law school. he is the author of don't go to law school, unless. welcome to all of you. so paul. in just four years, we've gone from record high numbers of aspiring lawyers entering law school to some of the lowest enrollment numbers in decades. decline. this is dropping off a cliff. what's going on? >> i think what's going on is for the first time prospective law students are able to access some reasonably accurate information about job prospects, salaries and cost of attendance in regard to the investment that they would be making in a law degree and this has had a very strong effect on enrollments. because what many people are coming to the conclusion of is that it's just not worth it to pay $150,000 in tuition, to get, in many cases, less than a 50-50 shot of getting a job as a lawyer with many of those jobs paying $50,000 a year or less. >> so walter when we had these all-time highs in 2010, i believe it was 52,000 and some students entering law school. there was a glut of new lawyers coming

laws. where do lawyers makers -- lawmakers stand. >> we realise this needs to be changed. people fishing in the wrong space are crazy situations, and they are arrested and have hundreds of thousands of legal expenses. there's a lot of things to be cleaned up. i'm worried about us getting lost in the min usuala. >> a lot of people think more laws make us safer. is that not the case? >> not necessarily. i mean, keep in mind that we are a unique country, and in theory prosecutors can exercise discretion. there are a lot of agencies who make rests. in the federal government all the agencies come up through the justice department if they want to go to court. in theory you should have people in place who will make decisions. not every law is enforced. prosecutors make decisions on which ones to go forward on, which ones are worthwhile. and they work with state and local authorities. the biggest overlap are in the drug laws. everything the state can do, the federal government can do, and they talk

not religious law and not just state law. state laws have to be consistent with the constitution. the defense of marriage act has been proven not to be consistent with the constitution. any state version of the defense of marriage act is null and void. >> the marriage amendments are quite different from doma. the supreme court explicitly didn't decide it at the same time. can we talk about attorney holder's role? for the first year and a half in his tenure he defended doma. that tells me as a lawyer he believed there was some basis, rational basis to defend the law, to ethicily go into court and do it. he obviously believed that he did. then when the flip happened -- he backed out of the defense of doma, presumably with the request of the president who, mind you, supported same-sex marriage when running for president. i'm not quite sure where it became obviously unconstitutional. as an attorney general, not merely a lawyer, he somehow felt that there was no basis all of a sudden to defend that which he had a basis. >> i'm goi

are law jobs. and this has created a serious crisis of under employment and unemployment. many of who are now competing with lawyers who have been unemployed for the last two or three or four years. and we have finished this and they are unable to find jobs. gerri: is the way that they are teaching this, is this the correct way? >> i think that the problem is not that we are teaching this in a terrible bad way. i think that it is in an adequate situation and insufficient and i suggested a number of reforms and the book. but i don't think it's the structure of law school and there are too many law schools graduating too many people into a market that has become saturated and we need to cut back on the number of people who are attending and graduating law school. >> we cut back on the number of people graduating moscow, would that create a shortage for people who need lawyers? >> well, in some ways there is already a shortage for people who need lawyers. the middle class in particular for the lower a

professor at usc school of law. what is your sense in terms of contact with students. have you seen a did h decline ia there a fear of not getting jobs and being able to payback the debt? >> you i can't, our usc students are generally in good shape and there has been a significant change. there is more anxiety. more worry about this. i think i probably disagree with the diagnosis of what the problem is . i don't think it's just the 2008 crash it's structural and a big problem related to what's happening in big law and generally happening for well over a decade. >> you are suggesting that big law schools are perpetuating the problem? or big law firm rather? >> i think the whole system does. all of us operate both the law schools and the legal professional operated a pretty protected environment and we haven't had to respond to much in the way of competitive pressures. and frankly what's happened over the last several years senior that a lot of the people who buy the expensive legal services have found outweighs to re

