who have a rear face law. once children graduate out of a forward facing child safety seat, the next step is to be buckled up in a booster seat. you know, seatbelts are made to properly fit 100 and 170 pound mails. so, you can see why it is vitally important to keep those kids in a booster seat for just as long as you can. right now, only 15 states have an optimal law which cover children under the age of eight and 57 inches in height. unfortunately, only five states have these critical child safety laws. so, it's time our lawmakers in nearly every state prioritize the safety of our very precious child passengers. i also want to call today on our federal leaders to do their part. a rule is languishing in the us department of transportation that would require seatbelt reminders to help prevent backseat passengers and help make sure they are properly buckled. doesn't make any sense when we get in our vehicles today that if you're not in the front seat, driver or passenger, you get a buzz if you're not buckled up

school of law center and a attorney at nyu school of law. previously an acting assistant professor at nyu and also served as a law clerk for the horn possible rosemary market on the u.s. court of appeals for the 11th circuit. david also a graduate of yale where overlaided with yalees sorry harvard didn't make the cut today. more on the next panel. also on editor on the yale law review. david gans. >> thanks so much. so i want to just say thanks so much for having me. and convening this to talk about severe ability which is an incredibly important topic that is i think often misunderstood. and what this case sort of highlights, this is a doctrine that is crucial that comes up time and again in -- in loads and loads of really important constitutional cases. and usually we're much -- really interested in sort of the big constitutional question to which severe ability is appended. soy applaud kind inform focus. and i think partially because of severability being sort of an adjunct to a dispute about sort of the extent to which the constitution l

extreme risk laws allow family members and law enforcement to temporarily reprove guns from people in crisis that pose danger to themselves or others. congress should encourage others. my classmates and i have seen firsthand how lethal these weapons are. congress should reinstitute the assault weapons ban. congress should also close the loophole. the shooter who killed nine people in the south carolina church shooting was able to buy a gun because his background check wasn't completed in three days. most take minutes. some take longer. rather than thereon special interests i ask you to listen to the nation's young people and americans who have had enough. we have had enough of gun violence in our schools, movie theaters, places of worship and nightclubs and in our communities. enough. we have all had enough. i hope you have had enough too and used the power to do what is right. our lives are in your hands. thank you. [ applause ] >>> i appreciate the passion here and i ask you refrain from making noise on either side. our witnesses on which ever side deserve that. thank you. >> my nam

they have to become advocates for laws often called red flag laws. they can prevent both murderers and suicides by temporarily removing weapons from those who are a danger to themselves and to others. our community and our nation cannot wait any longer for commonsense gun safety solutions, like extreme risk laws and universal background checks. and i look forward to discussing the this issue further during my time for question. -- questions. rep. mcbath: the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. --. banks reppo biggs -- rep. biggs: thank you for being here today and the members of the audience for being here. my question is, savannah, i'm sorry for the violence that you experienced in your life. i want to ask a couple of questions with your experience with the guns. you indicated you were an owner of guns. when did you first get a gun, and what did you do to learn how to use it? >> yes, my grandfather was always really into like, firearms, target training, all of that kind of stuff. it is something i grew up around, and i always thought it was

looking at law-abiding citizens and upholding the laws that protect us. he opposed gun control lawed because he saw it as an intri kal part of policing. he saw it as the first line of defense. how does your experience relate to that view? >> i think that i'm not sure neighborhood watch to be honest would have helped me in a situation because it was him -- >> my point is that underlies a more fundamental philosophy as the first line of defense against crime. >> i don't want to get into the dedays of what happened but it was him versus i. i was a battle of strength and obviously i lost. yes. we police our some times seconds count. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. >> neighborhood watch i do think provides a real opportunity for community members to get involved but ed davis never believed in arming the neighborhood watch. i wanted to -- i have a couple of questions. i want to address what i believe is a common stereo type. it has often been said when a police officer and when there is crime that takes place in our commun

