don't like it, change the law. so you can support this law. we have years of precedent, the administration all agree they are mostly civil servants and political appointees. mostly their own political appointments with means they bend over backward. therefore one of the very few checks on presidential authority, they tell me i can do something i shouldn't do. the attorney general went to the office and how they did not ask the office the solicitor general's office in court and they will defend any law in favor of legality. is so absurd you could not defend it in court? always a stake? nothing. if there was an occasion it would almost certainly have been immediately challenged. we're going to throw this out. they can'tcan be a voting member of the house under the constitution. purely symbolic maneuver. pushing for more political power. purely symbolic. nevertheless they were willing to undermine the very few checks internally. and this i think reflected on the attitude that is forthcoming. nothing to do with the extemporaneous command time when

of the law itself.attacking and slandering private individuals for engage in a constitutionally protected speech. issuing draconian regulations for sexual assault on campus. not through formal regulation but through an informal dear colleague letter that is not subject any legal proceedings or review. ignoring 100 years of advice from the legal counsel and arguing d.c. delegate could be granted voting rights in congress. running general motors from the white house without any hint of statutory authorization to do so, then rewriting the bankruptcy laws to favor unsecured creditors, notably the auto workers union. imposing common core standards on the states by administrated feedback and much more. so there's a laundry list, there's even more the book. because there's a laundry list let me talk about three of them in more detail. the first one, one that most have never heard of, i just mentioned it other than the fact i just mentioned it. it's important because it is so telling about the obama administrat

no one law will fix it all. no number of laws will fix it all. nothing will fix it all. we have to approach it in a more holistic way. senator murphy: there are recent reports from john hopkins comparing connecticut's law to missouri's law, comparing homicide rates, suggesting there is a connection to the laws on the book with respect to the easy access of guns and rates of gun homicide. mr. barton: yes, that's correct. there is clear evidence-based research conducted by john that hopkins that clearly indicates the regulation actually reduces homicides by 40%. it is reduce suicides by 15%. those numbers are reflected in the inversion of states that do not have this law. where homicides have risen and suicides have gone up. it comes down to access. what we're talking about here is the whole fabric of this come up with regard to prevention. you mentioned my organization, we do a lot of work in the state of prevention and violent behavior. there should be -- we should be bolstering our mental health system. we should have mental health reform in place to get these people th

those are also part of the law. hobbyists and collectors are not required to obtain a license to transfer firearms. this information has been scattered in a number of cases throughout the country. atf still anticipates receiving inquiries seeking to comply with the law, asking if -- senator langford: is it how many firearms you sell it over a lifetime or the number in your collection? is it based on the income you receive? ms. lynch: the courts have determined a number of factors whether one engages in the business. it has specifically said there is not a specific number that makes one meet the test. it is a totality of circumstances. if one is repetitively selling firearms, if you do intend to make a profit, all of these things go into that calculation. the statute does not contain the order. senator langford: i will walk back through some of the details. one final question i find very important -- they gathering of information going into the background checks -- the interstate identification index, is that used fo

criminal law is significant risk.one is the person acquitted or a jury will hang because you never know what jurors will think is the fundamental premise of case in american life. you can query a jury why they reached their verdict. you can send them back to think some more if you don't like the verdict so it's a huge gamble and what also one discovers as the case law is that the process of gathering proof, really prove persuasive beyond it doubt prove is awfully hard. so the air of mystery that some some -- around lockerbie into authorized the bombing was slippery a or libya and friends will never be resolved by criminal investigative process and will require something that is much closer to the ground in a way intelligence sources and people's elections. so a question? >> and i can't respond. >> no you can't. we are out of time. >> i will be extremely brief in the response. this risk of acquittal i think when ruth was talking about the basic purposes of a criminal trial as a deterrence for circulation i think she's

i agreed with the plaintiffs, that's a bad law. that's a law that's unconstitutional. if the voters disagree with me, they could elect, at the next election, an attorney general who would defend that kind of law. they didn't. they re-elected me. but each branch of government has a role in constitutional interpretation. and here's the thing. we've gotten to the point in this country where when presidents sign bills that congress passed where lots of scholars say that's got a constitutional problem, there's a constitutional defect with that provision, the president will, you know, do the ultimate copout and say, well, we've got expedited review provided in this bill. it will get up to the supreme court. we can find out whether it's constitutional or not. the members of congress who vote on laws have taken an oath to the constitution, the supreme law of the land. they have an obligation to figure out for themselves whether that violates the constitution before it ever gets to a lawsuit. the president of the united states who signs bills into law has the same oath and has