he called on states to change their laws.t's our focus for this edition of the program. >> across this country today, an estimated 5.8 million americans, 5.8 million of our fellow citizens are prohibited from voting because of current or previous felony convictions. now that's more than the individual populations of 31 united states. >> eric holder this week said america was falling short of its full promise of equal opportunity and justice. >> states use these measures to strip african-americans of their most fundamental right. the impact of felony disenfranment remains disproportionate and unacceptable. >> the nation's top law enforcement officer gave voice to president obama's games of bringing issues surrounding criminal justice and race to the floor. holder said it was time for states to repeal the laws that disenfranchise millions of ex-cons. >> these restrictions are not only unnecessary and unjust, they are also counterproductive. by perpetuating the still ma and isolation imposed on formal incarcerated individuals, t

do you regret going to law profession. a law degree does not have to lead to traditional practice.e in government, journalist, teaching, politics could benefit for a j.d. but as we are finin finding out it aint ease. >> i do you regret going to law school? >> i don't regret the education or the license, subsidized my writing here got mere here wearing makeup. i do reget the debt. >> and it's huge for so many people. going to law school it used to be a great way to achieve upward mobility. but, you know, the school is extensive. hard work, promise i've high-paying job made it worth it. things are changing, though, in the last 25 years, tuition has risen twice as fast as inflation. and first year enrollment has plunged. making the future of the legal professional at least as we know it now, a bit uncertain. students are avoiding the career that has left many graduates saddled with huge debt, dwindling salaries and far job prospects, now justs are feeling the crunch about 80% of law schools are losing money and some universities are attempting to attract more students by selectively s

after that, she was hired by rutgers law school and became one of the first female law professors in the country. even that came with a string attached. rutgers told her she was going to be paid less than her male colleagues because your husband has a very good job. against the striking background of gender bias, justice ginsburg succeeded marvelously. she eventually became the first woman tenured professor at columbia law school. she founded the aclu women's rights project. she was appointed by president carter to the d.c. court of appeals. by president clinton to the supreme court. she did all of this while raising two children. the first was born just before she started law school. jane followed her parents into the law, becoming a columbia law professor and one of the country's foremost copyright scholars. the second shared his mother's love for opera and is now the founder and president of the grammy award-winning record label for classical music. i know justice ginsburg would attribute her ability to have it all to her husband. as everyone who knew him could tell you, he was a

law. other swiss bankers helped u.s. clients set up offshore corporations to hold their accounts and to hide the ownership trail. some bakers lied on the visa applications when they entered the united states saying the purpose of the visit was to resent, when in fact it was business. the bottom line is that credit suisse was in as deep as ubs aiding and abetting u.s. tax evasion, both in switzerland and on u.s. soil. once ubs misconduct was exposed, credit suisse initiated a series of so-called exit projects to close its u.s. client accounts in switzerland. those projects took five years until 2013 to complete. in the end, the bank verified account for about 3500 out of the 22,000 u.s. clients as compliant with u.s. tax law meaning they were disclosed to the irs. the bank closed accounts for the other 18,900 u.s. customers. it is clear that the vast majority of the 95% were undeclared, meaning hidden from uncle sam. so where are we now? unlike ubs, the u.s. enforcement action against credi

law. he has to come to the president to do that. >> this president and this administration enforce the laws they choose to enforce and ignore the laws they want to ignore. this is the very definition of lawlessness and something the american people do not tolerate and will not tolerate, nor should they be required to tolerate. >> you just heard article ii of the u.s. constitution. it establishes the executive branch and outlines the powers of the president. granting to him the authority to execute and implement the laws of the united states. where does implementation end and rewriting begin? the constitutionality of this president's behavior turns on that question. more and more legal scholars from the left and right are saying that president obama has crossed a constitutional line here. we have team fox coverage on this tonight with ed henry. former federal prosecutor andrew mccarthy and brit hume. we begin with ed henry live in washington, who's covering the decision that touched off thi

