it the law. just like a citizen who does not think that is the law, that doesn't mean he could escape liability. >> the police officer was not stopping him because of the brake light. the police officer was involved in criminal interdictions and admitted this was a pretext. a lawful pretext, he thought. he wasn't there just to tell him that. fix your brake light and drive away, there would never be a law suit, correct? >> that is correct. >> how many citizens have been stopped for one brake light and are asked to have their cars earch? is that something we as a society should be encouraging? >> wholly innocent people are stopped quite often because of mistakes of fact, for instance. that's part of the whole how terry works and those types of briefs stops. it turns out that citizens have not committed any kind of offense and yet they are stopped. this is another example of that in which an officer acted reasonably, just as with a reasonable mistake of fact. it turns out this was not actually a vio

law. evening president obama's department of homeland security secretary jeh johnson has admitted to to the committee that there are limits to the power of prosecutorial discretion and that there comes a point when something amounts to a whole scale abandonment. the obama administration has crossed the line from any justifiable use of its authority to a clear violation of his constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws. there is a difference between setting priorities, focusing more resources on those cases that seem more serious and setting enforcement free zones for millions of unlawful aliens. by boldly proclaiming that there will be no possibility of removal for millions of unlawful aliens, president obama eliminates entirely any deterrent effect our immigration laws have. al he states plainly that those laws can be ignored with impunity, such actions will encourage others to come here illegally, just like his action for childhood arrivals program encouraged tens of th

law. even president obama's department of homeland security secretary jeh johnson has admitted to to the committee that there are limits to the power of prosecutorial discretion and that there comes a point when something amounts to a wholesale abandonment. the obama administration has crossed the line from any justifiable use of its authority to a clear violation of his constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws. there is a difference between setting priorities, focusing more resources on those cases that seem more serious and setting enforcement free zones for millions of unlawful aliens. by boldly proclaiming that there will be no possibility of removal for millions of unlawful aliens, president obama eliminates entirely any deterrent effect our immigration laws have. he states plainly that those laws can be ignored with impunity, such actions will encourage others to come here illegally, just like his action for childhood arrivals program encouraged tens of thousands

law.in a way that i think would be very difficult to defend legally. so that's not an option. >> as "the washington post" own fact checking concluded, apparently he changed his mind. i should add a jewelled crown worthy of king james of england who precipitated the revolution by dispensing with laws passed by parliament. the constitution is clear. it's congress' duty to write laws. once they are enacted, it's the president's responsibility to enforce them. the con sti toougstitution requ president take care the laws are faithfully executed. the president wants a pathway for unlawful immigrants. he is upset that congress won't change america's immigration laws to his liking. he has decided to act unconstitutionally under the guise of prosecutorial discretion. the authority as to whether to enforce or not enforce the law against particular individuals, this power must be judiciously used. clinton administration ins commissioner told her agency that prosecutorial discretion is a powerful tool

it would be a much narrower conversation in our law schools if the law now, so -- that's the fact of the matter that for many law professors there is no dialogue, but that's ok with me and it should be ok with them i guess. there are people who do really engage with what we do. and i often find things that are coming from the law professor world, whether an article or you see people blogging about these kinds of things and not writing full length articles but going on a whole number of sites and talking about the kind of cases we get in the issues we see. i sometimes think that what is written there is very useful and very interesting that leads me to ask questions and elites meet said he thinks through i have not thought about. -- leads me to think about things i have not thought about. i suggest some other things are at issue in a way that i think is valuable. i think it's a pretty happy story actually that law professors are not just focusing on us to the next and that they focus on us. i think they are contributing to the dialogue. >> down here, if there is a question in the fron