a violation of american law -- of international law is extremely rare. this hostage-taking with the acquiescence of the iranian government is a situation to be examined for the meaning it has for the rest of the world. from the beginning of the crisis, the united states has reacted with restraint, despite the outrage against its representatives abroad. speaking from the white house, jimmy carter. president carter: the actions of iran have shocked the civilized world. for a government to applaud mob violence and terrorism, for a government actually to support and in effect participate in the taking and holding of hostages is unprecedented in human history. this violates not only the most fundamental precepts of international law, but the common ethic -- ethical and religious heritage of humanity. there is no recognized religious faith on earth which condones kidnapping. there is no recognized religious faith on earth which condones blackmail. there is certainly no religious faith on earth which condones the sustained abuse of innocent people. about deeply

this is against the law. the laws that present diplomatic premises and diplomatic personnel are from time to time breached. when breaches occur, they usually occur because of the of privateions individuals which are not sanctioned by the receiving state. where very rare case these breaches of international law occur either with the consent or the blessing of the receiving state, nec a serious challenge to the whole structure of international relations. and i say this because without the universally accepted principle of inviolability of diplomatic premises and the diplomatic agent, it would be impossible for countries to conduct normal relations with each other, to facilitate intercourse or promote negotiations and the peaceful resolution of conflict between them. any breach of this particular law would be regarded as a very serious challenge to the framework of the international society and one which i would argue is contrary to the interests of all of us because our diplomatic premises and agents can be the

the president is changing the law without congressional passage of law that he would sign. another article from john light dated january 5, dr. light knows the gun laws, knows the gun facts. this from "national review." dr. light points out, you want to fix things, don't charge gun buyers for the background checks. fix the system so it stops falsely flagging law-abiding people, as the article points out that 99% of the flags turn out to have been improper flag. number three, stop using background checks as de facto registration. and that appears to be what they're actually trying to do. article from kelly ridell from 2013 points out that obama's empty tough talk, and says gun prosecutions plummet on his watch with the numbers and figures to back that up. so it appears that by failing to prosecute gun violations while , essing for more gun laws makes one wonder if that's akin harm'sservice members in way, for example, in afghanistan, where in the seven and a quarter years under commander in chief george w. bush, i believe the number of precious american lives lost, military,

they resigned before the bill became the law.t raised concerns further west in brussels, where the european officials threatened to throw the book for what they see a turn towards the authoritarian. as with hungary, the e.u. talks a good game, but lacks teeth. another an admirer of the fidesh party, that restates the media. given that the e.u. had little influence. there is little reason to believe that things will turn out differently in poland. the starting point is warsaw. four voices, four perspectives on the story in poland. two journalists, one who opposes, one who supports it. a specialist on pluralism in european media. and the hungarian journalist who when the law was passed saw hungary the sequel. the approach of the government is similar to the hungarian government in terms of the public media. in their understanding public or state media should make better known what the government wants, and argue in favour of the government decision. tvp was a bad public forecaster. a reshuffle. it needs to be brought back to life.

no one law will fix it all. no number of laws will fix it all. nothing will fix it all. we have to approach it in a more holistic way. senator murphy: there are recent reports from john hopkins comparing connecticut's law to missouri's law, comparing homicide rates, suggesting there is a connection to the laws on the book with respect to the easy access of guns and rates of gun homicide. mr. barton: yes, that's correct. evidence-based research conducted by john that hopkins that clearly indicates the regulation actually reduces homicides by 40%. it is reduce suicides by 15%. those numbers are reflected in the inversion of states that do not have this law. where homicides have risen and suicides have gone up. it comes down to access. what we're talking about here is the whole fabric of this come up with regard to prevention. you mentioned my organization, we do a lot of work in the state of prevention and violent behavior. there should be -- we should be bolstering our mental health system. we should have mental health reform in place to get these people the help they nee

specific laws have been agreed upon in treaties signed by the nations of the world. fields junior, legal advisor to the u.s. state department is a lecturer and writer on international law. >> the basic conviction that applies to the situation in iran and the takeover of the american embassy and the holding of its members of staff hostage, is bb in a convention -- be in a convention on diplomatic relations, a convention promulgated in 1961 for the codification of customary international law. in the field of diplomatic immunity and regulation of diplomatic commerce among nations. nowithout international law, nation could act with certainty in carrying on affairs outside its borders. large nations are determined to see international laws upheld and a growing interdependence warning -- world, smaller nations, not having negotiations have an even greater stake in international law. the affair in iran will be remembered primarily or a lesson to be learned, that as there must be within nations a system of law to maintain order so must the world affirm and support an effecti