law. we are fortunate he's chosen to take time today to talk about these issues with us and i ask you to join me in welcoming him to the podium. [applause] mr. rosenstein: thank you, suzanne, for that lengthy introduction. ask ogize we can't questions. you can put your pen down. i met with suzanne and dr. henry before we began this event today and one of the issues we talked about was fake news and so i feel golden stated to correct the record, suzanne, on -- obligated to correct the record, suzanne, i am not the longest serving deputy attorney general. in my home state of maryland, there was a u.s. attorney that served for 19 years and i served for only 12. so i am far from achieving that distinction. but my career in the department does go back so far that i remember when bill parr was attorney general of the united states. [laughter] mr. rosenstein: he was actually deputy attorney general when i began my job and then ascended to the attorney general position thereafter and we are very g

channel is a law that first became a resolution and then a law. it will eventually be known by this title, the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. what is this law? it grows out of that outbreak of anti-semitism and the idea is, maybe we should have a law to specifically ban hate and start with anti-semitism. by 1962 this law has grown. jamaica plays a huge role in this. jamaica says let's ban racial segregation and apartheid. they are very upset. they just emerged from colonialism. morris abram says absolutely.

we need a new set of laws. a commission was created by congress, which i had the privilege of working on and serving on, to evaluate if the law needed to be changed. think the unanimous d.c. circuit court of appeals that upheld some of the violations by microsoft showed that one, the laws are adequate and can apply. enforcement that allowed for, and people can i stronglysides -- believe that enforcement allowed for the breakthroughs over the internet technologies and communications that we saw since 2000. because had it not been, you would not have had the browser. it would have been controlled by the operating system because it would've been incorporated and you would add competition to that. wouldplication developers still have to write to the microsoft operating system, rather than writing to browsers and mobile apps we have today. probably would not have had the mobile key medications revolution, with lots of competition and operating systems there. i think that was a critical enforcement action that show t

the the full measure of law the full measure of law enforcement authority is placed in the presidents hands and no limit is placed on the kinds of cases subject to his control and supervision. that is page number 11 on the memo. importantly based on these , conclusions mister barr asserts certain actions including firing fbi director james comey or telling them to -- the fbi to go easy on michael flynn is not that obstruction of -- never obstruction of justice. said "the. barr president's discretion in these areas has long been considered absolute". and his decisions exercising and are presumed to be regular and generally deemed non-reviewable. that is page 10 in the memo. this is a stunning legal argument. taken to the natural conclusion conclusion, mister -- conclusion, mr. barr's analysis squarely places this president above the law. to argue the president has no check on this authority and flies in -- authority flies in the face of our constitutional principles of checks and balances and should be concerningws to democrats and republicans. mr. barr's views of the power of the pres

in addition to those vertical laws, we have a general section, section 5, the consumer protection law that says companies are not able to deceive their consumers or treat them unfairly. the ftc has been very effective in using that authority to protect consumer privacy, to go have brokenies that their promises or have harmed consumers without any benefit to them. it is not just these verticals we have. we have a law that applies across the board to all companies. with a few minor carveouts. i do think that framework has worked pretty well. there is no doubt that congress could do certain things around data security and data breach notification. i think there is a broad consensus on both what the problem is, and there is a lot more consensus around what the solution is. around privacy, one of my big messages here today was that people mean so many different things when they talk about privacy that it is hard to see how congress does anything that people have because not yet agreed on what the problem is. areask there is a lot of that people could agree on, that these are the type of in

the public to act and to also counter the extreme abortion laws by introducing pro-life protective laws that would protect both mother and unborn child when they passed there are so used weighing members of the alternative for germany party have been attacked after being invited to a film festival and other stories just about. but politicians do something. they put themselves on the line they get accepted or rejected. so when you want to be president. some want to. let you go right to be crooks this is like the fourth in the morning can't be that . interested always in the long as it. should. be with us today for members of the alternative for germany parties youth wing have been attacked after being invited to a bustling film festival to see a film about the holocaust ever attacked with glass bottles as they arrived at the cinema and we spoke to a vet even dogs and one of the victims about exactly what happened. the following. girl stuff nothing she was doing. things that could be got to just accept the books all of the sudden some guys rushed although for the dark i think. there were

