way that people could a use the law and it's allowances for further hosting would the that diminishing our hosting or the city versus the home sharer they could become partners one option if they started to share both data valentine's day the law-abiding hosts and those operating outs e outside the host will be parent and stop the curtailing the listing that should be assessable for housing for san franciscans the remember our pri

law in the country. indiana under section 9 authorizes private individuals which also includes, by the way, corporations, limited partnerships, to have a defense, to bring a claim. so in other words, if you have a case where somebody is saying, hey, you're a florist and you're not willing to provide flowers in a public marketplace for my commitment ceremony, even though gay marriage is legal in indiana, what this law does, unlike any other law in any other state and unlike the federal government is it allows somebody to have a defense to a discrimination claim. and so before he starts to fix it, i suggest that the governor reads it, kate and john. >> ross, i want to bring you in here because before you were saying there was a misunderstanding on the law. that was the point that governor pence just made at length. he said right now there is a perception problem and he wants to fix that. but you write a very interesting column today where you say that society has moved so fast that that's playing into this

>>guest: if federal law and state law conflicts federal law wins. article six says the constitution is the supreme law of the land and in technical terms tread federal law on one hand state law on the other it was pre-empted but what is interesting is it is a drug that is often prescribed for those with diabetes or other conditions to speed digestion and it is now known a significant percentage of college users users, 29 percent will suffer a horrible irreversible neurological side effects. and now has a black box warning to a different women took the drug for a long period to suffer the side effect. they sued the drug company that they fail to adequately warn consumers. . . she's a man that was meant to protect consumers, not to lead to injuries were they can't recover. the majority has two alternatives. there's a third. the company could choose not to sell that drug. if it chooses to to sell it than to compensate those who are injured. another series of transient cases decided by the roberts court involves something called the federal arbitration

>> it's because activists say this law goes further than those other laws. there's the issue of timing. this comes a year after the state was forced to allow same-sex marriage so a lot of people feel that the indiana law goes further than the other state laws and that times have changed and public opinion is shifting across the country and that the law simple was sending the wrong message they felt. >> jonathan he blamed the national press but the fact is have you the head of apple, tim cook who wrote an editorial in the "washington post" against the law almost as soon as it was passed. you have angie's list freezing a $40 million development project in indiana. is he saying all those business leaders misunderstood the intent of the law? >> he's certainly saying he's surprised by the reaction and backlash here and is standing by this law and saying a lot of people are taking it out of contest and that the only point of the law was to protect the religious liberties of people from being forced to do something that violated their religious beliefs. thank you v

statutory law and case law and regulatory law and examining that and considering that. i wouldn't be much of a lawyer if i gave you a knee jerk reaction to that. >> sure, sure. but there may be occasions if you're confirmed as the deputy attorney general where you might be serving for one reason or another or at one time or another, as the acting attorney general. and there may be times when you get a call from the white house where you're asked hey, what do you think of x? i assume your knee jerk react e action would be one that would include a healthy amount of skepticism and weighted against the president and sec executive action gist by saying no taxes collected above 25%. >> well, certainly. if i were called upon to give my on-the-spot reaction, i thinkcan give a gut reaction. but before i would ever give a legal opinion on anything, i'm a careful lawyer. and i would want to look at the law. and i would want to talk with folks who are experts and i would want to think about the ramifications of it and make sure i give a reason and considered opinion. >> but your gu

birthright citizenship is a bedrock principle found not in law but in the constitution. the 14th amendment states clearly that all persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and of the state wherein they reside. for 115 years the obvious and plain meaning that people born on american soil are american citizens have been a.f.c. firmed before the supreme court -- have been affirmed before the supreme court and can only be changed by a constitutional amendment. now, my colleague from louisiana instead presents a bill and tries to argue with the supreme court and the english language by claiming undocumented immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. is he really suggesting, for example, that if an undocumented immigrant was brought to court he or she wouldn't be subject to the court's jurisdiction? clearly not. and the civil rights leaders who drafted the 14th amendment department think so either. instead, the 14th amendment was adopted after the infamous dred scott decision to make