her achievements as a law year, law professor, and judge. this is our 12 ginsburg lecture and justice ginsburg has been involved in every one of them since the inception of the series. we are happy for her continued presence. [applause] she has been a voice for justice and gender equity and civil rights for many years. in terms of her own background, not to spoil the agenda, but she will be introducing the other justice who we are honored to have beer here tonight, justice elena kagan. to be here tonight, justice elena kagan. [applause] ofill not steal the thunder justice ginsburg by talking about justice kagan. justice ginsburg was top among the women in her class at cornell university before attending harvard law school, where she was only one of nine 1959 in the class of before she transferred in graduated from columbia law school. upon graduation, she clerked for the southern district of new york. she became the second woman to join the faculty at rutgers university school of law. jeter at columbia, she became the first tenured woman on

the yale law journal had a recent law where they could not vote if they were felons. it was quite consistent to have that point of view. just because a law has a disparate impact on the basis of race is no evidence that it was passed with discriminatory intent. >> these laws as written, are they sensitive enough to the differences in crimes? are all felonies created equal? if you're check kiting is that the same thing as being an armed robber of a convenience store. >> roger almost suggested by virtue of a felony you're suddenly not of good character, and you have to prove yourself worthy of voting in the community. when i register to vote at the age of 18 no one asked me about my character, no one did a worthwhile test to see what i was doing. in democracy we take the bad with the good. we don't impose personality test or anything like that. i think there are legitimate punishments for people who break the law. sometimes that includes prison. we should distinguish that from other rights, the right to be married and divorced, not all those things change because you ha

law to fit? let me give you an assurance, if somebody were to follow you or me for a full day and saw everything that we saw or did, that person could arguably come up with three felonies, that's how i got the title of my book, three felonies a day. because you pick up the phone and you call somebody, and you don't quite tell the whole truth of everything that you're talking about, and that's very common. you cannot tell somebody everything. arguably there's a felony committed there. and it has gotten so that everybody is in danger. the only question is, are you going to end up in a position where some prosecutor is going to want to get you? if the prosecutor wants to get you, chances are the prosecutor will be able to ca can i just sy something here? this problem is not equal. we know who gets arrested and prosecuted and convicted in disproportionate numbers, and we need to address some of the things that are be structurally and fundamentally wrong with our criminal justice system. and there's a

earlier this law with me. you had talked about how it was in this case the defendant that seemed to almost tell her some of the things that he said when he took the stand that fit the elements of this law. let me give you an example. >> i was trying to get her to relax and stop hyperventilating and calm down, explaining to her that it was self-defense, that we were not in trouble with the police. we might be in trouble with the local gangsters, but not, you know -- i didn't do anything wrong. >> and she, as you said, was a wreck, right? >> yes, she was. >> because she knew that you had just fired into a car with human beings inside? >> she doesn't understand self-defense. he is showing me a gun and he is threatening me. i thought i was going to be killed. it was self-defense. i had no choice but to defend myself. it was life or death. i'd already been afraid for my life, but now the fear was imminent. >> i had no choice but to defend myself, which fits elements of stand your ground. i had no choice. it was sel

in nine hundred eighty two why was that law replaced with such a more harsh law. honestly in my opinion because the impact that that was intended to have of silencing the movement didn't really work i think. in two thousand and two when that was passed it was obviously you know a frightening bit of legislation but it really didn't cripple the movement or cause people to sort of step back in their activism people are still willing to get out there and exercise their first amendment rights but you know with the era of terrorism and with you know the buzz word that is terrorism in this day and age having the threat of being labeled a terrorism you know being a terrorist sorry for engaging in first amendment activity is is just a much scarier notion and i think that that's in my opinion why you know the law was enhanced was just to kind of have a more effective chill on the movement right and didn't also just trumping up the charges so much more extreme talk about where the case stands right now why you filed a lawsuit and what happened in the courtroom yesterday. wel