under the laws convey. related to four distinct cases, 42 of the administration's 101 designation today have been some part explicitly cited violence against her analyst as part of the rationale for the u.s. government imposing the penalty. this includes of course the 17 saudi nationals sanction in november in the transfer case as well as in auto mall, nicaragua and gambia. does this track record amount to a credible deterrent could a future administration bolster the deterrent effect by making clear publicly and in advance that those responsible for gross violations of human rights targeting members of the press in countries like russia, china, egypt kameny and mark, turkey and saudi arabia to name some of the leading offenders will face consequences for their actions. yes, that conceivable. could a future of congress modified the act to mandate such an outcome concerning cases of journalists or other protected classes. yes conceivably it could. our other national and international jurisdictions adopt an s

he practices law at the law firm of kirkland and ellis. he got his jd from the chicago law school. what we will be discussing today will be four positions. the format will not be the normal presentation of of each subject. we will have a roundtable discussion on the subject. the core subject will be first of all, immigration. the issue of feng shui cities and the issue of the federal cut back on grants because of the status of sanctuary city will be addressed. we will also be talking about to what extent can local government, state government and municipal government aid and assist or some people might say aid and abet [ laughter ] the federal government in its immigration policies. the next subject will be a subject which is very interesting to me. i will say very little about it because we have a lot of cases under submission. i am working on them as you can imagine. the issue is regarding marijuana legislation. there are some states that have marijuana as recreational, other states had it as medicinal. a lot of them in the ninth circuit are included. the situation that we had is

law-abiding citizens follow the laws. so if you're trying to stop gun violence and most of the gun violence is caused by people that don't follow the laws, you're not really getting the solution that you want. and i am a strong supporter of the second amendment. and i'm also a survivor of domestic violence and so i appreciated the testimony on that and want to share with you that there's people like me out there that have been victims but we also want to be able to defend ourselves. and so i hope that you go away with realizing that we all want to solve this problem. i have no share with you that the department of justice in a recent january 2019 report of prison inmates, they were interviewed. and the ones that used guns in their crime, 56% of them stated they obtained their gun by stealing it or by underground. and another 25%, so almost all of them, legally obtained it from a family member. so i guess what i'm trying to say to you is that when you have well-intention laws, and i believe you really believe that the back

law.eputy attorney general rod rosenstein knows firsthand what it means to be bound by the rule of law, how important it is to earn and sustain public trust in the principle of a justice system that is fair and impartial. and what happens in a country that fails to respect the rule of law, we are fortune that has chosen to take time today to talk about these issues with us and i ask you to join me in welcoming him to the podium. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you for that lengthy introduction. i've regret that we've exhausted all the times for audience questions. but it is a great honor for me to be here. i had the opportunity to meet with susan before we began this event today. and one of the issues we talked about was fake news and so i feel obligated to correct the record on one point, and i regret i am not the longest serving u.s. attorney in history. i think i'm the longest serving in this century which is not all that long so far. but in my home state of maryland, there was a u.s.

no one is above the law. and i'm talking about the tax laws, 6103. no one is above that law. so that thing has to be settled within two or three months as far as i'm- that's my opinion. the kmarm will have his own deliberative. >> i'm sorry when you said two or three months did you mean pulling on the trigger on 6103 and asking for them. >> yes, yes. >> the request. >> do you feel like this case help you guys establish sort of the legal. >> do i feel like. >> do you feel feel like the hearing helped you establish the legal case to go forward. >> yes i think the three gentlemen are interested. we all knew before we got here we all knew february the 2nd, 2017, that there is no law that says that the president -- i mean, come on we're not going to elementary school here we know we've been through this before. much of what you heard today you heard before. >> congressman, were you saying that the irs would not be able to audit president trump's tax returns because of politic willing pressuring or because -- >> no, no. no i wasn't saying that at all. >> why did the chairman -- why