laws?no one apparently really complained too much then. >> well this isn't about the text of the law. it's about the context. first of all, the law was passed a couple of months after the u.s. court of appeals eliminated the indiana's ban on same-sex marriage and this law is redone redundant. this law was unnecessary. it was seen as politically valuable in consolation to the religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage. so i would say, you know i don't want to quibble with the law itself because we didn't need it in the first place. you create new problems that you didn't anticipate and so here the two problems were the terrible reaction to the image of indiana across the country and also the unintented consequence and protection for gays and lesbians being strengthened in the state of indiana. these are two unintended consequences of the republicans pushing through a law we didn't need in the first place. >> okay. that's your opinion. russell, i want your opinion. first, i want to get th

lawful - although the committee says the law is out of date and need replacing.ry and proportionate. any evidence of that in the committee's report was redacted. in terms of the terminology, according to the committee, mass surveillance is out. collection is in. >> they tried to erelent a distinction -- erelent a distinction between the two. it's a false distinction that they are trying to make because what they are doing is detecting literally billions in excess of 50 billion, 600 million telephone calls. >> there's a difference between mass and bulk. it's everyone versus some numbers slightly less than everyone. the difference between the two terms is mostly - it means that supposedly not everything is scanned. we have no realisation of what bulk means. >> what the government is doing is mass intersection of every communication in this country. now, that interception is affected by a computer, yes. it doesn't make it less invasive or terrifying. the computer can do what a human can't do. it can draw assumptions about you, analyse movements, relationships, polit

i have laws. instead of a boy it's a law.s have lots of parents and they often take more than nine months but in a way would happen with enda is that we discovered it was this older sibling who had essentially been overlooked. not understood in terms of what it prohibited or so the first case was important in its default is the one you've heard about already price waterhouse singh you can't act on the basis of gender stereotypes, and justice scalia writing for unanimous court said sure, the 19th 60 for congress was not, sir, so that's the gender stereotyping. the next case about 10 years later to do with same-sex sexual harassment, justice scalia writing for unanimous court said yes, you can show it because of sex, same-sex, sexual harassment is covered. in the 60 for congress was a think about same-sex sexual harassment but we are governed by the words of the law not by the intent. enterprise waterhouse and transgender folk started bringing cases arguing gender stereotyping some court started to adopt those, six circuit 11th

law enforcement. the many issues i've outlined in this testimony. i offer the following recommendations to the task force. one, tribal law enforcement officers' salaries must be competitive with neighboring municipal county and state agencies. two, the authority in tribal community knowledge of tribal law enforcement officers must be respected by officers from local, county, and state agencies. there are many instances in which tribal officers are accused of impersonating law officers when they are off the reservation. three, resources must be dedicated to tribal law enforcement programs to adequately staff and resource strong tribal law enforcement departments. four, a training program must be designed for the unique circumstances and realities of being a tribal police officer in indian country. five, police academies across the country need to incorporate a mandatory tribal cultural sensitivity training component for all cadets. six, law enforcement executives must receive training on the importance

, environmental laws, labor laws tax laws and on and on and on. and that clearly upsets the constitutional balance. and that's not faithful execution of the law. >> and if i may add, the ranking member's correct. this was not a constitutional decision. but i think judge hainan showed his hand a bit, maybe a texas bluff if i may use the example. and suggested clearly there would be an abdication. the constitution says he will take care of the laws be executed. speaks of a complete abdication of the laws against entire class people. explains very clearly why. one aspect of the opinion that hasn't been appreciated says we need notice in common. we need rule making. how is this working? i think this hearing is why. we don't know how this policy works. in my research, i find a checklist used by dhs which has no other box. by checking off a box. professor found some narrative form which is slightly different. admitted in the testimony there were different types being used. this would be a perfect opportunity to take the time to show to the american peop