there is a rule of law. you need to start enforcing that law. we came together as a house just a few months ago and passed a border security bill. let's actually get back to the rule of law and protecting our nation's borders. it's not just an immigration issue, it's a national security issue. and so what is the president's response to this legislation? he threatens a veto. again, the president thinks he can sit in the oval office and make up his own laws. that's not the way our system of government works, mr. speaker. so we bring this legislation forward today to get us back to that rule of law and to remind the president it's time for him to heed the message that millions of americans across the country set just a few weeks ago and said you need to start working with congress and solve real problems. in fact, this weekend in my home state of louisiana, there are three more elections on that ballot. pay close attention, mr. president. pay close attention to yet another referendum on your agenda that's going to occur this saturday with a senate

there is a rule of law. you need to start enforcing that law. >> but with the democrats still in control of the senate, until january, the bill will most likely not move forward. spearheading the lawsuit is texas' attorney general greg abbott. >> the president's executive order and actions of federal agencies to implement that executive order directly violate a fundamental promise to the american people. >> the governors and attorneys general following abbott's lead are almost all republican from alabama, georgia, idaho, indiana, kansas, louisiana, maine, mississippi, montana, nebraska, south dakota, utah, west virginia, wisconsin, south carolina, and north carolina. >> i feel very strongly that the president overstepped his authority in the executive branch, and is making law as opposed to executing law, and we as the states are impacted. >> if you've been in america for more than five years, if you have children who are american citizens or legal residents, if you register, pass a criminal background check

the questions of law. but i supported and worked harder than anyone here, at least as hard as or harder than anyone in working with republicans. and they keep inviting me. they said it will be next week. here's our principles. then they go, just kidding. i really didn't mean it. they keep testing us and teasing us about immigration reform. we're going to do it. we're just not ready right now. the fact is that the speaker called the president of the united states and said despite all your great efforts, mr. president and mine, we're not going to call a vote on immigration reform so let's just put aside the fallacy that somehow this is disruptive to a system. it's almost as though you're coming here to tell us, oh, we are on the pinnacle of success and had the president not acted we'd all be convened here to do comprehensive immigration reform. the fact is that's just not reality. let's deal with reality. the fact is that when you and i and others were working in the senate to pass the bill, we passed a bill

he changed the law. he doesn't think, by the way, it was simply a policy decision. he stated he changed the law. as i said in my testimony, i believe there's anybody on this committee that believes the president had the authority to change the law. >> okay. >> he doesn't get to do that. >> okay. now, his own dhs secretary jay johnson has stated there comes a point when something amounts to a wholesale abandonment to enforce a duly enacted constitutional law that is beyond simple prosecutorial discretion. i think that at least three of our witnesses believe that the president z has crossed that line. could you be more specific and let me start with mr. dupree. be brief and then work that way. >> well, thank you mr. sensen brener. i think that secretary johnson was correct when he says that there is a line. i think in this case the president not only crossed the line but that line is far, far, far in the distance. >> that's kind of like the line he drew on syria, right? >> i think that is an apt analogy. >

law. the e asked members of national security council -- he h this predicament that was in -- aand presented the option of enhanced techniques. of course, that began a dialogue between the department justice and the cia, in terms of what those techniques and based upon , needs of the cia in determining whether or not it could be done in a way consistent with the law. course, as the white house counsel sat in on these meetings and sat in on the discussions -- at the end of the day, it is up to department of justice to make a decision whether or not it is something that can be done consistent with our loss. obviously, i provide input. day, the e end of the attorney general has the say and what can be done consistent with the law. have been asked questions about what was the president's involvement. well, i can say that at the beginning of these discussions bush's chief of staff -- what to the president know about these discussions. president of e united states is filled with information ever

what are the laws governing everyday life including traffic laws? and what are your rights as a citizen. basic laws, understand the basic laws of issues such as gun ownership, staying safe within your communities, maintain positive relations with others, including. relationships, maintain good grades, adult relationships and the benefits of having mentors. law enforcement engagement, educating young people and adults on how to engage and navigate communication with local law enforcement officers. what is community policing, and have a better understanding of the realities of working in law enforcement and working with those who do that job. and lastly, technology. we feel that technology can be leveraged to support effective implementation of community policing adventure maximum transparency to the public. group of technology partnerships with can be strengthening of problem-solving and partnership initiative. likewise, there's an important role in applying technology and improving the effectiveness of law enforcement training. listed are some of th