governors sign them into law. we will tell you which laws are good and which laws are bad, and to hell with you if you don't like it. >> that's what our stock resolution is all about. article ii, section 3 of the constitution is clear that the president shall take care of the laws of the land. the president doesn't have the right under the con still tugs to pick and choose what laws or parts of laws he's going to enforce or who he's going to enforce them against. he's shown a pattern of doing this over and over again particularly with the affordable care act. >> my question to you, though, is what are you going to do? we had professor turley on the program before who said, the problem is, how do you force people to abide -- people in the white house. how do you force them to abide by the constitution and limit their own powers? >> well, article ii -- the stop resolution 442 if the passed by the majority of the house of representatives only was the house as an institution would bring a lawsuit against the president

i want to recall that the laws in belgium and holland in luxembourg these laws. aereo freedom put in place guarantees to prevent abuse but do not force anyone to make the gesture if they don't want to. still believe that when we talk about the specious that the adults or children or teenagers give these patients or request ethan e sure it is a very humane gesture to carry out their request. to take all the money it's about we're going to take a short break now i will be back with philip now a belgian senator and a proponent of the euthanasia for minors law to discuss turning to assisted suicide stay with us. transit road to vnukovo report your best way to the heart of moscow. the olympic games is very name means athletic excellence and extravagant showmanship this has been traditionally the case however at the games in sochi have been treated differently western media has attempted to politicize the games at the expense of sports and the host country on this edition of crossfire we explore the true spirit of sorts. to what extent. the success elph the arab spring

>> i'd like to constitutional law. i think i like it a lot more than those who want to change it. by having created judicial interpretations of what it'scr supposed to mean and eliminatin large part of the constitution. >> so when we have that argument come and hoosier book by the way, showing "restoring the lost constitution: the presumption of liberty," when we have thatf argument between the livingcumt documents and a strict constructionist argument looking at the constitution, is that a fair argument? >> i wouldn't put it quite that way. the constitution doesn't get followed is a dead constitution. constitution and that's what keeps it alive. as first-rate construction, it was justice goalie when he says he went to correctly construe it. neither strictly and are liberally, but accurately that's the thing we have to aim for. >> host: the subtitle of your book is the presumption of liberty. >> guest: the presumption of liberty is the way of putting that the constitution says into effect by basically saying that the government ought to be about to justify its restrictions on libe

so i'm against this law.nd i think it's a horrible law for law enforcement and for the citizens of the state of florida. >> and faith, it's not only the state of florida, as ken said, it's now in 22 other states. this is a national problem. one of the jurors have said in this trial that a major moment was when dunn's lawyer told them to read the self-defense law. watch what she said. >> check page 25. start with page 25. >> page 25 reads "the use of deadly force is justifiable if michael dunn reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." >> and we took a poll. there were two of us undecided. two for was justified, and the rest were not justified. >> why were the others so convinced that dunn was guilty? >> we all believed that there was another way out, another option. >> she thought there was another way. but stand your ground means you don't have to look for another way, right, faith? >> right. and in the mind of this juror, that defies logic, right? don't

under arizona law state law, sexual orientation is not included in anti-discrimination legislation, correct? >> yes. >> so it's legal -- you can fire somebody for being gay already, correct? >> we don't want that to happen here but it's my understanding -- >> but it can happen. >> i don't know of anybody that would advocate that or stand for it. >> okay. but under this law, you say it's all about protecting people of faith in arizona. can you give me a specific example of someone in arizona who's been forced to do something against their religious belief or successfully sued because of their faith? >> again, i think if anything, you -- this bill is preemptive to protect priests. >> you can't give me one example of this actually happening? >> no, i can't. we've seen it in other states and we don't want it to happen here. >> but it's happened in other states that have laws protecting gay people specifically, that's what this bill is all about. in arizona they don't have laws protecting gay people so it can happen in arizona. >> well, sir, the bottom line is this is not a discrimination bill t

the law isn't working. the answer to the question is no, there is no hope of getting it straiptened out. -- straightened out. the web site problems we've seen are just the tip of the iceberg. people are paying higher premiums, coverages are canceled, people can't keep their doctor, fraud and identity theft are going to continue to be a plague of this health care web site and people are paying higher co-pays and deductibles. this is reported interestingly enough that in california with the so-called navigators, the people who are the certified and a navigators, over 40 of them are convicted criminals. 40 convicted criminals were hired and certified, certified, to be navigators in california in spite of the fact that people are being asked to give personal information, health information, financial information, to these navigators. so it is no surprise we're going to continue to see issues of fraud and identity left come up. another interesting thing that we learned recently, the congressional budget office c