as in the indiana law. and the other thing is that it says that this religious freedom defense can be asserted in a private lawsuit. between two individuals. which is not the cation with these with the federal law. and most of the state rfras say that it can be. texas's religious freedom restoration act has a final section, that says this chapter does not establish or eliminate a defense to an action under a civil rights law. so if if that is in fact not the purpose of the indiana law, all they have to do is enact that section. what i'm saying is that indiana just flunked a civil rights test that texas passed. [ laughter [ ] >> it seems that that was very conscious, that there are people supporting this one that wanted those specific additional elements and that's actually what they're cheering about in this law. >> i think that's right. i think this law was very carefully reverse the engineered to try to deal with what they she as see as threats to the ability of businesses to discriminate on the basis of

there are zillions of these laws. >> yes. and let me address these laws justice kagan, and also be responsive to justice kennedy. i think if you look at the various laws that are put in the appelee's appendix not one of those state constitutional provisions purports to on its face redelegate authority away from the state legislatures. and to the contrary many of them, roughly half i counted 27, actually delegate authority to the state legislatures to implement them. so if you want to look at the north carolina provision on -- >> well, they're not delegations or non-delegations. all they are is laws that are passed not through the legislate legislative process. >> exactly. >> not through the legislature. >> we don't think that's the defect here. >> my gosh, i would think that if your primary argument is legislature means legislature that there has to be legislative control. in none of these laws is there legislative control. there's no legislative participation at all. >> see, justice kagan, we distinguish two situations. we c

he needs to change the law. we know what the law is. it's so clear he won't answer questions about the law when they're posed to him on television. the law needs to change. there should be an increase in protections by adding sexual orientation and gender. i don't need a clarification how he wants to discriminate or why it is acceptable. the law needs to be changed and that's that. >> congressman, what's the biggest danger of indiana's law? we're seeing other states that are talking about it. of course, georgia has put it on hold, but this can get a life of its own, can't it? where does the federal government come in on this as you see it? >> what you see here is mike pence getting ready to run for the presidency or the vice presidency and he thought he would get away with it and he's gotten nailed by the lgbt community. they're talking about it in georgia. they're talking about it in arkansas. all these states where he thought he was going to get a jump in some kind of race for the presidency he just got nailed. it will have impact. if

their main work has been on property law constitutional law and health law.believe this is 100% constitutional, do you not? >> i do. and can i just say i have a great deal of respect for both of my colleagues here. they've both done wonderful scholarship and both top people in their field. but ultimately whether the take care clause has been violated depends on the immigration laws. if you're going to say the president has not taken care to faithfully execute the laws you've got to specify what laws you think the president has violated. one of the things that's struck me about this discussion there's been almost no reference to any specific provisions of the law that they actually say have been violated. >> you're familiar with u.s. 6205? there's a clause there that says the secretary shall acting through the undersecretary for border and transportation security shall be responsible for the following. and he gives eight items. number five is establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities. does that not clearly give the administration th

this is a law that mirrors what president clinton signed into law in 1993 and is the law by statute or

law. this is a state that continues to do all of the things that are contrary to our democratic creed, at least the political power structure of the state. in the light of this, it seems to me that it will be necessary to continue to demonstrate until these conditions are removed. we don't believe in demonstrating for demonstration's sake. we don't have demonstration fever, but we do feel that as long as the conditions of injustice and man's inhumanity to man infiltrate that state, it will be necessary to demonstrate in order to bring these issues to the surface and lay them squarely before the conscience of the nation. mr. spivak: then as i understand it, dr. king, you see no end to demonstrations at the present, either in alabama or other sections of the country. dr. king: no, i don't. i don't believe in the indiscriminate use of demonstrations, but i think as long as we have the problems with us, we are going to have demonstrations, and i think in the immediate, we must face the fact th