we have laws against all kinds of things.littering, assault, practicing dentistry without a license that are observed by almost everyone, and broken only by lawbreakers, but you rarely hear calls to drop the laws against murder, because murderers so tragically ignore them. i long for a two-way, tough, smart give and take over how to treat guns, something that might lead to widely shared common wisdom about what to do from here on out. more than 30,000 people are killed every year by firearms, by criminals, by family members, in accidents, and the majority by their own hand. so far, from one side of the art, the only thing that we have heard that the best thing nothing. it's hard to believe that that's where the debate ends. we'll spend the week examining the new policies and the place of the gun in american life. i'm ray suarez, and that's the "inside story". >>> >>> north koreantv says a successful hydrogen bomb test has been completed. we're with the world news from al jazeera. also ahead. >> every time i think about those

. >> when the law was passed 59 permits in this district. >> so the way the law works there could be not new ones beyond the 9:00; is that correct. >> well, yes. >> that's correct. >> okay. >> and since the no copy of the law was provided to us i have a couple of questions what does it say about the rights that when you sell you're business and had a license is there anything in there about transfer? >> so we can have the overhead please. overhead please. this is a copy of the rules and regulations and it is very complicated when we've defined a new and amend permit the amended permit is basically one where there's a change of name a miss spelling or small business someone changes the name due to other reasons a new permit is any permit that is issued to a new owner under a change of ownership type of situation and the change of ownership is defined in code and so we further begin it we took the opportunity to begin define it means 50 percent overflow room within a 12 month a transfer of 25 so this is a change of ownership which once a change of ownership happened then essential we'r

he signed, the first bill he signed into law was the act which fixed that interpretation of the law,he opportunity to seek justice in the court. she said in february, that was an example of congress listening to the poor and congress could function, congress could do something. maybe someday we will have a congress that works again. maybe -- obviously we don't right now. >> justice ginsburg is 82 years old. she has had many diseases, but as tough as any nfl linebacker as far as i can tell. shouldn't she have quit and let barack obama pick a replacement? wasn't this selfish thing to jeopardize the seat that ted cruz could fill instead of -- >> she is a fighter. she has been through so much, had cancer fighting. i actually visited her chamber and she had a heart procedure a week before i got there and i was not sure i would be able to go but when i asked her then what i could tell her followers, tell them i will be back doing pushups next week. that speaks to justice ginsberg's can acid dirksen senate office building 2 she is not one to quit but when it comes to her position, she has a

it is the fundamental premise of bushels case any wish law and american law. you can't query a jury while they reach their verdict and you cannot send them back to think more if you do not like the verdict. it is a huge gamble. what also is discovered, is that the process of gathering proof, really proof, and a helter-skelter terrorist attack is really awfully hard. the air of mystery that still surrounds lockerbie and who authorize the bombing, was a just libya or libya and friends? it will never be resolved by this kind of criminal investigative process. it requires something much farther to the ground in a way, intelligence sources, people's recollections. prof. douglas: and i can't respond? [laughter] prof. wedgwood: out of time. [laughter] prof. douglas: i'll be extremely brief in the response. obviously there is a risk of acquittal, but i think when ruth is talking about the basic purposes of a criminal trial, deterrence, or taking people out of circulation, i think she is right. it imperfectly applies to these crimes of atrocity but i do think it overlo

>> well, the president is redefining the law, really changing the law because congress has been veryear on things such as what constitutes a federally licensed gun dealer. so in changing the law, he is taking on the role of the legislative branch and he is reinterpreting laws and taking on the role of the judicial branch. so he is not operating -- president obama is really in full community activist mode now and trying to do what he can to get around the congress and really summing his nose at the will and wisdom of the american people, which is represented through their elected officials in washington, which the congress has not once or try -- twice but on many occasions voted on and voted down proposals such as the president is trying to push, such as universal background checks and closing the so-called gun show loophole. amy: caroline fredrickson, what -- howfeel is wrong with the respond, should say, to john velleco saying he is defined congress? >> we worked with a group of constitutional law experts who have laid out very clearly that within the understanding of the constituti