there are taxes in this law. there are reductions to payments in medicare in this law, all premised on an architecture that's supposed to fit together. if you lose one part, i think you go back and ask the hypothetical, what would congress have done? they won no republican votes. they won in the senate, they had 60 votes, the minimum they needed to offset a filibuster. so any single senator would have killed the bill and many parts of the bill were aimed at getting the individual votes. harry reid was a master of crafting together the politics of the affordable care act. so at the end of the day i think the question is what is the role of the court here? the court has often said this wants to play the least political role possible, the most deference and that's a fair question to ask, what is the least political role? is it to figure out whether insurance companies are getting unduly screwed or not? is it to say whether the medicare reduction in hospital payments was inappropriate? or the payment for these variou

south carolina has that exact same law. that was upheld by a three-judge court and has been in place since 2012 without any problems. a different panel of the fourth circuit upheld virginia's voter id law which did not have that kind of exemption. , two obama judges and a clinton judge, did not reflect the actual facts and the evidence in the case. host: i want to come back to the issue of redistricting and let our audience know that common cause and the heritage foundation are represented at the table. first up is don from wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. i happen to be a farmer in the midwest, and so elections are the first tuesday of november. we are in the middle of corn harvest. who is going to come out and do my work so i can plan today's to be will to go off and vote and be able to do the things you think everyone should have is the result of a holiday? the left movement is an effort to grab resources. money is just an exchange. , have worked on this farm growing up since i was six years , doing all the

in numerous books and journals, such as the boston college law review, cornell law review,florida law harvard civil rights, civil liberties law review and i can't list all of them. school, the harvard law where he received his law degree, he was one of the editors of the harvard law review and later a senior fellow at the charles hamilton institute for race and justice. he is also an elected member of the american law institute. youre very pleased to have and i look forward to this conversation. nationalork with the trust for historic preservation gives history a tangible form. i like to tell my students that you can learn history in books but you can also learn history museums. there is something really special standing in standing in those places where history was made. please talk about why it is so important to preserve sites of slavery and why your action fund is so crucial for capturing 400 years of perseverance. >> i want to thank you for having me here today. trust natural -- national for his torque preservation, we preserve places where history happened. we believe every amer

cool school of law. in 2015 she founded on administrative law and served on the governing counsel of the american bar association of law and regulatory practice as well as on the federalist society's regulatory transparency project. before her life as a law professor miss rao served in the white house counsel's office and also served on this committee on the senate judiciary committee. she was a law clerk to two distinguished jurists, justice thomas on the supreme court and judge jay harvey wilkinson on the u.s. court of appeals for the fourth circuit. she's a graduate of the university of chicago law school where she was on the law review and she did her undergraduate studies at yale college. she grew up in suburban detroit, daughter two of immigrants from india and lives in washington with her husband and two children. miss rao, welcome to the committee. we look forward to hearing from you and to hearing your answers to our questions. thanks so much for being here. >> thank you, senator lee. >> thank y

he really believes in martial law. he really believes in martial law. and, he is called to account by james madison, the father of the constitution, and his defense of his measures is, necessity. i had to do this. i had to declare martial law. and madison's response conveyed by the secretary of state alexander dallas is, you may have been justified by necessity, but the constitution doesn't justify what you did, no one but congress can do what you did. know but congress can declare martial law. so what you did was illegal. and then jackson response back by saying, well, it was illegal, but it was necessary. and i think that suggests that madison at least understood that the president did not have power to suspend, to impose martial law, in this case, suspend the writ of habeas corpus which was the effect of the declaration of martial law. and even jackson, but admitted that he could not clear martial law or suspend the writ of habeas corpus. you see other incidences where territorial governors, not military commanders, declare martial law, on the 1850s.

