the louisiana law at issue here act 620 is identical to the texas law and was expressly modeled on it. after a trial, the district court ruled act 620 unconstitutional finding no material differences between this case and hold 'em's health. on burden it found the act 620 would leave louisiana with just one clinic and one doctor providing abortions. at the same time, it found the act 620 would do nothing for women's health. in reversing the district court's decision, the sixth circuit committed two fundamental errors in my first date used served the role of district court and disregarded nearly all its factual findings. second, the Ãbaccepted legal arguments that this court rejected four years ago. nothing, however, has changed that would justify such a legal about-face.in fact, even more medical organizations have joined the ama and icon to say admitting privileges and pores: imposed barriers to abortion without benefit to patient and the impact is not state-dependent. finally, the states 11th hour objection to third-party standings runs up against more binding precedents.the court sq

laws on the books. but those laws are about gunpowder storage, where or where not you cannot carry a gone, what weapons you could or could not have. how far you could fire away from a settled population. most laws said you could not fire or shoot a rifle within a a quarter-mile of a town. those evolve mostly into carry laws, and mid- to late 19th century, were talking about ,irearms dealers, minors dangerous people, things of that nature who should not have guns. that is the modern beginning of gun control as we know it. steve: which goes directly to colonial, from militias to conceal carry. can you talk about how it has evolved over the last 100-plus years? patrick: yeah. the original right is not as we know it today. if you look at all the founding documents, everything is it all pertains to the federalized militia debate, the arguments between states rights and individuals. what the constitution states, who had the power of the militia? the federal government? when it came to the states, no, we want

major law firms. [laughter] justice ginsburg: i had three strikes against me. david: after 13 years, did you think you had a chance to be on the supreme court? justice ginsburg: no one thinks , "my aim in life is to be a supreme court justice." david: when you first got on the court, were other justices saying, "we're happy to see you? let's have dinner together?" just. ginsburg: justice o'connor was the most welcoming. he gave me some very good advice. >> would you fix your tie, please? david: well, people wouldn't recognize me if my tie was fixed, but ok. just leave it this way. all right. i don't consider myself a journalist. and nobody else would consider myself a journalist. i began to take on the life of being an interviewer, even though i have a day job of running a private equity firm. how do you define leadership? what is it that makes somebody tick? when you went to cornell, your grades were obviously good. very good. you applied to law school at harvard. you got into harvard law school. was

david: from the harvard law review on the columbia law review, you are flooded with job offers. justice ginsburg: i had three strikes against me. david: after 13 years, did you think you had a chance to be on the supreme court? one thinks,burg: no my aim in life is to be a supreme court justice. david: when you first got on the court, whether justice is saying, let's have dinner together? justice ginsburg: just as o'connell was the most welcoming. he gave me some very good advice. ♪ i do not consider myself a journalist. nobody else would consider myself a journalist. i began to take on the life of being an interviewer even though i have a day job of running a private equity firm. how do you define leadership? what is it that makes somebody take? when you went to cornell, your grades were very good. you apply to law school at harvard. was the class have women and half men? [laughter] in those days,g: i went to law school from 1956 to 1950 nine. in my entering class at harvard law school, there were 500 in the class. nine of us were women. a big jump from marty's class. he was a

the laws are very harsh. some of the states, one reads the laws and you get the impression that state legislators spend weeks trying to find something new to segregate. at one point the florida legislature says that at the end of the school year, books from black schools must go to one place and the books from white schools must go to the other. maybe they thought that these books would date over the summer if they were in the same warehouse. >> in some places if you want to court there was a black bible and a white bible. where there were places the tax rolls, above for black taxpayers, enabled for white taxpayers. it's almost a constant contest, what else can we segregate? in this world, this gigantic ,orld of racism everywhere where does marshall see the crack in the wall? method ofe see a breaking through this gigantic wall of segregation which is everywhere? think there is two pathways. first of all, i think he believes that through the law you can create change. part of what he is trying to do shift the

in the harvard law review and columbia law review, you were flooded with job offers from the major lawghter] justice ginsburg: there wasn't a single firm in the entire city of new york that would take a chance on me. ♪ david: from the harvard law review and columbia law review, you were flooded with job offers from the major law firms. [laughter] justice ginsburg: i had three strikes against me. david: after 13 years, did you think you had a chance to be on the supreme court? justice ginsburg: no one thinks, "my aim in life is to be a supreme court justice." david: when you first got on the court, were other justices saying, "we're happy to see you here, let's go have dinner together"? justice ginsburg: justice o'connor was the most welcoming. she gave me some very good advice. >> wou