law and medicine. law and the press, law and music, law and the performing arts. and this is good. this enables other disciplines to influence what's being taught in law school it's a complicated world out there. >> i say personally, because i have now grandchildren. the cost of this stuff is amazing, what are we going to do about that? i don't know. i don't know. finally, i think i say this every year these two gentlemen are before us. having a wife that's a trial court assistant at the state level for 30 -- 34 35 years now, i have a great amount of respect for the enterprise that these gentlemen represent. it's a great honor to have you here before us here today and i yield back. >> my final question i'm going do take us back just a little bit. justice kennedy, i was intrigued by your remarks early on and you referenced, i'm not sure if it's an organization or a process like a dinner that that has been -- it's really had an impact perhaps on the staff or the court itself or those who are around the court, and i'm -- i don't know anything about it. i do know that where we are as a

so this is not law. i don't know what this is, but it's so far from law, i don't know how to express my concern about it effectively. so it's unprecedented that for someone who is seeking the highest law enforcement office in america to declare that someone in this country illegally has a right to this kind of job. make no mistake, we are at a dangerous time in our nation's history, particularly for our republic legal system and our constitution. and i would like to quote now from professor jonathan turley. this is a professor of public interest law at george washington university law school a nationally recognized constitutional scholar a self-described supporter of president obama and most of his policies and who has been called by senator leahy and others over the years as expert witness on issues as a democratic witness. he described the current state of affairs as -- quote -- "a constitutional tipping point." he's referring to the presidential overreach. and i'd like to take a moment to read from th

law makers pulled the laws off the books. they fought twice about whether the laws were well suited for their jurisdictions. you hinted at this earlier. it's because the laws are too broad. we use the expression in the law. and it's an inside baseball expression. they are over broad. a law should not be written in such a way that it's so broad that it can be ploid in a way that had unintended consequences. >> do you see that in the case of georgia. >> yes, that is why georgia is getting so much attention. >> we'll add one thing. if i can add one thing to that. the distinction - i spent my career as a criminal lawyer. sometimes they invoke parenting. what makes it different is it's religion saying i can beat my wife. it's not a valid defense. to say this is my style of parenting, it's not corporate punishment is different. we don't want religion used as a defense. i want to add that, it's never been a defense in criminal law. >> dissecting the law. the debate will continue. thank you both. >> thank you. >> thank you >>> coming

law.f you're going to put that much of a threat on states, you think they would make that threat a little clear. they did not. that's not the way the law works. host: i will get you to respond. the chief justice has now released or arguments. every week that they come out we release them. we had posted the entire two hours and 20 minutes on our website, c-span.org. here is that exchange. [video clip] justice kennedy: it seems to me that if your argument is accepted, the states will need to either create your own exchange or we will send your market into a death spiral. we will have people pay mandated taxes. the cost of insurance will be skyhigh. this is not coercion. it seems to me, under your arguments, perhaps you would prevail. there is a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument. michael carvin: quite if this was unconstitutional, then the medicaid statute that this court approved would be unconstitutional. host: your response? guest: if they want to decide on that, the

, environmental laws, labor laws tax laws and on and on and on.hat clearly upsets the constitutional balance. and that's not faithful execution of the law. >> and if i may add, the ranking member's correct. this was not a constitutional decision. but i think judge hainan showed his hand a bit, maybe a texas bluff if i may use the example. and suggested clearly there would be an abdication. the constitution says he will take care of the laws be executed. speaks of a complete abdication of the laws against entire class people. explains very clearly why. one aspect of the

obamacare was passed into law. it included mandates on health care coverage for businesses and hobby lobby and the university of notre dame, among others filed federal lawsuits to challenge obamacare under the religious freedom restoration act. the supreme court in the majority opinion last year upheld the right of private business owners, under the religious freedom restoration act. citing the act. here is the background. in 1993, the federal law was signed by president clinton. in 1997, the supreme court of the united states ruled that the act did not apply to states that did not have their own statute. and that is why you have 19 states that have adopted statute. 11 other states that have adopted it in their case law. indiana never did. and so in the wake of the hobby lobby decision, to ensure that hoosiers in our state courts have the same level of scrutiny when their religious liberty they believe, is infringed upon, the general assembly room to this legislation. that was the precipitating event. >> [inaudible

