come up with criminal law. slowly but surely, virtually -- well, not everyone, but virtually every state court recognized some individual right to arms. that right was severely limited by what was called the state police power which gives the state the power to legislate in health, safety and welfare. that includes preventing people from getting shot by bullets. that continues to hold sway. that goes into the early 20th century. the nra really understands that kind of interpretation as well. then in 19 -- i believe it's 1939 is united states v. miller which is the supreme court first weighs on the second amendment in detail. they had talked about it in passing in two state supreme court decisions in the 19th century but nothing in depth. >> the united states v miller is different because they addressed more of the heart of the issue. it's cryptic. but courts issued that decision all interpreted as meaning that the second amendment represents a collective right not an individual right. that remained the status q

that's the same with all preventive laws, medical laws, pills laws or traffic laws. you can't say this law saved 2,000 people today. but we have them because they're common sense. and we want to save somebody's life. and the argument, even if it saves a couple lives, it's a good law. but we just can't verify it. i hope that answered the question. i think it was an easy issue. i think they needed to, my friends who don't have guns say they take a lot of training. if you were in the nra, and you needed to give on something, that's probably an easy give. i don't think they're terribly common. not a lot of people, so i would say that's probably why. as a strategic matter. that's why they gave on that. as far as, you know, drug laws, gun laws, i don't know. what i thought you were going to say is, i thought the question would go, talking about the intersection between legalization of marijuana and gun laws and i'll come back tom in a second. people speed and we have speeding laws. just because people break laws doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. and i think the question

that includes the laws of humanitarian relief as well as the laws of enforcement. we will work relentlessly to thwart illegal immigration and adjudicate asylum claims fairly and efficiently. both are embedded in the law, and we are committed to upholding both. as we work to meet these long-standing challenges, we do not turn our backs on our values , our principles, our humanity, and our proudest traditions. with that, let me turn it over to chief raul ortiz of the united states border patrol. thank you. raul: thank you, mr. secretary. i think all of you. what we have seen today has certainly been an opportunity for the secretary to meet with our men and women out on the front lines. we have met with border patrol agents, our volunteer force, our other agency partners. the secretary and the rest of the leadership were able to meet with our sheriff's and state partners as well as our elected officials from county and local governments all the way from del rio to the rio grande valley. we recognize here in south texas we are responsible for about 60% of the illegal m

earlier in the course we discussed what two types of law? remember? positive law, divine law.nd how can they come into conflict. and so, put on your notes then. freedom of religion gives you the right to worship so long as the way you worship does not violate criminal laws. now, i'll give you another example. there was a religious group in -- out of miami. i forget the name of the group and you don't need to make notes on this. 20/30 years ago. they said during our religious services, we need to -- i think they were eating hallucinogenic mushrooms. because then we go in a state and we're better able to communicate with god. some of their practitioners were arrested, tried, convicted under illegal drug use laws. and they appealed it and said it's freedom of religion. and the courts were very clear. you cannot do, in the name of religion, things which violate the local norms. yeah. >> how can the government experiment with those psychedelic drugs? because there's declassified documents of the government experimenting with psychedelic mushrooms out west. >> take your mask down fo

, before that there weren't such laws other than a brief chicago law. i believe they enacted their law into thousand eight, it didn't stain the books long, that was important because new york at the time with epicenter of the united states in terms of population, new york city i think the city was over 50 to 100, if you take the 50 to 100 city at the time and you get them all up, they still don't reach new york city. that is how central new york was to the united states of the time. so, obviously they had a big theater. plus you have to remember that they're organizing a charter admits new york. that's where most of the members are on and that's where their headquarters is. that's when they would talk about the second amendment. more so in passing than in depth though. >> of course under the auspices of the weapons crossing borders in the 19th century we have robert bear, seen in the 20th century, we had the mob violence and the gang violence. so how did all of that effect the debate in this country? >> there's an interesting thing, i think the everybod

we know law enforcement's heirs -- law-enforcement shares these goals. we talked with the mayor and police chief jerry williams about the investigation and we are pleased about their pledge of support. they too recognize that we share common aims. our investigation in phoenix will be led by the justice department civil rights division. it is based on an extensive review of publicly available information and will consider several issues. first whether the phoenix police department uses excessive force in violation of the fourth amendment. second whether the phoenix police department engages in discriminatory policing practices that violate the constitution and federal law. third, whether the department violates the first amendment by retaliating against individuals who are engaged in protected expressive activities. fourth, whether at the city and its police department respond to disabilities in a manner that violates the disabilities act. this includes decisions to criminally detain individuals with behavior mental health issues. and whether they infring