his law classes. so we said, fine. if that is what you want to do. is -- his label recordings are gems. david: do you have any grandchildren? justice ginsburg: i have four grandchildren, two step grandchildren and one great grandchild. to your grandchildren call you rbg? justice ginsburg: i am a jewish grandmother. david: the harvard law overview and the columbia law overview, you are flooded with job offers. justice ginsburg: there was not a single firm in the entire city of new york that would take a chance on me. david: from the harvard law review on the columbia law review, you are flooded with job offers. justice ginsburg: i had three strikes against me. david: after 13 years, did you think you had a chance to be on the supreme court? one thinks,burg: no my aim in life is to be a supreme court justice. david: when you first got on the court, whether justice is saying, let's have dinner together? justice ginsburg: just as o'connell was the most welcoming. he gave me some very good advice.

he's professor of law at yale law school. he teaches and writes in the area of constitutional law. and he's the author most recently of a book called "the schoolhouse gate: public education, the supreme court and the battle for the american mind." that book got rave reviews. "the washington post" called it "masterful." named it one of the 50 best nonfiction books of 2018. not to be outdone, "the new york times" called the book "indispensable." it was a finalist for the american bar association's silver gavel award and short listed for the ralph emerson award. professor driver as a distinguished record in the nation's leading law reviews on all manner of subjecting relating to education, race and constitutional law. among the other prizes -- excuse me. he has also written extensively for general audiences. you might have seen his pieces in "slate," "the atlantic," "the new york times," "the washington post" and "the new republic." he's a member of the american law institute and american constitution societies academic board. professor driver received his b.a. from brown university,

he is professor of law school. he teaches and writes in the area of constitutional law, and he is the author, most recently, of a book called the schoolhouse gate, public education, the supreme court, and the battle for the american mind. that book got rave reviews. the washington post called it masterful, named it one of the 50 best nonfiction books of 2018. not to be outdone, the new york times called the book indispensable. it was a finalist for the american bar association's silver gavel award, and shortlisted for the five attic kappa ralph waldo emerson award. has asor driver distinguished publication record in the nation's leading log reviews on all matter of subjects relating to education, race, and constitutional law. among the other prizes -- excuse me. he has also written extensively for general audiences. you might have seen his pieces in slate, the atlantic, the new york times, the washington post, and the new republic. he's a member of the american law institute and of the american constitution society

to make sure people are following the laws, anything the law enforcement capacity normally does, they could be augmented with the national guard. law could be out there with enforcement. generally they are with civilians when they do it. they could be used in any number of capacities. >> we are going to the phones. ok. phones.k to the >> what sort of preparations are you doing if the guard is used to help construct or man field hospitals? the guard has a capacity to have engineer units. they can build things, i have not heard of plans to build field hospitals using the national guard. we have the ability to use national guard manpower and equipment to do whatever it is the state apparatus needs to do. >> to follow up on that, on the field hospitals, there are guard units that are combat support units. have they been activated? or will they be? medical have been some capability used. new york has 50 medics on board. are medicalmber technicians. as far as bringing on field capacity has not been activated in the national guard. i'm not sure we have field hospitals. that is more army rese

and it's easy to read this when they use the word law, you mean violation of criminal law, okay? and that would get rid of most of them, maybe all of them, i don't know. but i know that sometimes an alien who enters the united states is committing a crime, all right? but i can't think of any instance in which residing in the united states is a crime. but if you could think of one, and you might not like this, but, i mean, i can see saying, this is restricted to the prosecution of that one. but if there's zero, i don't see how we narrow it to solicitation. do you follow that? >> well, you know, it is a crime to be found, your honor, in the united states following removal. someone residing in the united states after previously having been removed who is not entitled to be here -- >> okay. so what do you think of that? are you willing to accept that or not? what we do is we take professor volek's brief and we say that the statute under constitutional pressure is limited to instances with all the qualification you've given, there are several there, but the main one is, it is limited

no one is above the law. i stand with my colleagues and president trump, we must fix our broken immigration system, continue building the wall and strengthening our immigration lawers in safety and security of the american people. i will continue fighting against sanctuary cities and their abuse of our great nation. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, mr. allen. at this time i'd like to yield some time to my friend and colleague from texas, congressman roger williams, great capitalist and great baseball coach. mr. williams: thank you, appreciate that from the gentleman from north carolina for yielding me this time. the greatest commitment i make to my constituents in texas' 25th district is to keep them safe and their families safe. unfortunately some state and local governments are choosing to put politics over public safety by passing sanctuary immigration laws that prevent local law enforcement from cooperating with immigration officers. sanctuary laws not only release dangerous cr