and taking the life and stand your ground shoot first laws allowing murder by culture let's rumble. joining me for that i saw a little rumble are horace cooper attorney and senior fellow of the national center for public policy research and kevin martin member of the project twenty one black leadership network thank you both for joining me murder by culture you guys heard my rant kevin you were you were making faces there and you don't think that white people are afraid of black people and that a law that says that if you assert that you are afraid you therefore have the right to shoot people you don't accept those two premises let me say this most lived in washington d.c. all by life ok i've been robbed three times in a by why i can tell you day ok so you're saying that there's a legitimate basis i don't know why that evil operator black you know i'm not i'm not saying it's a little bit of base i'm saying that when you're walking down the street whether be a man woman wherever anybody can do anything to you it doesn't matter what skin color they are ok that's like saying that every

generally is that there should be no discrimination in the way the law is administered this is a law that actually legislates for discrimination so it is completely contrary to human rights as those of theirs are properly understood now that this bill it's obviously not a law yet it is unlikely to become law so we understand but supporters of it saying that preserving religious values is this a sign of a rise in conservative traditional values that we're seeing not just in the u.s. but elsewhere around the world. this is been much talked about and the maybe some truth to it in the united states of course there has always been a strong religious conservative constituency very strong in states like kansas utah which also has laws not quite like this but similar sort of laws. i'm not sure to what extent it's true to say that this is becoming more prevalent but if you want to find evidence for that one can see it i mean in india. in the country of india for example the supreme court there recently said that homosexuality is illegal and that came as a surprise to many people and what abou

most law at that time, was common law. most law at that time was derived from the con kl set of english case law. the case i described. it was american law. to teach law students what it meant to be a lawyer in 1900, 1910, even 1920 did mean in large part to teach them the skill of reasoning through these cases. a limited number of cases. 200 or 300 cases could it. it's not the nature of law today. it's not the nature of legal practice today. most is not derived from the few common law cases whether american or english cases. most is derived from statutes that are enacted by congress that are enacted by state legislature. so our focus in part, simply has to shift away from the core originator of law and to instead are elected representatives. we have to become less court focus and a little bit more legislation focused in the orientation toward law. second, the curriculum we still teach is the required first-year curriculum put together at the time when most was domestic. if you're going to be become an american lawyer you

some kids started crying. >> so, why this law?hat all the schools have to run training. what's the genesis of this, what's the idea here? >> i think it's not for the kids. it's for teachers and laurmw enforcement. the kids are basically props. not all the active shooter laws are going to be like that necessarily. they don't have to use the fake blood, don't have to use blanks. it could be something very elementary. they decided to ramp it up after they did a more stilted, you know, low-key drill that they didn't feel was doing anything. so it's really for law enforcement to sort of come up with strategies to better deal with this if this should happen. >> how prevalent are active shooter drills around the country? this isn't just happening in missouri. these are happening everywhere. >> yeah. there are a handful of -- i mean, people do it on their own volition. there are a handful of states that make it law. people are passing other laws that say that teachers can carry concealed weapons. people are really ramping up the security.