no king is above the law. no president is above the law. no executive is above the law.everyone is answerable for his actions, or her actions in court. that leads to the second. i'm not going to talk about this too longment we are all entitled to justice. the clauses don't just say justice. they talk about right and justice. there weren't many rights about in 1215. over the centuries our rights have come to be established. you find the preservation, the entitlement to a court system which will preserve your rights is found there within the charter. i look at that as being the second most important legacy to us. here in the office of chief justice of the united states the office i held once in england, we are responsible for seeing justice is available to all citizens, even if they are taking on the president or the government, the prime minister. these rights are recognized in the charter. the barons weren't thinking of us. the barons weren't, you know, full of ideas about voting. as our country twopd and yours, these things became part of the country. in england if peop

not to write into law. finally, as many on this committee will recall during the bush administration, we were strong advocates of immigration reform and we sought to get a bill through congress when we were unsuccessful, many of us were disappointed and frustrated. but we did not attempt to achieve through executive fiat what we could not achieve through the legislative process. we respected the system the framer's established. i thank the committee for convening this hearing and look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. dupree. >> great. >> we are pleased to have you with us as well. >> thank you, chairman. members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. my name is marry lain that i'm the executive director of the national immigration law center, an organization that is dedicated specifically to helping families low-income immigrant families like mine to contribute their best to our country and achieve the american dream. i'm an immigrant from colombia, i arrived

we also heard from law enforcement and were reminded of what a tough job it is to be in law enforcement. as eric holder put it, police officers have the right to come home. secondly, one of the issues that came up during the response to ferguson back in august was the issue of military equipment being utilized in the face of protests i will be signing an executive order that specifies how we're going to make sure we're not building a militarized culture inside our local law enforcement. and finally as i mentioned, eric holder is going to be working in parallel with the task force to convene a series of these meetings all across the country. and part of the reason this time will be different is because the president of the united states is deeply invested in making sure that this time is different. when i hear the young people around this table talk about their experiences, it violates my belief in what america can be. to hear young people feeling marginalized and distrustful even after they've done everything right. that's not who we are. thank you very much, jonathan. >> the president

law." in other words, he has taken it upon himself to drastically rewrite our immigration policy, the terms of which by constitutional design are expressly set by congress. close quote. i think that's indisputable. so somebody can say that's just your opinion. i'm here to decide the question. all of us are here to decide the question. did the president act responsibly, lawfully or unlawfully in this action? it's not a close question, colleagues. you can find excuses. you can find some professor that says this or that, but it's not accurate. at some point in our nation's life, we need to be able to ascertain and speak with clarity. congress has the power to write immigration laws. congress rejected the president's request to provide this power, and congress should not allow this to continue because it's unlawful and in fact violates the constitution. now, additionally, george washington law school professor jonathan turley, nationally recognized constitutional scholar. he describes himself a

the law was that they should follow, what law takes precedence.em asked questions about united states supreme law over missouri law. so clearly, they were very confused. and we're really trying to get more information, but it was not forth coming. >> what's your reaction to the attorney general's response today saying that it's time to actually change the statute, incorporate the case law right into the statute? >> i think that's absolutely correct. it should have been done before this happened. >> susan mcgraw, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thank you. >>> coming .up, the state of justice in america. right now, you can get a single line with 3 gigs for $65 a month. 3 gigs ... is that a lot? that's about ... 100 app downloads, 45 hours of streaming music, and 6 hours of video playing. (singing) and five golden rings! ha, i see what you did... (singing) four calling birds...three french hens ...(the guys starts to fizzle out) two... turtle...doves... i really went for it there ya you did ... you really, really did now get 3 gigs of

the second context is local law. the missouri statute authorizing freedom suits were not invoked in the case once it was filed in federal court but they affected this case by creating effectatixpectations i local community that slaves+,bv could sue for freedom. and third, the context is to focus on the supplemental people involved in the case that changes the incentives and could influence whether the case settled. first, setting the case in geography. there was a steady stream of slave petitioners who satisfied the criteria for freedom by residents, by having lived on free soil before arriving in the st. louis courts in a slave state. persons moving west often stopped along the walk to spend time on free soil. the great majority of those persons suing for freedom in st. louis based their claim just as the scots did on the rule of freedom by residents. the ohio river was the main corridor of traffic with ports in louisville andc3,w a short stretch up the mississippi river which was the main steamboat termin us. with