it has been a law since day 1. it is common place, nothing new they have to experience. >> would you agree, if the district of columbia were not predominantly black they would have similar laws and others who people in the city predominated by young black youth to give them the same open carry like in virginia. does race and socioeconomic background play a role why you don't have this in the district? >> you have economical issues, however you have a lot of politicians and political -- >> armstrong: does race play a roll role. >> i would say it is a possibility. >> one financial where with all to get through a process. district of columbia is second most expensive concealed carry in the nation. someone who has no training is looking upwards 500-$600. >> armstrong: new york, $11,000? it is almost like a unicorn in new york city. >> armstrong: you said there were three. >> second barrier is affordable time. people need to take off time to get training. because the time restraint might be 16, 18, 24 hours of training,

law went into effect.nd we had to have two years of the lit quakes, including a 2014 midterm election in which the discriminatory voter i.d. law was in place, and recently the court of appeals upheld a finding that texas i.d. law violated the act. because section 5 was gone, we had to have the discriminatory measures in place for midterm elections, and that's the landscape we are facing. >> let's stay in texas. when results of 2010 sensis came out, there was a large increase in the population. >> the lion's share of the increase came from the increase in the side of the community in texas. people watching the things, it's a remapped crowd. they said how many seats. how many will be places where it's possible for latino to take the elections. they were shocked after latino had majorities, supermajorities in them. would that have been possible before preclearance went away? >> preclearance would have prevented this long process. coming through now. of correcting discriminatory law making in texas, as a perfe

as a professor of law and director of the law school center for studies in criminal justice. then, several years ago in a moment of just awful judgment, professor meares headed to some place called new haven where she sadly remains pathetically to this day. during her distinguished career rooted deeply in this law school professor meares has worked extensively among other things with the federal government, from 2004 to 2011. for example, she served on the committee on law and justice, a standing committee of the national academy of sciences. in 2010 named by attorney general eric holder to sit on the science advisory board. and just last year president obama named her as a member of his task force on 21st century policing. professor meares' research focuses on criminal procedure and policy with a particular emphasis on empirical investigation. she's published a long list of influential scholarly articles and important books including among them legitimacy in criminal justice, a comparative perspective, and urgent times policing and rights in inner city communities. in a time

taught law. advised at the state department and serves on the board of trustees for catholic charities of southern nevada and co-founded the saint thomas moore society in nevada. graduated mag na cum laude from georgetown. let's welcome our speakers and we'll begin. if i may begin with you, judge pryor, since you have served a little while ago, what was it like serving as attorney general then? >> it was a different world. i became the attorney general of alabama in january of 1997. jeff sessions, my former boss, had just been elected to the united states senate, and the governor appointed me to finish his term. and the first issue really on my plate was whether the state would join the national tobacco litigation. i had served as the chair of a task force the year before for both the governor and the attorney general as i was jeff sessions' deputy ag, in evaluating whether the state should file such a lawsuit. our neighboring states, minneapolis and flori mississippi and florida, had. our recomm

why don't you just enforce the laws that are on the books?nd those very same members of congress then cut atf budgets to make it impossible to enforce the law. [ applause ] >> and so it is -- and by the way, the atf is a law enforcement agency working under the fbi that is doing enormous work in going after criminals and drug cartels and have a pretty dangerous job, so it's not as if doing background checks or auditing gun sales is all they are doing. part of my proposal is also developing better technologies so that we can do tracing of shells when a crime is committed in order to figure out who exactly are the perpetrators of the crime and where did they obtain the weapon. so there's a whole bunch of other elements to this that are going to be important. my hope is responsible gun dealers like yourself and your organization are going to be supportive of this proposal because it should actually help push away unscrupulous dealers. and that means more customers for you guys. >> i want to bring in mark kelly, former astronaut and husband of ga

mandatory vac nation law goes into today -- vaccination law goes into effect today.t can no longer request a personal beliefs exemption. it allowed parents to skip vaccinations for religious reasons, et cetera. if you recall the push for this law came last year when a measles outbreak that started at disneyland made 147 people sick across the country. starting today, california has enacted tough new laws to protect student privacy. any company that gathers information on elementary or high school students cannot be used for profit. what's more they are required to protect that data and it can be only used for school purposes. this is said to be the toughest law of its kind in the country. finally on the issue of gun control, california is the first state in the country to allow family members to ask a judge to remove firearms from someone they think poses a threat. we're live in san jose, kiet do, kpix 5. >>> and we are about 6.5 hours into the new year and last night's celebrations went off mainly without a hitch. before the sky was painted with bright fireworks, th