so those were the early gun laws. those evolved mostly into carry laws, and then it was around the mid to late 19th century things really started to become those modern laws you're talking about firearms, dealers, you know, minors, dangerous people, things of that nature that should not have guns. that's really the modern beginning of gun control as we know it. >> which goes directly to your book, can you elaborate how it has evolved over the last 200-plus years? >> yeah, the original right isn't what we know it is today. if you look at all the founding documents, if you look at everything all of it hints to the idea of the federalized militia debate, which was the arguments between state rights and individuals. well, the constitution and states. you had the power of the militia. george washington obviously wanted more power of state militias to control them during war. when it came to the states they were like no, we want full control. the concern of the full constitution was the federal government may have too much

law. his wide ranging scholarship has touched on a diverse array of top ticks including the right to bear arms, corporate political speech right, campaign finance law, affirmative action and judicial independence. he is a frequent contributor to the "daily beast" and "huffington post" and his work has been cited in numerous supreme court decisions and his commentary is featured in places as varied as cnn, new york times and the "wall street journal." his other published work is co-editing the sixth volumef of the american encyclopedia about the constitution. and his latest work is groundbreaking work, and here to tell us more about it is adam winkler. i will start with a basic question which is -- what is basic idea of the book? >> well, thank you. thank you for the wonderful introduction, and thanks for the texas book festival for having me here, and thank you to all of you for being here. "gunfight" weaves together what one called the grisham-like legal drama of the landmark supreme cour

even if the sanction is norms is not law. pretty clear that trump also attempted to violate the laws many times he may have, we can talk about the different instances if you want read the most extraordinary episode of this is the ten episodes were counted in them mueller investigation about trump trying interfere with law enforcement, the connection with the investigation. now come back to that in a moment. another element of trump's abuses were that this is typical of popular dialogues, he made it commonplace to attack the most important institutions of the american presidency, every afforded institution the start of trump's attack is including congress, the courts, his own officials, members of his own party. judges, i'm sorry, brady said that, state officials, institutions within the executive rash like the fbi the cia he sought to denigrate and deny and to destroy trust of all of these institutions. what you do about the president hike this. the book of bob and i wrote are premised on the idea that we may have another tru

as far as, you know, drug laws, gun laws, i don't know. what i thought you were going to say is -- what i thought the question was going to go was talking about the intersection between legalization of marijuana and gun laws, and i'll come back to that in a second, but i don't think -- i mean, people speed, but we have speed limits simply because people break laws for various reasons, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have them. and i think the question is, trying to ascertain the right mix of regulation that's effective, that's, you know, that passes some sort of cost-benefit test, i mean, i would disagree -- you know, you do hear, oh, if it only saves two lives, it's worth it. well, if it saves two lives at the cost of $3 trillion, then i don't know. >> public policy, that's not a question. >> yeah. because of the opportunity cost that that $3 trillion would go to. i think that the more interesting the debate and the one that i hope emerges now that the supreme court has protected a core right and said, yes, there is a constitutional dimens

as far as drug laws, gun laws, i don't know.i mean, what i thought you were going to say was talking about the intersection between the legalization of marijuana and gun laws and i'll come back to that in a second. people speed, but we have speed limits. simply because people break laws for various reasons, it doesn't mean we should have them. and i think the question is, trying to ascertain right mix of regulation that's effective, that pass some sort of cost-benefit test. i would disagree -- you do here that it only saves two lives, it's worth it. if it saves to lives and cause tree three trillion dollars, i don't know. because of the opportunity cost that that tree three trillion dollars will go to. i think that the more interesting the debate, and the one that i hope emerges, now that the supreme court has protected a core right, yes, there is a constitutional dimension to the gun control debate. so, if you are law abiding, confiscation, total bands are not off the table. i was hoping and this is maybe beginning to happen, i