that is how law enforcement is successful. when private citizens give information to the fbi, when they collaborate, when they say, i got a weird posting on my facebook page. what you take a look at this? or i think there is going to be a unite the right rally in my community. let's collaborate and make sure everybody at that space is safe. so the protesters, the counterprotesters, law enforcement agents, business owners, everybody is safe and it is done within the bounds of the law. so, collaboration, partnership, transparency is key. government agencies like the fbi and the department of justice have to be transparent and genuine in what they give back and how they behave so that folks like you will trust them to do the right things. questions. thank you. are they easy? ok, off the topic. i will turn it over to you. but i think those partnerships have to be sustained, have to be cultured and developed and capitalized on to keep everybody safe. amy: i think again, i think that , is right. we are in a lot of agreement here. i

what about martial law? well, it turns out that the crown had some authority to impose military justice on members of the army, but no authority to impose military justice on civilians. and the authority to impose military justice on the army only existed in england when there was a war on english soil. that is to say without war on english soil, the english crown could not discipline soldiers for their, you know, leaving without authority or committing other military offenses. the only way that -- you know, the only way that the crown could impose articles of war on the military is if there was a war going on in england. the reason why they were able to impose articles of war in times of peace is precisely because parliament authorized them to do so. that is to say, when the articles of war applied in england in peacetime, they did so because parliament authorized the crown to impose them. and i'll mention one final episode from 1776. in 1776, apparently, there were torrential rains in england and lots of f

a choice of law question. if you have a federal law that conflicts with a constitutional provision, if you cannot enforce both, if the state law conflicts with the -- if the federal or state law, for that matter, conflicts with the constitution, which do you follow? and so judicial review is the process of choosing to follow the constitution rather than the federal law. refusing to give the federal law legal effect in the context of that particular case. looking at judicial review from that perspective leads to a very different conception of whether judges should be going around attempting to completely nullify and invalidate statutes far beyond the boundaries of the case before them. the other main source of confusion i'd like to suggest that arises with regard to nationwide injunctions, is the term, nationwide injunction, itself. it is the most misleading term you could possibly use in part because it's not an it, it's a they. the phrase, nationwide injunctions, has been used and can be used to refer to four

law or one this is a smart. strategic see through steel barrier not just a simple concrete wall it will be deployed in the areas identified. by the border agents as having the greatest need and these agents will tell you where walls go up illegal crossings go away way down the law san diego used to have the most illegal border crossings in our country. in response a strong security wall was put in place this powerful barrier almost completely ended illegal crossings. the border city of el paso texas used to have extremely high rates of violent crime one of the highest in the entire country and considered one of our nation's most dangerous cities. now immediately upon its building. with a powerful barrier in place. el paso is one of the safest cities in our country. simply put walls work and walls save lives while . so let's work together compromise and reach a deal that will truly make america safe but as we work to defend our people safety we must also ensure our economic resurgence continues at a rapid pace no

welcome back to worlds apart alan dershowitz professor of law emeritus at harvard law school professor dershowitz i'm sure seem to have lines indeed new york times about after its impeach president trump through the use of the twenty fifth amendment what do you make of it well it was a terrible terrible abuse of the constitution the constitution provides for impeachment. that's a political legal remedy but the twenty fifth amendment was designed for people who had a stroke or president reagan when he was shot when you're incapacitated when you're unconscious when you're unable to be the president it provides a mechanism for replacing the president with the vice president it was never intended to be used to rid the country of a president who people don't agree with they think may have committed obstruction of justice or collaboration with russia that's not what the twenty fifth amendment was intended to use and when the justice department itself which is supposed to support the constitution tries to undercut the constitution that raises fundamental questions about the mindset of those w

law-abiding citizens. assuming the people know each other. to me, it's a violation of their rights if yount are on your own private property and you can't even temporarily transfer guns, because under , this have read on hr 8 would make you a criminal if you did that. i also have lesko number 4 amendment. this would allow gun owners to legally transfer their firearms to individuals who have a federal government issued security clearance. right here, my staff member, matt, recently applied to get a security clearance. this is all of the paperwork they have to do, along with the extensive background check. he had to get interviews, he has to go back for another interview . certainly, if somebody has a security clearance and a background check, they should be able to be waived from having another background check in order to get a gun. 5 amendment says that -- i ask for your approval -- it allows for the transfer of a handgun to an individual who has a valid state-issued permit to purchase or license to own a