adopts federal law as federal law then there is review. okay. >> the state has adopted teague for a reason that does not exist in any of these civil procedure cases, and that is that the state knows that that federal law will be applied to the very case in a habeas case. so the state has decided consciously to synchronize its law with the law that it knows will be applied. this supports a very important purpose. the state says, if we have to rectify in a constitutional error in our case that's become final we would like the opportunity to do it. if the federal habeas court is going to treat the decision as retroactive we'd like the first crack at it. >> you're saying hooray that the federal habeas court will thereafter be found by it. >> no. this is a reason. 2254 d applies to state determinations on the merits. that's the only time that the deference provision kicks in. a determination under teague is a threshold determination that comes before the decision on the merits. this court has said that in any number of cases. it's not a merits

obey the law.he permit will cover me. i don't need to run out and get the hardware. even though we are in the middle of world war iii here. we are surrounded by people who are wigged out. host: what do you think would make a difference, candy? caller: if the democrats would --p trying to keep us safe i'm an independent. they blame everything on republicans. we have a democrat running as a republican and a communist running as a democrat. they are all a bunch of idiots, if you ask me. i will still vote, though. at this point come i feel like i'm wasting my time. host: jerry is up next in tennessee on that line for gunowners. caller: good morning, john. something i find amazing, what if president was saying -- --can save just one person they voted against it. host: explain what that law does. -- the that law would sanctuary cities, it would make thatities that have these should take money from the government. the man that shot the lady in , theornia last summer contortions the democrats went saying t

not gun laws. all right. here we are in chicago, looking at gun laws we have in chicago. it's hard to purchase a gun there. look at all of the violence there. so that should be enough evidence to indicate to anyone that gun laws in itself are not the answer to the gun problem. we have what -- >> i'm from new york city, i have great respect for the new york police department. i grew up in new york in the '70s and '80s when the murder rate, crime rate was many multiples where it is today. are you saying you want more folks in new york walking around with guns to protect themselves? you're saying that would -- it's one argument to say that what really solved the problem was not gun laws but effective policing. we've seen that statistically. but you say it on the flip side as well, it would be safer if the gun laws were less restrictive in those major urban areas. >> well, there are -- there are statistics that show that areas where people are allowed to carry weapons -- it's ease to get a person to do that -- crime rate is down significantly. now what i think in chicago or n

day think that is not the law?>> given this survey talking about executive power issues under what circumstances does the president have the constitutional authority to bomb another country? when they were saber rattling. the constitution does not give the president the authority to attack our country the march of 2011 and the arabs praying protest breaks out in quickly the government of tunisia falls but libya does not want to fall than they pushed back the forces get to the gates of bin gauzy and then they wipe everybody out they go house by house. this is happening the senate voted unanimously for resolution to impose the no-fly zone in suddenly they authorize the air war to protect civilians in libya and nato's swings into action to push the forces back and the question is the food decides who will participate? and that it absented vote from congress if it is not an imminent threat to the united states that we cannot do that. so into this intrudes a political reality because straight on how things happen but al

other's laws. and they were able to create a uniform commercial code. partly with the aid of the uniform -- the uniform code commissioners. there are many ways of trying to create a uniform law where that's necessary. and part of it involves looking to each other, and we wouldn't say that the uniform commercial code is some unfortunate development. i think we'd say it's a very fortunate development and to what extent did it change the law of utah? i don't really know. but, i mean, many ways of looking to these things. and i'm not suggesting one entirely. and what i want to show and i stop there is that i don't think engaging in this activity is going to undermine basic american values. i think by and large it will help preserve them. and most of all, it will be the perhaps one practical way to increase the likelihood that the great problems are improved in their solution through a rule of law itself, which is the fifth amendment, the 14th amendment, that, then, which there is more basic part of ame

that law is not one year old i've been vocal about letting this law work and making sure we're appropriately administering it and putting up resources into the enforcement to crack down on abuse of short-term rentals awhile allowing legal short-term rentals to move forward and rather than rushing to make amendments to this law give this law a chance to work it to work there has to be good enforcement that is critical this summer the board of supervisors 55 the legislation created the office of short-term rentals under the zoning administrator's office in addition in the budget the mayor and board significantly there's the enforcement resources for the office of short-term rental so that the office of short-term rental can help people into compliance and people registered and people understand what they have to do within the confines of the law while at the same time going after the bad actors and the abusive and illegal short-term rentals and cracking down on incentives if they violate the law there's a reasonable chance to get caught this law is in effect for 11 months and 6 months in the r

law. feature marriage law that is essential to the story she tells both about african-americans in the postbellum. matt -- period and gay manned and lesbian. it allows us to see the normative white character of the marriage equality movement even when the argument weren't explicit and they had a road normative activity a fancy word that i would use with a shout-out to empire. my central point here is that "wedlocked" is an encounter of legal theory that allows us to understand in the words of my friend the places where race no longer talks about race precisely and paradoxically by talking about it to something else. what might race help us think about that race does not -- but to which is nonetheless connect it? in my work i would suggest the things raises about his sexuality. catherine shows us in the "wedlocked" thinking about gay and lesbian sexuality and race. and effusion that i think represents an important insight about how to understand the history of marriage equality and the seco