what this president has done is to repeatedly change laws, even laws he himself has pushed through congress for his own political benefit. >> the president seems to have an extra frustration, and he reacts to it through unilateral reactions that i think are counterproductive and in my opinion, in some instances, borderline unconstitutional. >> for the president to declare i'm going change this law that congress has passed is unconstitutional. he is outside the bounds of his article 2 limitation. >> the president says he has a pen and a cell phone but the american people have a constitution and the constitution doesn't give him the authority to unilaterally change the law. he has to come to the congress to do that. >> this president and the nation, he chooses to enforce the laws he wants to enforce and ignore the laws he doesn't want to enforce. this is something the american people should not be required the tolerate. >> when the president says it is the law of the land, it is one of the reasons why there is so little trust of this white house. >> and the worry about the power grab is not j

but at least that is a law enacted by the congress.ident has written his own rules to govern himself in private. there is no basis for that under the constitution what so ever. and nor is the basis for the president toicle an american. on the contrary. treason is waging war against the united states and there is no crime defined with more specificity in the constitution. >> that's your opinion and i respect that. >> that's what the constitution says. >> they've already conit against other, al awlaki and his son. >> they acknowledge they have killed four americans secretly, awlaki, his son and two others. >> one intentional. >> under this administration on what you heard what's to prevent them from doing it again, if anything? >> nothing. except public opinion. the congress is going to roll over like a potted plant. the person they want to kill probably is a bad guy, but that does not justify the president doing that. we fought wars against tyrants who thought they could kill people they called bad. >> thank you, judge. >> great to see

wrote this law and pushed into the states they were thinking racist but the consequence of this law has been a lot of basically white racists are killing black people get away with it and this guy who really didn't want to start a fight he would it was very clear that you have any thoughts and i would just say i mean to clarify one thing first juror number eight who was the one african-american on the jury panel did come out today and say that this case and have anything to do with race so i had to i would know that all this jury has anything to do with race the case the juror said that race was never brought into the case it was not it was never mentioned the right to choose which was a horrible mistake on the part of the prosecutor of i wouldn't call i would call these laws inherently racist the problem with this seems to be the consequence of the laws and you're right the problem with this seems to be that people are getting away with this and in this case i don't understand why it happened because this guy claimed that he saw one of these african-american boys pull out a shotgun the

what this president has done is to repeatedly change laws, even laws he himself has pushed through congress for his own political benefit. >> the president seems to have an extra frustration, and he reacts to it through unilateral reactions that i think are counterproductive and in my opinion, in some instances, borderline unconstitutional. >> for the president to declare i'm going change this law that congress has passed is unconstitutional. he is outside the bounds of his article 2 limitation. >> the president says he has a pen and a cell phone but the american people have a constitution and the constitution doesn't give him the authority to unilaterally change the law. he has to come to the congress to do that. >> this president and the nation, he chooses to enforce the laws he wants to enforce and ignore the laws he doesn't want to enforce. this is something the american people should not be required the tolerate. >> when the president says it is the law of the land, it is one of the reasons why there is so little trust of this white house. >> and the worry about the power grab is not j

actually do end up protecting citizens of states with strong laws. given they said to success she just cited do you think that stricter gun laws make us safer actually i don't think it does i think though the statistics you state is true but that's where we're coming in as organizations who are pro second amendment to educate people on gun safety within the home and that's one of our goals is to be able to provide that type of educational process but as the statistics that wasn't spoken about was that forty percent forty times more a year forty times more year is people are using guns in self defense that's not ever talked about and so that's a critical thing is for sure when when one point five million times a year guns are being used and when their organization second amendment dot org you've created your own type of registry that people all over the country are signing up online you tell us what your message is so our mission overall for two a.o. is to bring consumers and business owners who believe in the second amendment together so we're regist

the states of the united states about eight laws that are on the books that are similar the laws both of you know the states and in russia should be repealed so what exactly does a russian last for bed and what is the punishment for them well both of the above laws in russia and in this handful of u.s. states restrict what can be so especially to children in educational context for example of two thousand and two the united states proudly and without comment served its winter olympic athletes to utah which prohibits school instruction in the because sea of homosexuality and that language is quite parallel to the russians. so as you are saying there are a number of u.s. states that have similar laws what states are we talking about here utah arizona alabama texas those are for and what kind of laws to these states have is it the exact same kind of. language as we have seen in russia they vary. to a degree misstate what our constitution demands some say that you have to educate children that homosexual sex is is a crime even though consensual homosexual sex has been protected for more t