, no president is above the law.veryone is entitled to -- we're all entitled to justice the clauses don't just say justice, they talk about right and justice. now, the r there weren't many rights about in 1215, but over the centuries, our rights have come to be established and you find the preservation, the entitlement to a court system that will preserve your rights, is there found withinsáwf the charter. and i regard the insistence in the charter on right injustice, as being it's second most important legacy to us, because again, here in the office of chief justice of the united states, the office i once held in +ñengland, we are there responsible for seeing that citizens, even if they're taking on the president or they're taking on the government, the prime minister in our case, all the great local body, great local authority, these rightshv are recognized in the charter, the barrons weren't representing us, the barrons weren't full of ideas about voting, of course they weren't. but3u)s as our country dropped the

, property law, legal history, and constitutional law. she has served as visiting professor or scholar, a scholar in residence at the law faculties of yale, university of pennsylvania, nyu, and university of vienna. her current research centers on the law of the frontier 1800-1857. and she visits in her work the most modern electronic tools. her next book titled "redemption songs, suing for freedom," is based on a discovery in which she participated, the discovery of nearly 300 freedom suits brought by slaves in the st. louis court. professor vandervelde, was, as dorothy just announced, the awardee of the prestigious guggenheim fellowship in constitutional law in 2011. in the spring semesters of 2011 and 2012, she was a visiting scholar at the american bar foundation and during that time she convened a meeting of experts on the american law institute's propose restatement of employment law. her works and progress include the master narrative of 19th century american law, the significance of slavery, and its abolition for the law of employ

law enforcement investigations are conducted by the law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction where the sexual assault took place. there are several key differences between a campus adjudication proceeding and a law enforcement investigation. standard of proof is one of them. because campus fact finders use a preponderance of evidence standard, and law enforcement proceedings use beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard, survivors and those supporting them become angry and confused when a da is unable to prosecute cases criminally where a reresponsiveness denlt has been found responsible on their campus. evidence, campus fact-finders are permitted to consider a broad range of evidence, including hearsay or unauthenticated evidence that would not be permissible in a legal proceeding. it takes more than 60 days to process some evidence like dna and twlvr -- the vast administrative time frame may also taint admissible evidence and accelerate discovery that harms the complain nant in a criminal proceeding. there's no opportunity for cross-examination in a campus investigation or

-british bond of law. i think you all for joining this today and and i encourage you to visit the exhibition between now and january 19. if you would please rise for the playing of the national anthems. >> ♪ god save our gracious queen long live our noble queen god save the queen send her victorious happy and glorious long to reign over us god save the queen ♪ ♪ o say can you see by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming and the rockets red glare the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there o say does that star-spangled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? ♪ >> good morning, everyone. i have the privilege and the honor of serving as the law librarian of congress. the library here at the library of congress has the largest materials,of legal now at over 2.8 million volumes. a

to implement a law. to enforce a law. in the america that you and i love. the america that we inherited from patriots before us. the president says it's sometimes messy and it's sometimes hard, but the great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process called democracy. justice breyer says, mr. president, you might have forgotten a little bit about that democracy. and 9-0, the supreme court says the constitution was thrown by the wayside in the president's zeal to implement his policies, in the president's zeal to do as harry reid described it, an end run around the senate. in the president's desire to do to do as harry reid described it, an end run around the constitutionism welcome a policy debate with the president. i welcome a partnership with the president. to fix a muddled immigration process we have in this country today. we are a land of immigrants, always have been, always will be. i thrive on that. i celebrate that. ut we are also a land of laws. a sentiment the president has acknowledged and celebrated in years past and a sentiment