feigin: -- about the law. justice gorsuch: -- i'm recklessly indifferent to my granddaughter's status and i'm recklessly encouraging, exhorting her, in whatever level of specificity you require, but i have no intention of -- of violating the -- the immigration laws. and the underlying conduct that -- for which she can be punished is merely civil. mr. feigin: so -- justice gorsuch: then what? mr. feigin: -- your honor, two -- two parts of that. first of all, reckless -- we don't think there's such a thing as reckless encouragement or inducement. as i was explaining in my colloquy with justice alito, we think the words "encouragement" and "inducement" in themselves are -- carry a meaning that you have to want the unlawful venture to occur or to succeed. as to the -- justice gorsuch: i guess what i'm -- i'm wondering here, mr. feigin, at the end of it all and just to cut to the chase is, does the government think that -- that the common law principles of secondary liability that normally try and prevent the dragn

he teaches courses in federal law, indian law, comparative and indigenous peoples law, constitutional law, and legal history. he serves as the faculty director of the center for the study of american indian law and policy and the founding director of the international human rights law clinic. he was a recipient of the david l. boren award -- i should say he was the first recipient of the david l. boren award. he is an elected member of the american law institute and the american bar foundation and serves as a justice on the supreme court of the cheyenne and the arapahoe tribes. please join me in welcoming lindsay robertson. [applause] ms. robertson it is an absolute delight to be here. what did not get mentioned is my dad's family is from charlottesville. i went to law school and did my history doctorate at the university of virginia. i am back home, in a sense. i have been a proud oklahoman for 22 years. my kids identify as oklahomans. they don't remember that they lived in virginia. my oldest child is a law student at uva. she is connecting with her roots and we will see what happen

laws. that's why we need to have -- >> i added i.d. law.m surprised you didn't bring it up. >> maybe we're getting there. why wouldn't we do everything we can to make sure everything can vote? >> we do. if you're not voting, you don't want to vote in arizona. so have i convinced you? >> no. i like eating and arguing. it feels very italian. >> it does, it does. i want to throw something. >> how many people have been convicted of voter impersonation in alabama? >> since i've been the secretary of state, zero. >> so why a voter i.d. law? aw now through march 31st. lease the 2020 rx350 for $409 a month for 36 months and we'll make your first months payment. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. you should be mad at tech that makes things worse. but you're not, because you have e*trade whose tech makes life easier by automatically adding technical patterns on charts and helping you understand what they mean. don't get mad, get e*trade. everything was so fresh in the beginning... but that plug quickly faded. luckily there's febreze plug. it cl

there's still a concern about law enforcement to get you into law enforcement. there's another step. >> the ability to use the guard in the enforcement is an authority they have when they are not law enforcement. >> here's what i understand. this is potentially, if you listen to the administration and the states already, one of the most dire situations the country has faced in recent years. if -- and i take your point, you know, you believe federalizing is not the right answer -- so if it's not the right answer, and i mean this sincerely, why does that option even exist? >> to federalize them? >> yes. >> well, i mean if we were to go to war with a major competitor and yearly to grow the united states army by 350,000 people, then congress would give us the mobilization authority to federalize all of the national guard, and the national guard would be a part of the united states army and we would go to war. that is the world war ii scenario of using the national guard. everybody is mobilized in a federal status. >> and you don't see this crisis at that point yet?

>> the laws matter. law, if you really -- if you don't like it, repeal it. >> ah. i love this. >> the senator maintains that each of her bills are e ddesign to make voting easier, not more restrictive. >> i just think it doesn't exist. i don't know anybody who wants to suppress anyone's vote. what undermines the system is playing identity politics, is constantly telling different communities that somehow they're being treated differently, and treating them like they need some special consideration because they can't manage on their own. that -- that is what i condemn. that is what -- >> i think a lot of those communities -- latino community, the native american indigenous first peoples' populations here -- have had systemically been prevented access. we do need to help them have not just a seat at the table but a seat that's the same height and the same distance to the food as everyone else. >> no doubt. >> yeah. >> and that is why we need to have proper id laws. that's why we need to have -- >> ooh. >>