schmidts university virginia school of law come a segregated institution by law until the late 1960s was part of the never say die persistence of the state of virginia. when i got there in the early 80s the school had been integrated at least there is no racial exclusion. integration is understood to be simply taking on the white only signs and allowing, permitting finally black students to matriculate at the university with the assumption that everything else about the law school would basically remain the same as if racism, said the racial supremacy ideology that justified us even consistent with justice and the rule of law, the racial apartheid america in the 1950s and earlier as if those institutional practices only involvement racism is the fact of exclusion as opposed to the way the races integrated deeply in to the picture, into the doctrines of that institution. so take the debate from adoption. basically today the conventional controversy of the race. that's where it's kind of located in the talking heads closer of american discourse. but affirmative action is only problemat

i want to recall that the laws in belgium and holland in luxembourg these laws. aereo freedom put in place guarantees to prevent abuse but do not force anyone to make the gesture if they don't want to. still believe that when we talk about the specious that the gold sort the children or teenagers give these patients or request. it is a very humane gesture to carry out their request. to take. several we're going to take a short break now and we'll be back with philip now a belgian senator and a proponent of the euthanasia for minors lots of discuss i'll turn it to assisted suicide stay with us. to what extent being held here down the success of the arab spring depends on the people in the region on the arabs and to what extent it still depends on be. pursued that all of that and that the influence of the outside powers is getting stronger now because of the absence of a major country like egypt but i assure you. decided by. by america. in the absence of the read part of this region which is the i. you know when you're in the arctic you have the entire fleet she lo

, the law will go into effect on december 31st, 2013, and the president has ignored our law. so as a member of the senate, i have standing to protest that? >> yeah, there are some who have suggested that, there are others who have suggested that under the relevant supreme court president it may be difficult for members of congress to establish standing in those circumstances. but on the broader question, chris, of the fact that would have presidents in both parties using executive orders, and that this president hasn't necessarily issued more executive orders than other presidents, i have two responses to that. first, chris, not all executive orders are equal. you have some executive order that is are plainly authorized by law, in which congress delegated to the president to make these decisions. that's really not what we are talking about here. what we are talking about here are decisions like those involving the suspension of the employer mandate, but it's not only authorized by the statue, but flatly inconsistent with what the statute says. secondly, to the extent that pre

state law.ook a lot of heat. the 1070 came up, but we were doing this prior to 1070 -- >> prior to 1070, what was the trigger for you? did you see something happened that required your attention in a way it hadn't before? >> it became a big issue illegal immigration. that's why the two state laws were passed because the federal government wasn't thing their job. and why did the federal government train my deputies, 160, and gave them federal authority to enforce the federal immigration laws, and the judge that ruled against me, really, all of this was going on when we were able to enforce the federal laws and use their criteria. i'm appealing that decision. my deputies are not racist. they are very professional. and i resent people calling my deputies -- >> are you talking about the 2009 decision that stripped your ability to enforce under federal guidelines, or the 2013 decision that said your agency was targeting latinos in stops. >> i'm talking about the latest ruling by the federal court tha

>> guest: contracts boards, a criminal law, a constitutional law, economics, radical legal thought, and several other subjects. >> host: you touched on this but "critical race consciousness" how does this come out with some of? >> guest: the book "critical race consciousness" one of the articulations of the approach to questions that start at the academy and critical race theory starts a movement questioning the protection doctrine questioning of the false claims of neutrality i am part of a much larger group of scholars embraced with the critical race theory making these kinds of critiques. >> host: another term we have today is multi-cultural. how does that play? >> guest: i think it should be understood as an important refinement to the '60's version of integration that i described it is the individualist that race doesn't matter isn't it is to what i articulate as the nationalist position between people. but the manner in which will biculturalism was institutionalized took its radical possibilities because it is a decorative you of our identity that we should appreciate each other d