law enforcement office, and i think began begin you mentioned women in law enforcement. the sentiments of being a good listener as opposed to looking forward and trying to get to the goal as fast as you can u. have to be carefully balance. women tend to carry on a more conversational manner of speaking so whatever level they are and i think our colleagues can learn from each other. anyone who exhibits good listeners and getting accurate information and allow someone to move forward should be enforced. >> i appreciated your comments ms. langhammer about different sizes of colleges and universities and the issue ms. fleischer about time and they do that. we will have to look at this scene not every college is going to be able to have full-time people do this so you have to look at it in terms of training within the counties and departments as well so thank you very much. appreciate it. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for holding this hearing which is immensely important. i have been involved in helping to write the bill that senator mccaskill

the law was that they should follow, what law takes precedence.bout united states supreme law over missouri law. so clearly, they were very confused. and we're really trying to get more information, but it was not forth coming. >> what's your reaction to the attorney general's response today saying that it's time to actually change the statute, incorporate the case law right into the statute? >> i think that's absolutely correct. it should have been done before this happened. >> susan mcgraw, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thank you. >>> coming up, the state of justice in america. get to the terminal across town. are all the green lights you? no. it's called grid iq. the 4:51 is leaving at 4:51. ♪ they cut the power. it'll fix itself. power's back on. quick thinking traffic lights and self correcting power grids make the world predictable. thrillingly predictable. ♪ ah, ♪h it. ♪ push it. ♪ p...push it real good! ♪ ♪ ow! ♪ oooh baby baby...baby baby. if you're salt-n-pepa, you tell people to push it. ♪ push it real good. it's what y

but congress has placed this in a law that many of us think is a really bad surveillance law. congress had the foresight to protect companies and therefore to protect our rights because none of us build encription technologies ourselves. congress decided that encription was important. encription with keys that companies held wasn't very useful and put that text in the statute. we have to recognize that , and strong there encription is protected by law. it is not just going to take a little bit of arm wrestling for the government to get what they want right now. a few angry speeches isn't going to get what they want. they are actually going to need to change the law if they want to be able to force companies to get rid of these technologies. >> i want to talk about hanging the laws here. ecba reform was from the late 80's. the idea of updating these laws to be part of the drop box, the i phone encription era. starting with chris, where we are in this landscape beyond the patriot act. what is really the hindrance right no now? >> the situation right now, civil society advocate,

under current law, it is almost impossible for law enforcement to crack down on that sort of thing. that is the problem. again, if we want to prevent that sort of transaction from taking plates, we need to require background checks for all gun sales. host: let's go to joe, richm d richmond, virginia, good morning koul koul good morning, mr mr. lowy. how are you this morning? guest: i am fine. caller: my comment is that it seems to me when you use the term "crime gun" that takes the responsibility away from the criminal and puts it on to the gun. guest: that's -- if

the law is the law. you clearly don't know what you are talking about and you are ugly.e did that come from? then jeff writes, the inmates have taken over the asylum. scott emails me, perhaps they should be called by the lawyer representing the dog in question. it must be explained in the dogs signed contract. cara says, i'm the wife of a border patrol agent. i can't thank you enough for being in their corner today. god bless you and thank you again at least for having our agents back. the fact of the matter is the agents were a little busy at the time this was going on. no one wants to see harm done, but the agents were telling all those they caught at the border, stop don't go anywhere. one runs away, one in another direction, still another takes a bag and runs with it, filled with drugs, drug paraphernalia. this other guy is sleep. sorry for the agents if they can't keep track of the canine. on and on go. matt, i don't know what the world is coming to but i do know that this is a sign it's ending. and then we get jeff in newport news who says who cares about the drug-