protect against who says that you have to respect the law. more than you disrespect or dislike your anime's be geo political enemies or political enemies in this case what happened to the united states when such. clear masses shine i think such an unambiguous message needs to be renegotiated once again well people are so angry at president trump and so anxious to get rid of him because they disagree so fundamentally with his politics with who is appointed to the supreme court with how he separated families at the border with how he wants to build a war and wants to end the obama medical programs people are so angry at him that they're prepared to do anything include violate the law and violate the constitution to get him out of office and i'm standing up by myself pretty much for the constitution for the rule of law and against many of my old friends who i agree with politically but i can't accept their notion of the ends justify the means because when you establish a president precedent against a president trump it can be used against any pr

i hate to say it, and i won't mention the name of the law school, but i got into my law school on the grounds that they considered me a foreigner. i got in as -- on the foreign quota. someone in the law school had not read up their american history and hadn't realized that hawaii was annexed in 1898 and that we were all american citizens. but it was very difficult getting into school and getting into the profession. i couldn't find a job. and when all of my contemporaries at home say, oh, my goodness, what you've done to politics at home and, you know, i wish we had never heard of patsy mink, i'll say, well, it's because of all of your attitudes that drove me into politics. if you'd given me a job when i came home from law school, i would have been very happy just drawing a paycheck each month. >> but you have much of the same problems starting out? >> well, i was married, and my husband was in law school. and for some reason or other, that law school seemed to think, well, you know, he'll take care of her and it's all right. in fact, they had the nerve to say in front of the other wo

efforts to unseat president trump well to discuss that i'm now joined by alan dershowitz professor of law emeritus at harvard law school and the author of the case against the democratic house impeaching trump mr dershowitz it's such a honor and such a pleasure talking to you thank you very much for that. well thank you so much as you probably know i voted against president trump i'm a liberal democrat i worked hard to see that hillary clinton would get elected but i'm very much opposed to efforts to remove this president who i voted against by unlawful means whether by invoking the twenty fifth amendment to the constitution which was written for presidents who are incapacitated by medical or psychiatric reasons or whether by impeachment that requires high crimes and misdemeanors so i'm very much in favor not of president trump but in favor of the constitution now when you say that the you're in in favor of the constitution and the civil liberties rather than motivated by any personal sympathies for president trump do people believe you are on is a hard case to make in this day and age of

all law enforcement had to do was enforce existing law. the gunman was prohibited from possessing firearms. in january, 2014, he was issued an illinois' firearms owner's identification card. that march, he applied to buy a handgun from a gun dealer. five days later he took possession of the gun having inexplicably passed a ackground check. his felony conviction was flagged. they sent him a letter telling him to relinquish the firearm. not surprisingly, the felon did not comply. had authorities seized the firearm between march, 2014, february, 2019, they could have saved five lives. aurora, illinois, is not the only missed opportunity to prevent tradgedeefment we know about missed opportunities in parkland, aurora, sutherland springs, virginia tech, and others. the common problem here, mr. speaker, is clear. it's not a lack of background checks. with h.r. 8, democrats refuse to acknowledge human factors leading to these events but republicans have a bill to help law enforcement coordinate responses to mental health concerns and other mass v

when i said no one is above the law, i mean no one is above the tax law and in this case, the tax law is 6103. it is the law of the land. went democrats and republicans feasted on scandal and bribery. that is the law of the land. so he is not above the president of the united states, president trump is not above 6103. and as it pertains to everybody in the executive branch of government not just the president. secretary -- the secretary of the interior, was the one who put the scheme together. that was back in 1923. okay. that is what happened. so mr. keyes, thank you for joining all of these great people like yourself. i read your stuff. we don't agree on some things and we do agree on some things. wouldn't you know about that. mr. keyes, do you believe, this is a different part of the question, do you believe committee republicans violated the law and 2014 when they released taxpayer information over 50 taxpayers and they found nothing? do you believe they violated a law? >> absolutely. >> thank you very much mr. keyes. thank you for your honesty. that is what i expected. >> so let