we know the intent of this law.urn religion into a weapon to attack the liberty of others. this law's intent is to facilitate anti-gay discrimination and that is unamerican and that is wrong. >> laurie? >> no. i don't think that's the intent of the law at all. the vast majority of these cases have protected religious homeless shelters who are trying to find a place to locate. or the orthodox jewish congregation in dallas trying to find a place to have a synagog. so only a handful of cases across the country -- >> i'm sorry, but the legislators actually said that was the reason they were passing the law and when democrats said if you're saying that's not the point of this law, let's put in language explicitly say the point is not to discriminate against gay and lesbian, republicans declined to do so. they've made it clear at every step of the way that it's the intent of the law. >> that's the point of the question i was going to ask. tonight the governor issued a statement. he said, it's not a license for private par

now a professor of law at cornell university but presently visiting at yale law school. so he is a man of many schools. >> host: and he is your co-author. yes. >> host: another call from the bronx, this one from leo hi, leo. >> caller: good afternoon, how are you doing? >> host: good. >> my question to professor gunier is my understanding that associate justice clarence thomas was a beneficiary of affirmative action, yet he did opposed to affirmative action. do you have any thoughts about this contradiction? >> host: what is your view leo of affirmative action so-called affirmative action? >> caller: i just think that people should be judged by their abilities. it's just that if someone takes a position -- someone is a beneficiary of something and then turns around and says, hey i'm against it, it looks like it's contradictory or their vacillating. i expect someone who is a judge to have some consistent theories and concepts as to what the law is. >> host: thank you sir. professor? >> guest: well leo you've asked -- you're asking somebody who knows clarence, and i know h

and bring all government work in line with the rule of law. >> premier li used the word law about 40 times during his address. but one expert says the term has a different meaning in the country, and he says president xi jinping faces a tough challenge proving china is a nation governed by law. >> translator: i want to stress that china's concept of the rule of law is unique. it's completely different from that of western nations. >> translator: professor ho of peking university. he is known for his straightforward opinions even economy it comes to commenting on the country's regime. he has more than 1.5 million followers on the chinese version of twitter, and his remarks constantly draw the attention of people in china and overseas. >> translator: the chinese communist party is considered as a body that transcends the law. legal revisions and proposals are carried out at the command of the party. the party can revise the constitution or other laws as it wishes. the party plays a key role in the judiciary. every court contains a group. official communist party representatives. presid

it's going to be in violation of the law. you'll regret it. please. no matter how headstrong they might be, do you feel like that's the duty of the attorney general's office? >> i do. to fairly and impartially evaluate the law and provide the president and administration with impartial legal advice. >> and justice in a fraud case. or any other drug case you might have prosecuted excellently over the years, immigration law is important to be consistently and effectively enforced. should it not? >> i believe that all of our laws should be consistently and effectively enforced and within the confines of the constitution. >> well, that's a good answer, but they're not. so you're taking over as deputy to the attorney general of the united states of america and we have a just a collapse of integrity in immigration enforcement. and the president's position on executive amnesty just accelerates the collapse of integrity resulting this for example the lowest morale in the department of homeland security officers who enforce the law of any department in the ent