that's called refusing to enforce the law.he people are entitled to know, the american president will enforce federal law as congress enacted it, at knnot as he wish to be. >> there is no branch of government willing to make him enforce law. we have a congress that has absolutely run into an impasse at least since judgment of its capability and imagination to act, and the judiciary, the supreme court is doing nothing here. >> they are almost complicit, federal courts and the congress, in allowing the president to do what he wants, from declaring his own war on libya, whatever you think of gadhafi, ended up with the death of our own ambassador, to now this, to the facade, the charade about we are going to condemn racial profiling but only when we condemn it. it's almost leak they don't know what they're doing. >> the stunning part to me at least is the president is playing politics with race, he's exploiting it and without seeming, as you point out, regard for the country's minorities, for the people who deserve so much better

there is a rule of law. you need to start enforcing that law. we came together as a house just a few months ago and passed a border security bill. let's actually get back to the rule of law and protecting our nation's borders. it's not just an immigration issue, it's a national security issue. and so what is the president's response to this legislation? he threatens a veto. again, the president thinks he can sit in the oval office and make up his own laws. that's not the way our system of government works, mr. speaker. so we bring this legislation forward today to get us back to that rule of law and to remind the president it's time for him to heed the message that millions of americans across the country set just a few weeks ago and said you need to start working with congress and solve real problems. in fact, this weekend in my home state of louisiana, there are three more elections on that ballot. pay close attention, mr. president. pay close attention to yet another referendum on your agenda that's going to occur this saturday with a senate

the law. do not know if he is saying we should take law enforcement out, that will -- but we don't not -- we do not want any law enforcement in your community. that could lead to better results as well. because people say we have a constitution that has guided us and we should follow that document, to make claims to not see germany, that we want to follow the document that made this country the most hospers and the most free, the most opportunistic country in the world, that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system known to man, that you want to undermine the system and the founding document they gave us that, it does not make a lot of sense to me. we will try to get to as many calls as we can. mississippi, dixie, good morning. i have a couple of comments at a little question and then i will hang up. a broken glass republican, but i do not think the republicans are given a mandate in the last election. i think they were given their final opportunity to carry out the campaign

under current law, it is almost impossible for law enforcement to crack down on that sort of thing. that is the problem. again, if we want to prevent that sort of transaction from taking plates, we need to require background checks for all gun sales. host: let's go to joe, richm d richmond, virginia, good morning koul koul good morning, mr mr. lowy. how are you this morning? guest: i am fine. caller: my comment is that it seems to me when you use the term "crime gun" that takes the responsibility away from the criminal and puts it on to the gun. guest: that's -- if that's the way you are reading my comments, that's completely inaccurate. .1 of the things i do, in fact, is represent victims of gun violence, victims of, for example, the aurora movie theatre shooting a, and nobody feels more strongly about the responsibility about the sheeter. in that the case, the shofamily lost their daughter and many clients, many law enforcement officers have been shot dead by criminals. we believe tremendously that the shooter is responsible. however, we cannot make it harder for dangerous people,

law enforcement investigations are conducted by the law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction where the sexual assault took place. there are several key differences between a campus adjudication proceeding and a law enforcement investigation. standard of proof is one of them. because campus fact finders use a preponderance of evidence standard, and law enforcement proceedings use beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard, survivors and those supporting them become angry and confused when a da is unable to prosecute cases criminally where a reresponsiveness denlt has been found responsible on their campus. evidence, campus fact-finders are permitted to consider a broad range of evidence, including hearsay or unauthenticated evidence that would not be permissible in a legal proceeding. it takes more than 60 days to process some evidence like dna and twlvr -- the vast administrative time frame may also taint admissible evidence and accelerate discovery that harms the complain nant in a criminal proceeding. there's no opportunity for cross-examination in a campus investigation or