>> we are looking across the country at existing laws, at new laws, at laws that have been put on theooks recently that are now being taken away. the sole goal is to ensure that all eligible americans have access to the ballot and that they have access, it is free from discrimination -- >> everyone at this hearing shares that goal. but we also have -- we are also concerned about making sure election law is done in a constitutionally proper manner, proper fashion. it sure looks to me like in pennsylvania as the example, it wasn't. when the state legislature passes and election law that says the election ends at 8:00 tuesday, but then the state supreme court says forget what they said, we are extending it three days, that never went through legislature. they extended the election three days. the same thing happened with mail-in ballots. election on pennsylvania says they're supposed to be signature verification for every ballot. for the secretary of state, not going to the legislature, said we are not going to have signature verification for the mail-in ballots in pennsylvania. all of t

positive law, divine law. and how they can come into conflict.so put in your notes then, freedom of religion gives you the right to worship so long as the way you worship does not violate criminal laws. i will give you another example. there was a religious group out of miami, i forget the name of the group, and you don't need to make notes on this. this is 20 or 30 years ago. they said during our religious services we need to, i think they were eating hallucinogenic mushrooms. because then we go into a state and we are better able to communicate with god. and of course, some of their practitioners were arrested and convicted under illegal drug drug use loss. and they appealed it and said it's freedom of religion. and the courts were very clear. you cannot do in the name of religion things which violate the local norms. yeah? >> how can they not do that when the government experiments with those psychedelic drugs? there are declassified documents of the government experimenting with psychedelic's like mushrooms, dmt, lsd? >> pull the mask down fo

the laws that were -- this law and laws like the gun control act that many people at the time thought was not really designed to control guns, but to control urban blacks who were rioting in 1967, the worst race riots in detroit and newark. these laws designed to restrict access to black radicals in urban areas like the black panthers, ended up sparking a backlash among white rural conservatives who were convinced that government was coming to get their guns next. >> i want to take you forward from there to the debates over gun control and gun rights that we've seen in the last five or ten years. why do you think the advocates of the second amendment rights, the right to bear arms, have become so dominant? there is just about zero chance of passing in any state legislature or in congress anything that would smack of gun control today. what has changed politically over the past decade or two, to put us in that situation? >> i think the major push for gun control in the 1960s especially and the early 1970s was reflection in part of a great society philosophy, there are social problems,

law. his wide-ranging scholarship has touched on diverse array of topics including right to bear arms, corporate political speech rights, campaign finance laws, affirmative action and judicial independence. he is a frequent contributor to the daily beast and the huffington post. his work has been cited and numerous supreme court decisions on his commentary has been featured in places as varied as cnn, new york times, and the wall street journal. his other published work includes co-editing the six volume encyclopedia of the american constitution. gunfight has received outstanding reviews, it's truly a groundbreaking work and here to tell us more about it is adam wink lure. i'll start with a basic question with, what is the basic idea of the book? >> well thank you for the wonderful introduction for being here to. so, gunfight weaves together the dramatic wet, one review called cushion-like drama behind landmark supreme court case. the first supreme court case to clearly and unambiguously h

>> gun laws. >> gun rights. affordable care act, all three of those are at the forefront of the tensions in our society today, and all three of them are going to come right out of constitutional bill of rights interpretations. all right, what does the second amendment say? i know that john has memorized it by heart. what's it say, john? pull your thing down. >> can you ask somebody else? >> oh, come on. you're from south carolina, right? >> i don't know it word by word. >> all right, i'll give it to you word by word. a well-regulated militia being necessary for the safety and security of a state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. again, you can look in your text books. the back of the book has a constitution, take a look at that amendment. a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security and well-being of a state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. what does that mean? the nra, national rifle association, which is where on the politica

no man is above the law. but he pointed out that no american is above the law and the president is certainly not above the law. in other leaders of the institutions of importance, to the associations that made a difference in the lives of americans also spoke out. the leaders of the national council of churches in the u.s. catholic conference and the american union of american congregations, all to the leadership issued stern ammunitions to the public to something extraordinary was happening in the constitutional governments and they had to be addressed. in our coaches briefly from a letter issued by the president of the national council of churches in the general secretary on the occasion of the saturday night massacre in eye of hoarding. the dismissal of special prosecutor archibald cox, will present to the nation with a moral crisis of highest magnitude and one which demands a response. and this is one of the number of plays we can look in the watergate. and see the country come together slowly but surely