, in criminal law and constitutional law. and these are available, first of all, to the legal profession and the academy. but second, people that are generally interested. there are blogs on the supreme court. there are -- as i indicated, blogs on different subjects. they're quite detailed. they're quite interesting. my law clerks read them a lot. i, frankly, don't read them. but the availability of information and, as justice breyer indicated, the interest of the citizen and the ability of the citizen to get it is really increasingly remarkable because of the information revolution. chairman crenshaw: yes. thank you both. well, thank you. you know, when you talk about educating the public, the question always comes up, people suggest that maybe the courts should televise oral arguments. that people could see, firsthand, what goes on. and i know the court has historically rejected that. i think it was justice sotomayer before she went on the bench thought it would be a good idea to televise oral arguments and once she was on

and a street law and mock trial program with atlanta john marshall law school. she hosted public discussion with georgia's governor and the chamber of commerce on the barriers facing formerly incarcerated individuals. she worked with the urban league, moore high school of medicine and the state board of pardon and paroles to establish a 12-week program to provide job training counseling and interview advice for parolees returning to the community. in the last year, citizens across the country have let the nation know they believe law enforcement is not fair and reports are now verifying that some of their concerns are valid. long before these problems came to light, sally yates led her office to build community relationships. and she's still doing it every day. she knew it was important, very important, not only to seek out and prosecute crime whenever she found it, but to create an understanding of higher justice to serve us all. mr. chairman and ranking members i introduce in this committee a true champion of justice. a true champion of what is right. what is

their main work has been on property law constitutional law and health law.ou believe this is 100% constitutional, do you not? >> i do. and can i just say i have a great deal of respect for both of my colleagues here. they've both done wonderful scholarship and both top people in their field. but ultimately whether the take care clause has been violated depends on the immigration laws. if you're going to say the president has not taken care to faithfully execute the laws you've got to specify what laws you think the president has violated. one of the things that's struck me about this discussion there's been almost no reference to any specific provisions of the law that they actually say have been violated. >> you're familiar with u.s. 6205? there's a clause there that says the secretary shall acting through the undersecretary for border and transportation security shall be responsible for the following. and he gives eight items. number five is establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities. does that not clearly give the administration

law enforcement agency. next embrace the recommendations of the consensus as national policy to improve our community's safety from active shooter and mass casualty events. third, develop and implement a national comprehensive database for law enforcement officer injuries and treatment. finally, facilitate legislative protections in national policy to develop a robust peer review program for united states law enforcement. it is a pleasure around a calling to serve both as it a law enforcement officer and a caregiver of law enforcement officers. i am humbled and honored to have been given this opportunity to represent both of those groups today. the interface between medicine, public health and law enforcement has great potential. not just as a source for many novel officer safety program but to harness those programs and transform them into true community policing resources. my most sincere thanks to the task force commissioner ramsey, chairwoman robinson and to the president putting this group together and

this is a law that mirrors what president clinton signed into law in 1993.gious freedom restoration act is simply a framework for courts to balance the various interests of citizens in a way that respects our nation's strong and long-standing commitment to the importance of religious liberty. >> there is some republicans in the legislature there in indiana. you have always said if we need to tweak the law or clarify this law you would do so. how specifically would you clarify and adjust the law? >> well, let me say first and foremost, you know, i stand by this law. but i understand that the way that some on the left and, frankly, some in the national media have mischaractered this law over the past week might make it necessary for us to clarify the law through legislation. we were working through the day and into the night last night with legislative leaders to consider ways to do that. there is no license to discriminate in this law. for my part, i abhor discrimination like any other hoosier. i don't think anyone should be mistreated because of who they are

than helped by the law. there is a ratio of more people thip they were harmed -- people think they were harmed than helped. more people want it repeal. that is what we're seeing across the country with this health care law. the president should listen to the american people who have these stories to tell. i was on the floor yesterday talked about a woman from maine. there was an article in a paper from maine she found the whole experience that she's been going through now frightening and she has insurance through the exchange. and she says it is a frightening experience. she did her taxes and found out she ended up owing a lot of money in taxes that she didn't know she was going to owe because of mistakes being made and the way the bookkeeping works. that's what's happening. h & r block the insurance folks are saying on average half of the people filing their returns this year are finding that they're getting shocked and surprised that they their amount of money coming in for the returns is a lot lesbian ave