our skilled law library staff, both american trained and law librarians also provide research assistance and reference on u.s. federal and state legal issues. while our collection in expertise reach across all points of the globe, for today's event, we've partnered with our next door neighbor who happens to be the highest court in the country. while i don't want to overstate our love and admiration for our colleagues across the street, it is probably not mere coincidence that we hold today's event on valentine's day. just sayin'. this afternoon, we are pleased to be able to collaborate with the supreme court as they celebrate their 46th year of the fellows program. it is well known that our featured speaker today has an affinity for baseball. if any of you have time to stay after the event, i encourage you to head up to the second floor of this building to see our baseball americana exhibition. it features items from the library's collections as well as from the national baseball hall of fame and mlb. please note that today's program is being live streamed on the library of congress yout

all law enforcement had to do was enforce existing law. the gunman was prohibited from possessing firearms. in january, 2014, he was issued an illinois' firearms owner's identification card. that march, he applied to buy a handgun from a gun dealer. five days later he took possession of the gun having inexplicably passed a ackground check. his felony conviction was flagged. they sent him a letter telling him to relinquish the firearm. not surprisingly, the felon did not comply. had authorities seized the firearm between march, 2014, february, 2019, they could have saved five lives. aurora, illinois, is not the only missed opportunity to prevent tradgedeefment we know about missed opportunities in parkland, aurora, sutherland springs, virginia tech, and others. the common problem here, mr. speaker, is clear. it's not a lack of background checks. with h.r. 8, democrats refuse to acknowledge human factors leading to these events but republicans have a bill to help law enforcement coordinate responses to mental health concerns and other mass v

law review. and later a senior fellow at the charles hamilton houston institute for race and justice. he is also an elected member of the american law institute. so, we are very pleased to have you, and i look forward to this conversation. >> brent, your work with the national trust for historic preservation gives history a really tangible form. i like to always tell my students that you learn history in books, but you can also learn history in museums. but, there is something really special standing in those places where history was made. please talk about why it is so important to preserve size of slavery, and in fact why your action fund is so crucial for captioning 400 years of perseverance. >> i want to thank you evelyn and osama for having me here today. we preserve the places where history happened. we believe that every american, including african-americans should be able to see themselves in the historic places that surround us. the national trust by congress in 1949, today we are a nati

that's why law enforcement uses social media.ng to get their message amplified. they want to know what's going on, and how they want them to respond. and we know this is that period of time that's so disconcerting for anyone who may know someone that works here. law enforcement, businesses, other locations in and around there, want to be able to give some type of comfort to people that are responding, people are sheltering in place, and again until we get more details from law enforcement, we don't know exactly what we're dealing with, but this is the evolution so to speak of these types of incidents. when i was inside the fbi, this is one thing we tried to focus on. communication, getting the word out, letting people know where they should go. places they should avoid as law enforcement does this work. we can't lose sight of this incident. this is a large facility, there's a lot of ground the law enforcement has to cover. opening the ap tour, the perimeter of that area, there are a lot of other businesses and schools and other l

and labor law. so, you're in for a treat. but unfortunately, as i said, i am not. because i'm subbing and didn't intend or expect to be here, i do have another event i have to go to. so laura, i hope you'll excuse me for rushing out the back way. i've already made professor weinrib promise to give me the text of her speech so i'll read what you're hearing. thanks again very much for being here. [applause] prof. weinrib: well, thanks for that introduction, especially on such short notice. it's an extraordinary honor to have been introduced by justice kagan, whom i have admired ever since i was lucky enough to take the civil procedure and administrative law classes she just mentioned, beginning in my first semester of law school. 20 years later, law school is mostly a blur, but i can recall dozens of distinct a-ha moment in justice, then professor kagan's classes. i've always considered her a model of excellence in teaching, a model to which i can only aspire. i want to thank justice kagan. i also wan