, including human rights laws. our political and financial support continues to be conditional on the preservation of the country's human rights and democratic achievements. we welcome the efforts of afghanistan's neighbors who have offered help by providing shelter to those escaping the dangers and uncertainties that accompany armed conflict. i will end with a special thank you to the u.s. mission in afghanistan, the efforts are now more important than ever as is the safety of their staff. thank you. >> i thank the representative of estonia for their statement. i now yield the floor to the represented above norway. you have the floor. >> thank you, mr. president and thank you for calling this emergency meeting on the situation in afghanistan. allow me to thank the secretary-general for his briefing as well as the ambassador for his remarks. to echo the secretary-general and previous speakers, the situation in afghanistan is extreme lease serious. over the last few weeks, amidst an ongoing violent conflict, the nat

she graduated second in her law school class and was an editor of the law review. at the height of the depression, jobs were scarce, especially for a jewish woman lawyer. but tulane's law school's dean urged yale's law school's dean to hire bessie as a research assistant. in new haven, bessie impressed her boss as well as a wildly popular young yale professor, william o. douglas, the future supreme court justice. having earned their respect, bessie became the first woman awarded yale's prestigious sterling fellowship for graduate studies. with her yale doctorate, she moved to washington, d.c. for a new opportunity. she applied for a job at the tennessee valley authority, which congress had just created to realize fdr's new deal vision of supplying electricity to the valley's impoverished residents. her yale boss wrote what apparently was needed to hear to hire a woman lawyer, that bessie was intent on a legal career, quote, as a primary objective from which she would not be deflected by consideration of marriage end quote. bessie thus began her government career wi

but what the laws actually say. that is a win for our constitutional government. that gets to those editing the laws our representatives and not judge -- justices on the court. that looks at the original meaning of the constitution -- that means judges look at the original meaning of the constitution. it is not judges that say we should change that part. that can be done and has been done dozens of times over our nations history, but that should be done by the people and by their elected representatives, not by the court. that is a huge win. i think it is issues like the first amendment we had cases in the free exercise clause defending that, in the context of covid, in the context of these catholic social services, foster care, the full kit, the property rights. there was a case that defended property rights from forced intrusion for about half of the year being forced to allow organizers onto their property without compensation. the separation of power, there was an sha having to do with the president having autho

that should not be altered by a process or law.ost: ok, let's go to mary in fort washington, maryland. democratic caller. caller: good morning, everybody. i am a 68-year-old black woman, and i'm having the same feeling that i had back in the 1970's when i started voting, that my voting rights are being messed with again. that's a long, long time to have that feeling in you. ms. barrett, i am very glad that you are counteract the carefully constructed lies that ken cuccinelli is putting out, from virginia, taking women's rights away. they are actually lies. there are no people that are not citizens that get to vote. that is an absolute lie. guest: read the bill. caller: i'm not finished, sir. my turn. you are a tea party person. you are in place to tell lies. you're just a liar. host: let's get a response. ken cuccinelli, what evidence is there that you are talking about? guest: she wandered a little bit other than just telling me i'm a liar, but, you know, when you don't have the transparency, as the last caller identified, it abso

they passed the law, they cannot implement the law day today. that is what the president does, his constitutional responsibility. so writing clear laws so there is better focus on how those laws are implemented. >> thank you. i barely have time for my question, which is about the role of the gao. i will jump to if you can elaborate on what they decision plays in the congressional oversight of the executive spending? i know you talked a little bit about that, but if you can elaborate on that. >> the role of gao is really to help congress. it's important that congress has the information it needs, and gao with its decisions is the one providing that information, and really helping congress in terms of carrying out those laws and the power of the purse, and ensuring congress can make changes as it sees fit, and make sure the executive is carrying that out of rep. lieu:. >> i've always felt has played a very constructive role, so thank you for that. chairman yarmuth: i now recognize the gentleman for five minutes. you need to unmute. he has left the

according to lieber, natural law superseded any state-based laws that protected slavery and the laws of war as he articulated meant the conditions of war demanded such reasoning. but where men are arrayed against each other as belligerence, laws fall from them like scales. men stand opposed to one another in war simply as men under the laws and usages of war which is a branch of international law. the origins of this natural law argument can be found in the writings of oblitionists decades prior to the war. he contradicted the idea of other military thinkers. haulock said it does not belong to the military to decide upon the relation of master and slave. such questions must be settled by civil courts. no fugitive slaves will therefore be accepted. they affirmed their humanity as opposed to the chattel law. issued just months after the emancipation proclamation, lieber made an argument that established the legal framework for how congress and the president would address the status of enslaved and free african-americans under marshal law. confederate secretary of war said and charged t