carr von makes the art that the law said what he -- argument that the law said what he says and the subsidies can't be made available. to tell it he's saying that congress intended to set it up that way. it withheld the subsidies so that states would have a strong incentive to set up their own exchanges, because if they didn't. the insurance markets would spiral out of control. that wouldn't have been a fair deal that may have been unconstitutional. if you say that's what was intended to do. he expressed in a couple of points concerns about how carr von's view of the law would really affect the balance of state and federal power. that's an issue that is important to him. he has based a lot of jurisprudence on in the past. that was a good sign for the administration. he picked up for the issue. >> who argued for the administration, and what did he have to say. >> that was the solicitor-general. this case was a rematch. one day of the 2012 arguments, don versus michael carr von, and his argument is that you can't look at just these five words when you try to figure out what the text of the law

did you not read the law think about the law?hese lawmakers saying they didn't know what it meant -- that just can't be a defense of the situation. >> i would like to answer that question directly but i don't know. the state house is the state house. >> i hear you're wired, mr. mayor, and you know what happens. >> no, actually, i speak directly all the time. i was on cnn last night. >> mm-hmm. >> i know the implications are there. you would have to go inside the caucus, which i don't do, to see what that was all about. i mean i have heard that repeatedly obviously. but you have to ask the speaker or the senate majority leader whether that is what it is. because that's just what happened. again, what's happened has been disastrous. no question about it. you can -- it doesn't take too much of a detective to walk through some of the things and what some of the websites are saying about this to draw the conclusion. i will certainly concur. >> what's the fix? the governor says i'm not changing it. i'm not making them a protected class

that law?onstitutional. i say probably because no one has tested this very law. stuart: why? >> but a very similar statute enacted by congress in the 1990s was invalidated by the supreme court. now here's the theory. the supreme court has ruled consistency and for many years that a person cannot use a religious objection to avoid complying with a general law. so i can't justify the slaughter of animals in my backyard on the grounds that it's part of my religion. nor could i justify the refusal to serve people in my shop or my restaurant who are of a surgeon race because it's part of -- who are of a certain race because it's part of my religion. the same principle of law prevents a state legislature from saying you can choose not to serve gays, lesbians and transgenders because it's against your religion. the religious objection to otherwise complying with law is has been invalidated by the supreme court and that's why i think the statute would be invalidated. stuart: so now they say, okay, we'r

jonathan, i thought you were for law and order. i thought you respected law. you start a sentence with a word illegal. you're wrong my friend. >> i could point to a lot of laws in our history which were totally immoral, totally wrong and were changed for good reason. i don't think respect for authority is a reason for keep an immoral law on the books. >> don't break the law, just make it up as you go along. are you crazy? >> we've got to go. >> what president obama has done a undermine the constitution and undermine the rule of law by moving forward with his executive action. this isn't something that was passed by congress, this wasn't something that was done the way it should by being passed through congress. this is something that president obama himself said over 20 times that he legally do could not do. >> he did it because this congress mailed to act and it's not a new law, it's within his prog it i have to act this terms of how he applies and sets priorities. >> that is still under major debate. we're going to have to leave it right there. jet setting c

what is the law review style? >> guest: well, the law review style requires, number one, you use a lot of footnotes. it also wants you to articulate all of the other options that could be considered in addition to what it is you're trying to introduce oar to develop further, and although it's based on examples, it's often much more theoretical, and thus people who are not law professors are often not aware of or able to distinguish the difference between an argument that is scholarly and implementation of a particular set of assumptions that haven't really been developed. >> host: did you ever get the chance to publicly testify? on your nomination to be assistant attorney general -- >> guest: yes. i got that opportunity through the media, not through the justice department or through the other branches of congress. >> host: would you have liked to have testified before the -- >> guest: yes. i was looking forward to it. i mean, i wasn't as upset about -- let me put it in the affirmative. i was eager to play a role