>> so it's not required by law in this law, in many of our laws, to provide notification. we take it upon yourselves at the department to reach out to businesses, to educate. so this is a big change. so it wasn't 2017 that every business was receiving their notification. every single tobacco location received a visit in 2015 when the law came into effect. >> so what was inspector doing in 2017 when he went and got -- employed a sign? >> he was doing an inspection. and as a follow-up, so we had change in staff. so as we were doing inspections, we were having the notification again because of the confusion, the constant confusion of change of ownership, who qualifies, who can't, as you all know, it is not clear. so as an additional step, we added another notification as part of inspections. and then this is also given to new permit holders when they first get it. so like they get their permit and then they would get the future restriction. even if they have fallen to the exemption. >> thank you for clarifying that. >> you're welcome. >> to be abundantly clear, sorry, i am go

in the harvard law review and columbia law review, you were flooded with job offers from the major lawjustice ginsburg: there wasn't a single firm in the entire city of new york that would take a chance on me. ♪ when you move homes, you move more than just yourself. that's why xfinity has made taking your internet and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started. david: from the harvard law review and columbia law review, you were flooded with job offers from the major law firms. [laughter] justice ginsburg: i had three strikes against me. david: after 13 years, did you think you had a chance to be on the supreme court? justice ginsburg: no one thinks , "my aim in life is to be a supreme court justice." david: when you first got on the court, were other justices sa

law. among the other prizes -- excuse me. he has also written extensively for general audiences. you might have seen his pieces in slate, the atlantic, the new york times, the washington post, and the new republic. he's a member of the american law institute and of the american constitution society's academic advisory board. he's also an editor of the supreme court review. professor driver received his ba from brown university, a masters in modern history from modern college oxford, where he was a marshall scholar, and his jd from harvard law school, where he was editor of the harvard law review. after graduating from harvard, professor driver clerked for judge merrick garland, justice stephen breyer, and justice o'connor, sandra o'connor. and i don't know where this rings on the list of professor driver's compliments, but professor driver -- accomplishments, but professor driver was also a student of mine. and i can tell you from those long-ago years that he is super smart and super thoug

society is, we talked about how law and society is often the study of law and legal issues outside of the box of legal doctrine or sort of outside the box of legal logic, all right? we'll be looking at environmental law and litigation, not simply through questions and american legal doctrine but more broadly as kind of social, philosophical issues to grapple with, all right? we also talked in the beginning of the semester how law and society deals, at times, in aggregates, right? it's sort of the big picture or sort of the effects of large numbers of kind of individual personal disputes on the big picture, all right? we'll be dealing and thinking in aggregates a little bit today as well, all right? it's a class that will lead to a couple of big questions, all right? big question number one, how much can we regulate private property in the interest of protecting the environment, all right? big question number two, who actually gets to advocate on behalf of the environment or environmental issues in our courts. okay? those are the two things we're going to be focusing on. all right? i'm

it who gets a crack at environmental law and how. in the ideal world you have textbook the legislative branch has the laws and then they enforce them it's pretty simple right. but in the real world things are bit more complicated in that sometime in the legislature writes a wall a law and the executive branch may or may not follow the initial text of the law sometimes the executive branch issues an executive order, that is arguably in violation of constitution. sometimes the executive branch fails for some reason out of choice for sometime incompetence to enforce a law this would be on the books but all of these cases like they have to go to the courts to resign the unlawful laws were demanded the executive branch enforce the law that which seems to be the right and proper way now. american legal doctrine, has a concept of an understanding to see, that helps to explain who can and cannot go to court to resolve a dispute. the basic principle of standing is that only people who have suffered some kind of clear injury or damage, are all

law is crucial here's. so we've got the northwest territorial ordinance, i have to say it's very hard to say. i am going to try to go slow, the northwest territories ordinance. 1787. it's one of the most important, yet really underrated pieces of legislation in the united states. the constitution. yet the northwest territorial ordinance actually has some of the key assumptions that around the legal order in the united states, particularly at the federal level. this ordinance comes in 1780, seven same year as the u.s. constitution. it made lands the possession of the national government. it makes all the western territory of the possession of the national government. the federal government. this is crucial because states were contesting over all of these lands. you have maps from the colonial period like north carolina, virginia, new york, they are protecting all the way up to the pacific ocean. they were claiming those lance. what the ordinance does is that it goes note, we are drawing boundaries at existin

in the harvard law review and columbia law review, you were flooded with job offers from the major lawghter] justice ginsburg: there wasn't a single firm in the entire city of new york that would take a chance on me. ♪ good morning! oh no, here comes the neighbor probably to brag about how amazing his xfinity customer service is. i'm mike, i'm so busy. good thing xfinity has two-hour appointment windows. they have night and weekend appointments too. he's here. bill? karolyn? nope! no, just a couple of rocks. download the my account app to manage your appointments making today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. i'll pass. david: from the harvard law review and columbia law review, you were flooded with job offers from the major law firms. [laughter] justice ginsburg: i had three strikes against me. david: after 13 years, did you think you had a chance to be on the supreme court? justice ginsburg: no one thinks, "my aim in life is to be a supreme court justice." david: when you first got on the court, were other justices saying, "we're happy to see you here, let's go have