laws because they have so many and their were so complex that in order to follow one part of their law you had to violate another part of their law. that's exactly what obamacare is. >> yes. i wish i could stay as calm as others on the panel. when i heard sebelius comments, i felt my blood hit the boiling point. this is exactly the kind of soft bigotry of low expectations that we see throughout the democratic party. i think it's disgusting. rich maybe said before the show that look, people navigate a koch kated world every day, we buy houses, buy cars, get to work every day. the reason health care is complicated is because government put its head into things. 's been increasingly getting involved for four decade. we have no transparency. we have costs out of whack with what the market demands. this is all government and nothing to do with the american people. >> and john, the fact is the reason the numbers haven't improved on its popularity is because we have seen how it's worked out. 6.2 million americans last year lost their insurance. of course the president famously sold the thing

to change the law. to change the law. article 1 of the constitution says the law is only changed by the united states congress. article 3 says the president shall faithfully execute the law. his actions are unconstitutional and they are unprecedented. at this time, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. conrad engweiler -- mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield the gentlelady from california, zoe lofgren, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i in my opening remarks did note the uncanny similarity between the action that president reagan and the first president bush took and the action that president obama has now taken. i would hope -- i don't know. i use the official record as a source of information instead of chat in articles and i submitted for the record the memorandum, the

's law enforcement of -- is law-enforcement above the law? absolutely not. if they go out and violate the law, they should be held accountable, so i am not going to argue that point if you -- argue that point with you. one of the other interesting things people do not take into account though -- -- and never police officer, citizen counter, there is a gun. in many cases, people tried to disarm the officer, so there is always that concern on behalf of the officer, there is a gun in every confrontation, so again, it is training. you are teaching tactics. -escalate the situation, and i think that gives us a better law enforcement officer at the end of the day. you are teaching them how to de-escalationcall for chief beary comes from gregory in montgomery, alabama. caller: good morning, sir. three very quick points. i'm a military person as well. everyone in the military knows you serve in the military as an extraordinary privilege. i think a lot of police officers need to remember and be reminded that their fellow citizens -- that they're fellow citizens with a

, property law, legal history, and constitutional law. she has served as visiting professor or scholar, a scholar in residence at the law faculties of yale, university of pennsylvania, nyu, and university of vienna. her current research centers on the law of the frontier 1800-1857. and she visits in her work the most modern electronic tools. her next book titled "redemption songs, suing for freedom," is based on a discovery in which she participated, the discovery of nearly 300 freedom suits brought by slaves in the st. louis court. professor vandervelde, was, as dorothy just announced, the awardee of the prestigious guggenheim fellowship in constitutional law in 2011. in the spring semesters of 2011 and 2012, she was a visiting scholar at the american bar foundation and during that time she convened a meeting of experts on the american law institute's propose restatement of employment law. her works and progress include the master narrative of 19th century american law, the significance of slavery, and its abolition for the law of employ

these people have broken the law. we have laws on the books. if you have laws on the books and they say if you do this, you broke the law and should be punished, then i do not think we should just let people, because the majority of people just come here illegally and just because there is a lot of them, we will say, there are so many of you all, you are all illegal. your point. i want the congressman to respond. we have heard that sentiment from other african-american callers about this worry that they will take jobs that are already scarce. is something that is penetrating more and more especially into inner cities as people are starting to understand that first, we have a lot of low skilled african-americans who need jobs. the highest level of unemployment is and young, male african-americans. many of them skilled or unskilled. when you bring in millions of people to fill the very jobs, you destroy the work ethic the screen one community and locked them out of a job and the people here legally are more mobile for one in, more competitive in

have you no respect for the law and for our system of justice in if you don't like the law, change it. hell you do it all the time without congress. and you bring in the greatest shar la ten of them all, a man who makes a living inciting racial hatred, who claimed that an african american girl, raped by a white man stirring the pot of racial hatred that resulted in a defamation judgment against him to sit with you at the siu citadel of power at the white house, to discuss how law enforcement needs to be more insensitive. now there are times when injustices occur. i know. but i also know that the system works. according to that same al sharpton, as district i convicted the first white cop of shooting an african american in the history of the state of new york. that jury, not affected by centuries of racism but by the facts, pure and simple. mr. president, if you're so concerned about racism, why don't you do something about it? it's no secret that black crime is disproportionately high. why not focus on poverty, on lack of education, on drugs, on guns and on broken families. bill clint