protection laws. in the years that followed, the occ and fdic shut down a series of these schemes by pay day lenders and banks. states from across the country also stepped in to crack down. the georgia legislature in 2004 passed a law to crack down on rent a bank schemes. regulators in west virginia and the ranking members in my home states of pennsylvania and ohio and new york and maryland and other states followed suit. states also passed new laws to limit interest rates on payday loans. since 2010, colorado, illinois, virginia, last year nebraska, all passed laws to cap interest rates on payday loans at 36%. still a very high number. several other states, including california and ohio also passed laws to limit the interests that can be charged. these laws passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. more than 75% of voters in nebraska and south dakota supported the ballot initiatives to cap interests on payday loans. in recent years -- to offer small loans at affordable rates. of course, the payday

under correct law there is not a restriction for law enforcement to be contacted for those scenarios to be kaghted. >> with respect to poll watchers and them disrupting the process, poll watchers swear to not har ras voters? >> that is correct and a poll watcher must take as being a poll watcher and being appointed by a poll watcher at their eyes and years. >> and didn't you point out during this topic that current strawt forbids a poll watcher going through the process? >> current law and this was brought up several times during key discussion and listening to and section 33.0757 prohibits a poll watcher from being present or is being assisted by the voters eve choice and section 33.758 of current law and election officer and prohibits them from communicating with them. >> so let's talk about the actual process for mail-in ballots. there is a lot of discussion on that topic. can you give us the changes that that were made with respect to the mail-in ballots? >> presently in the state of texas, texas requires that you provide some form of i had nicks and we heard discussion about wha

but tulane law school dean urged yield law schools again to higher bessie as a research assistant. in new haven has impressed her boss as well as a wildly popular young young professor, william o douglas, the future supreme court justice. having earned the respect bessie became the first woman awarded yet veils prestigious sterling that will ship for graduate studies. bessie moved to washington, d.c. for a new opportunity. she applied for a job at the tennessee valley authority which congress had just created to realize fdr's new deal vision of supplying electricity to the valleys impoverished residents. her yale boss wrote with the tva appear nude here to a woman lawyer, that bessie was intent on legal career, quote, as a primary objective in which she would not be deflected by consideration of marriage, end quote. bessie best began her government career with a pledge that she would be married to her job instead of a man. private utility companies hurled charges of socialism that quickly turned in two lawsuits. to direct the legal defense of its new deal cornerstone, tva hired jam

protection laws. contrary to some claims, the rule is not intended to facilitate rent a charter arrangements where banks don't comply with the law. in fact, the occ's rule does just the opposite. a rent a charter arrangement means that no party takes compliance responsibility for a loan. that's where the true lender rule comes in and is different. it ensures that the national banks that partner with third parties are accountable for the loans they issue through these partnerships and it allows the occ to supervise the origination of these loans. the current acting director of the occ, not a political appointee but one who has been a career civil servant for more than 30 years wrote to congress making this very point. the true lender rule also provides the clarity needed for bank fin tech partnerships to flourish and for national credit markets to function. for over four decades, federal law has allowed both nationally charted and state charted banks to export the state law governing interest rates fro

if the federal law is passed, it would preempt the state law. no state can do a law that is in conflict with the federal labor law. it is called federal preemption. host: chamber of commerce has been proactive of the chamber -- of the proactive. 70% concerned about abolishing state right to work protections. 50 7% belief workers should not be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. -- 57 percent believe workers should not be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. guest: when independent people have done poles, shows that 65% of the people report the proactive because they know something. corporations are too strong and workers are too weak. that's why your wages are not going up. that's why your benefits are going down. that's why you are losing things at the workplace. chamber of commerce represents corporations. they like it the way it is. they want corporations to stay stronger than you so your wages can never go up. or they can give you some crumbs off the end of the table. they are making record profits for the la

he published in leading law reviews such as yale law journal and the university of chicago law review and has been cited by the supreme court of the united states, the united states court of appeals, the united states district courts and in congressional testimony and legal briefs. we will begin this morning with darrell as he noted his work provides some of the historical work. >> thank you so much for that introduction. thanks to the national history center for this invitation to speak to you. i should start with a disclaimer. i'm not a historian. i am a legal academic. i'm a lawyer who is really interested in the way history influences the way legal doctrine develops. professor saul will be better at actually speaking with authority and detail on the actual historical regulations. instead, i want to offer a framing for you about how the supreme court does and may use history to justify its conclusions. in the 2008 discussion district of columbia versus heller, the high court resolved one very important but narrow issue. that issue was whether the second amendment right to keep and