article 2 of course is the executive branch designed to enforce the law, not make the law, but oftentimes what happens is the agencies are able to do quasi legislation under the guise of the sub regulatory guidance and it makes it tough for people to go to the court and challenge it. the agency will say that's not final agency action, it's interpretive guidance. theres a litany of arguments that they've used over the years with some success. the question is how have they managed to do this if this is so contrary to how we have set up our country? part of it is really the courts. the courts in many ways have abdicated their responsibility to hold agencies accountable for what they're doing in the regulatory world. there's a number of doctrines that have developed over the years that courts use where they defer to agencies. certainly probably in the original formulation of the doctrines they probably made sense, but the way they have developed over the years have resulted in what some have called an abdication of the judicial function which is to say what the law is. the doctrines are short

perception --law a law professor where her work focuses on administrative law. she founded the center for the study of the administrative state, which focuses on, administrative law. she served on the governing council of the bar section of regulatory law and practice and on the federalist's society regulatory project. she served in the white house on thiss office and committee, on the senate judiciary committee. was associated with two distinguished jurists. she is a graduate of the university of chicago law school where she was on the log review, and she did her undergo drug escher undergraduate at -- her undergraduate at yale. she lives in washington with her husband and two children. welcome to the committee, and we look forward to hearing from you, and hearing your answers to our questions. thank you for being here. hon rao: thank you. >> thank you senator lee, and congratulations to the nomination. and thank you for attending -- attending. turn it overwill to senator feinstein for any statement she would like to make. feinstein: as you had said, we would c

it is by law enforcement on the scene. as you mentioned that witness we heard earlier, it is starting to answer a lot of questions that we have. first is what's going on inside and why this particular location, was there some type of connection with a possible shooter in this facility. again, this is one person. i'm very conservative. there was one individual that shoed up with a pois toll aisto opened fire inside. one said he recognized the shooter that worked there. that's telling -- there are a lot of unanswered questions for us. if main thing i'm waiting for right now is some type of statement from police officers. >> i hate to interrupt you. we are getting new information. aurora pd put on their facebook page that the shooter has been apprehended. again, aurora police department has put on their police department that the shooter has been apprehended. your take, josh. >> that's a good sign. a large facility like this, officers responding they don't know where the threat is. the fact they are able to confirm answers th

under current law. licensed gurn dealer conducting a background check is permitted to sell the firearm to the purchaser if there's been no determination after three business days. even though nix has not indicated the person has passed the background check. we refer to this as a default proceed transactions, these are the very cases that ought to be investigated. in 2017 alone, the atf determined that over 4,000 firearms transfers went to purchasers who could not lawfully own a firearm and should not be permitted to purchase one. if nix is not able to make an immediate determination, there is cause for concern. the hate crime murder of nine people at the methodist episcopal church in charleston, south carolina in 2015. the shooter was not legally allowed to possess a firearm as a result of drug charges. he was able to purchase his gun from a licensed dealer who made the decision to transfer after three business days had elapsed. despite not having received the definitive response. hr-1112 would strength

collins: federal law bans firearm of it already is against the law to for anyone with an f.f.l. from acquiring a gun against their state of residence. against the law from acquiring a rifle or shotgun outside of their state of residence. anyone transferring a handgun -- these are already against the law. an example is that you would see is just in chicago alone where we had a lot of instances, what you discussed. the ones or twos or even the others -- the state saw 506 murders in twelve. i agree completely that there's a problem here that we need to look at. my concern is, with this bill, especially the way we had our hearings and others, and it's been in many times, and i understand the concern here. from all of our partners here. is mass violence. but in this bill would have not stopped any of the major mass violence when he testimony about or any that we have seen from columbine, you know, back to parkland. it would not have -- on any of these we have looked at. what we're looking at on that is a fusion center why would have made sure that the signs that were missed were actu