property law, legal history and constitutional law. she has served as visiting professor or scholar. the scholar and residence at the law and the university of pennsylvania. nyu and university of vienna. the current research said the law of the frontier 1800 to 1857. and she uses this in her work the most modern tools. her next book entitled redemption songs, suing for freedom. it is based on a discovery in which she participated with the discovery of nearly 300 freedom suits in the st. louis courts. . >> in the spring semester of 2011 and 2012, she was a visiting scholar at the american foundation and during that time, she had a meeting of experts on the american law institutes proposed from the employment law. the significance of slavery and ef lougz f evolution. the professor is a graduate of the university of wisconsin law school where he had a near perfect record and before beginning her law teaching career, she served as senior law to the southern district of iowa and district judge. i invite you now to join me in welcoming the p

>> i knows this is a law-enforcement panel, not a national security panel. in the national security context there is good reason to be concerned about financial relationships between large u.s. chip and other equipment companies, it is troubling when you have a government service division of the companies that makes chips that power the encryption that we all use. that creates a serious culture concern but even if there was capabilities companies were building in or revealing information that wouldn't make it easier for the government to intercept, those capabilities won't be used in the law-enforcement context. and if there's a secret back to work in intel's generator feature it is not going to give them to the fbi to use in a drug case. the average person doesn't have a reason to harbor back doors or that kind of thing. where it comes to trust what worries me is the most is for good security reasons we have automatic security update in our web browsers and operating systems or what we have on our smart phones and that means googles and apples and microsoft

jordan break the law? >> city attorney, that's the question that the ethics commission will be determined. the law at issue is the statement of incompatible activities, which is the department by department policy, but that policy has the force of law so the ethics commission could decide you -- that the commissioner received this business opportunity as the moment she invested in the funds for gmo and that would be a violation of the law. that would be a violation of our local campaign and governmental can you be the code. >> so if she's found by the ethics commission to have broken the law, does that present a cause for her to be removed and the process would entail that the mayor would actually need to take action to remove her, correct? >> the mayor could remove his appointees, including ms. jordan, or for no cause. if the ethics commission finds a violation and imposes a penalty, it's within the mayor's discussion whether he'd want to remove her in that circumstance. it wouldn't be required that he re

chair of international law at university of georgia school of law. and law professor at the american university washington school of law. to begin with, i'm going to break this down into two sets of questions because i think there is a good debate had whether they can be charged and whether they should be charged. that's really two different questions. steve, under your reading of the established law, and what's contained in the report, can the people who carry these acts out be charged? >> i think the answer is yes. that is to say if you look at the anti-torture statute, section 2348, the warm crime acts, criminal law prohibitions on these kinds of assaults and batteries i think a clever prosecutor who wanted to bring the case against the perpetrators of these abuses could do so. is there authority? is there a possible, and the answer has to be yes. >> sebastian, same question. >> i'm no lawyer, but i have experience in training people to interview terrorist suspects. i would say a clever prosecutor could do it? yes, maybe, but general hayden said t

those were laws written but were not clearly laws faithfully and continuously implemented. and certainly by subsequent president who is were unwilling for institutional reasons of their own to stand up and do for congress what congress won't do for itself. i want to make one note which is presidents have--when they don't act, when they don't intervene and claim powers, we look at presidents who in the face of big problems refused to exercise the full powers of their office, they're punished politically in ways that can be really profound. again, they have big political incentives to claim guard and nurture their power at every turn. >> professor, do you agree that under playing your hand get punished? >> i think there are legal questions. i think presidents can act independently where it is dangerous. i think that the --when is the last time that the united states declared war on another country. >> world war ii. >> or committed troops under the war powers act. >> president obama does not say the say it does not apply. the action he said he was using at first, and then ulti