essentially, sharia law is the - essentially, sharia law is the religious law, the divine law of muslimvalue, so it's based on the quran. i can say a little bit more about the different traditions, but essentially, islamic law and sharia are practised by many muslim majority communities, states, nations throughout the world. there are over 49 of them muslim nations, and many of them have some islamic inspired values. i and many of them have some islamic inspired values.— inspired values. i grew up in indonesia. _ inspired values. i grew up in indonesia, so _ inspired values. i grew up in indonesia, so i— inspired values. i grew up in indonesia, so i saw - inspired values. i grew up in indonesia, so i saw that - inspired values. i grew up in indonesia, so i saw that on | inspired values. i grew up in| indonesia, so i saw that on a inspired values. i grew up in - indonesia, so i saw that on a daily basis in my everyday life. but is there a hard and soft approach to sharia? and how much does culture play a part in it? to different countries have different and interpretations? i5 countries

on election laws. these would potentially change how we change elections from state to state. there is no question this has been a contentious year already and we are only way through -- only halfway through. all of this coincides with redistricting years we are waiting the data from the census bureau. in some cases, legislators are considering election legislation and in other places, its local elections but we will see the census data redrawing the districts not just for congress but the state legislatures and local bodies around the country. those new lines will pick take whatever voters will face not just as the access to the ballot but what we see. senator padilla has suggested our panel has a lot to discuss today. we welcome all of you and thank you for joining us in this presentation. we will hear from our three guests. we will hear from john yang, followed by bill and then cheryl. [inaudible] john yang is the president and executive director of asian america's injustice group, one of the leadin

a federal law should be. don't think there's as much motivation to have a federal law on that side of things because each state law becomes the de facto national privacy law. >> guest: i think there might be of the ways these pop up. cat was talking that facial recognition and a implications there. executive order directing the ftc to look at rules around dade and surveillance, what that would mean. that's kind of interesting to watch. if you're thinking more globally, the biden administration has been very focused on the transatlantic data flows and trying to reach a deal with europe on that. that's one area where they could really drive some of the discussions on privacy and really create motivation among u.s. policymakers to have a clear standard here. i think there's going to be arenas like that when you do see debates moving but it's interesting. again, i think everyone thought if there's any time for federal privacy law to come together it would have been a year or two ago. we are still here and there s

maybe the second-hardest job is to be the person working in law enforcement. but those families on that day were watching television, listening to the news, seeing their very worst fears play out for all the world to see on a day that was horrific for them, horrific for the person they love, horrific for those who love this building and what it stands for. and i'm incredibly grateful for the heroic actions we saw that day from the capitol police, from the metropolitan police who along with chief contee, the acting police chief at the time, were here in 10 or 12 minutes, here in force in that period of time. others came from around the region and all the law enforcement who were here to help that day, we are deeply appreciative of. the legislation we have here calls on us to recognize the selflessness, the dedication, the willingness to stand in the way of danger as others are able to try to get away from danger. it honors the sacrifices they make and their families make every day. i hope by passing this congressional gold medal bill by unanimous consent, we se

i love law. i love law. i eat law and drink law. i love law.> cooper: you eat and drink it. >> kaberia: i sleep law. i-- everythi-- i do everything in law. ( laughs ) >> cooper: listening to you talk about the law, it sort of makes me excited about the law. >> kaberia: yes. let me tell you, cooper. you know, there is one thing we do. we make assumptions as people, as a society. and we dig our graves through those assumptions. law is not for lawyers. law is not for the government. law is not for some people somewhere or the rich. law is for everyone. ( ticking ) >> cbs sports hq is reported by progressive insurance. adam schiffam zucker with shorts news. kisner wins a hole on the second play-off. his career first sudden death play-off victory. >> major league baseball. atlanta completes a series sweep of washington to take a one game lead on the phillies in the nl east. for 24/7 news and highlights cbs sports.com. homeandautobundle xtravafestasaveathon! bundle cars, trucks, colonials, bungalows, and that weird hut your uncle lives in. so strike