there are many ways for lobbyists to evade the law and simply put. there are many incentives for lobbyists to register and the law does not cover all lobbying activity so the real figure on how many lobbyists are and you see that are actually attempting to influence policy is closer to a hundred thousand not twelve thousand and experts say of the amount spent is not three billion but closer to maybe six nine or even ten billion unbelievable and you're talking about all these loopholes in the lobbying disclosure act named after . former senate majority leader tom daschle will why is he the face of an registered lobbyists. well senator tom daschle will left the senate joined a private equity firm also joined a law and lobbying firm alston and bird is now another one called d.l.a. piper he's become the face of the problem because everyone knows tom daschle will lobby use that he meets with government officials that he meets with president obama that he coordinates meetings with legislators with policy folks and businesses from health care and energy to

we - it's - we don't know where he stands exactly. >> the laws are based on british laws, colonial laws. what do you make of an argument we heard of homosexuality and equality in a neocolonial plot to depopulate africa? >> it's not true. i was listening to that and i was smiling and laughing. i mean, the world is full of diversity. people who are straight, you have people who are gay. there are people who are heterosexual and do not want children. those that have kids and get them. there's no plot to depop u lies - depopularize humanity in this country, so that argument does not hold at all. equality is something that we, as ugandans always have. we have been a tolerant society. and the british laws took it away from us. it is disturbing when i'm holding on to - we choose - we select what we want to stick with, and give back some of the things. i mean british - british law that we are using today. britain itself does not calize homosexuality. why do people follow that. >> thank you so much. >> lots more to come on al jazeera. what is el chappo double crossed. members of the drug cartel

states that do not have this law.it's not like this was a natural rise in shooting. >> right. >> it was basically along the lanes of the states that had this law. >> that's rights, reverend al. we don't always have a perfect laboratory when we're looking at crime statistics. with stand your ground we do. because in roughly half the states there are stand your ground laws. other states like california where i live, we don't have stand your ground. so you can do a comparison. and homicides in california, for example, are roughly flat. in many places they're going down. in stand your ground states, those justifiable homicide numbers are going up. that includes many children and teenagers. so i think we really have to ask ourselves, do we value human life? do we value the lives of children and teenagers, or do we think that's more important to just satisfy our macho impulses and have the feeling that we can walk around with a gun and shoot back if we feel somebody is aggressive towards us? because that's what stand your g

the law they passed was a good law. a clear law. not even slightly confusing. until an unelected bureaucrat changed it without legal authority. it is time to simply enforce the law. >> oh, sorry, just looking for [ car alarm chirps ] ♪ [ male announcer ] we don't just certify our pre-owned vehicles. we inspect, analyze, and recondition each one, until it's nothing short of a genuine certified pre-owned mercedes-benz for the next new owner. [ car alarm chirps ] hurry in to the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event. visit today for exceptional offers. ♪ the comeback trail. there is no map. no mile marker. no welcome sign. one day you may find yourself here. and you'll need someone to bring you back. to carry you home. at liberty mutual, we believe with every setback there's a chance to come back and rise. liberty mutual insurance. auto, home, life. >> oh, sorry, just looking for my name here on the clinton's enemy list in the new bio about hillary clinton. let's see, obama, o'malley. great, i'm not on the list. >> we know how rand paul will run against hi

the law they passed was a good law. a clear law. not even slightly confusing.d it was supremely easy to enforce for 50 years until an unelected bureaucrat changed it without legal authority. it is time to simply enforce the law. ameriprise asked people a simple question: in retirement, will you outlive your money? uhhh. no, that can't happen. that's the thing, you don't know how long it has to last. everyone has retirement questions. so ameriprise created the exclusive.. confident retirement approach. now you and your ameripise advisor can get the real answers you need. well, knowing gives you confidence. start building your confident retirement today. well, did you know that just one sheet of bounce outdoor fresh gives you more freshness than two sheets of the leading national store brand? who knew? so, how do you get your bounce? with more freshness in a single sheet. >> oh, sorry, just looking for my name here on the clinton's enemy list in the new bio about hillary clinton. let's see, obama, o'malley. great, i'm not on the list. n kns your car's health depe