presented it doesn't look here's a clue and has been taken care of despite promises to respect the rule of law nigeria's government stands accused by the international community of serious human rights abuses my guest this week here in london is live mohammed the country's information minister how does he defend against the country's many critics when the evidence of wrongdoing is so compelling. like mohammed welcomes conflicts thank you for the human rights record of your administration has been widely condemned by the un western countries your own lawyers international human rights bodies for brutality and the stunning lack of accountability why do you say this go on and nigeria why didn't you get a grip on this i think there's been a lot of. misrepresentation. by all these groups absolutely really working concert well or you know they're working constant or they're working you know a little but i know for a fact that dissension in particular as being very sensitive to the issue of human rights most sometimes terrorists politicians actively. are confused with human rights so you put it all d

that's the law. your stated reasons for stonewalling our request, you never cite any superseding legal basis. the only thing you suffer is smug rhetoric and staggering lies. i told you what the law is. word for word, it's right there. tell me the specific statute that allows you to overrule 26usc, 6103 f-1a at your whim. tell me what statute, please. >> so, first of all, let me just comment. >> i asked a question, mr. secretary. >> well, no, i'm commenting because i find it offensive that you're telling me that i'm breaking the law in staggering lies, i've relied upon-- >> i asked you to tell me why you didn't break the law. >> just to be clear, there's a third branch of government and there are courts that interpret things. this is in the courts and the courts will deal with it so that's your interpretation of law, i'm relying upon legal counsel on what is our interpretation of the law. so in all due respect i am not breaking the law. i have a different interpretation, you're not a judge and this wi

, they are exempted from the law because they are doing more than we require. when the time was extended from six weeks to eight weeks, a loophole was offered. the change in front of you would strike the word six weeks and replace with as required by the city and the state of california. this item was heard by the small business commission on january 27. the commission voted unanimously to recommend that the board of supervisors approve the legislation, and as a mother and, i know, supervisor ronen feels this way, too, this is a very important issue. i had the benefit of strong paid leave laws when i had my daughter, and it made all the difference. all of our workers deserve this leave, when it is particularly hard for low-income paid workers to get by. i ask you to close this loophole and make sure that all san francisco workers have full leave. thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you. any questions? did you want to make any statements mr. mulligan? okay. thank you. that was very clear and thorough. thank you so much. i really want to thank you for this legislati

and that is done through law. and then the law turns that land into private property. so once law makes it public, it turns around and said well now we're going to turn this into private property. we're going to hand this over to individuals. and this process illustrates the legal power of the people. the people. the abstraction that we haven't really clearly defined yet. and that defines us in the context of the federal government. so settlers who had legal standing within the new nation, they use their place as the people, as part of the new nation to go settle lands and create a right to it. and indians who do not have that standing in the people, they can't do that. so settlers as the people have access to law and this gives them a chance to create land as a private property, whereas indians blocked from using the law are not able to do that and they lose the land. and this is also about the purpose of government. so what are the goals and policies of the federal government and whose interest should is represent. so all of this is at play here. and this is one plac

under prop 13 law, property growth is limited to 2% growth a year. but when ownership changes the law requires that we reassess the value to new market value. compared to your existing home, which was benefited from the -- which has benefited from the prop 13 growth limit on taxable value, the new limit on the replacement home would likely be higher. that's where prop 60 comes in. prop 60 recognizes that seniors on fixed income may not be able to afford higher taxes so it allows them to carryover their existing prop 13 value to their new home which means seniors can continue to pay their prop 13 tax values as if they had never moved. remember, the prop 60 is a one time tax benefit, and the property value must be equal to or below around your replacement home. if you plan to purchase your new home before selling your existing home, please make sure that your new home is at the same price or cheaper than your existing home. this means that if your existing home is worth $1 million in market value, your new home must be $1 million or below. if you're lo

when the declaration refers to the laws of nature and the nature's god, it is referring to moral laws of nature. if you go back to the very first class is when we read john adams diary. 21-year-old john adams writing in his diary about what was he was learning as a graduate at harvard college. what he learned says in the universe, according to new tons laws, entities, physical things out there in nature have an identity. that identity is absolute. in addition to having identity, because it has identity, it is governed by certain laws of cause and effect. the same adams argued is true for human action as well. it is a bit more difficult leap from discovery scientific laws of nature to discovering human moral laws of nature, but that was at the deepest philosophical level. that was the quest, that was the search of 18th century moral philosophers, including the founding fathers. says and we see in that first paragraph. let me back up and say the laws of god and the nature scarred. it is interesting that it doesn't say the laws of nature and of god it says nature's got. so for most ameri