>> this is a judges law. so what is the relative discussion about judges and law?thought the best comment for the last you years, years ago on the supreme court in really talking about the new joe supreme court and the changes that they made. the court does not shift with the wind. it does not change with the weather. but the climate, the long-run climate may have an impact. i think that is pretty good because over the long run, different judges. it doesn't mean the judges are deciding things on the basis of politics at the judges went to be named by president who really does think that the law is what? the president thinks? let's not be too specific because if you think the president going to appoint a person who's going to agree with him on every name, the president is in for a big disappointment. teddy roosevelt appointed oliver wendell holmes within six months homes i decided to send a northern security case, very important test at that time and roosevelt died i could carve more back on out of bananas. [laughter] but if you are talking about very general things

it's another law. you want a separate body to make a constitution which is superior to ordinary law. so, what we did, did not do in virginia, in 1776, i have to give credit to my friends in massachusetts. in 1780, they called a constitutional convention, elected with delegates elected by the people, expressly to write a constitution which went to the people in referendum for ratification. so the americans invented something which the europeans adopt and is an american peninsula donees practice, transformed the way we make constitutions. so, a vote of confidence, of gratitude to my friends in massachusetts. i was up there last year giving something called the -- i was imprudent enough to suggest to my friends in massachusetts a very good at words. we know john adams and all that but not so good at numbers, because they don't quite understand that 1607 comes before 1620. and i don't think i made any friends in boston by making that observation. so, you get to the stage, state constitutions of something w

it's not settled law.s likely that -- >> as in like 99.9% likely. >> right. >> never been a u.s. supreme court -- >> right. >> he was naturally born a u.s. citizens. so if what you care about is the text of the constitution, this is open and shut. he's in exactly the same position that mccain was. mccain was born on foreign soil as a u.s. citizen. >> well, mccain was born on a u.s. military base to two u.s. citizens. >> that has not mattered during our lifetime. >> both his parents. >> that has not mattered during our lifetimes. this is an example of just throwing in the kitchen sink as he closes in on winning iowa. that's what it is. >> fair enough. mccain initially came out and said, no, this is different than my case. of course, a lot of bad blood between him and cruz. >> yeah. this is the kind of sort of circus that trump -- trump wants to be the distracter in chief. he doesn't want to be the commander in chief. you focus on the stuff happening to the country, inside the country. he's the distracter in

all marriage equality law. my important point wedlock stages an encounter if you will of crt and queer legal theory that allow us to understand in the words of my friend the scholar lubinio, the places where race no longer talks about race precisely and par docks i cannily by talking about it through something else and elsewhere. what asks lubiano that race help us think about that race does not name to which it is nonetheless connected? in my own work i suggested that one of the things race helps us think about is sexualities. katherine shows us in "wedlock," one of the things thinking about gay and lesbian sexuality think us about which demands we think about is race. one might be called race-sex or section-race, effusion i think represents an important insight about how to understand this moment in the history of marriage equality law and politics. the second panel would be a panel about law as a structure of feeling. it would focus on those aspects of the marriage equality debate which are about the emotion

law. the virginia general assembly 1690een meeting since team. so by the time of the revolution, virginia had homegrown law for over 150 years. appear on the high bench behind me, they were the leaders of local society. so for a county court, they were appointed by the royal governor nominations from the already-sitting justices. for the citigroup court, they are the mayor and aldermen of the city. that was a self-perpetuating body. they served for life for good behavior. most so for life but every once in a while 11 act so egregious as to really annoy the governor and be kicked off the bench. it was real, but fairly interesting when it happened. virginiarue for all of government with the exception of theer met -- membership in house of burgesses, that is the only film i election. >> can you give us an example of a child that money if taken place here? -- >> can you give us an example of a trial that might have taken place here? tom: sure. there were a number. one was a woman who was growi

and number two is that it does not affect state gun laws. this is federal laws. and gun rights advocates say the federal government should spend more time enforcing the current federal laws that have actually been less enforced by some 30% over the last ten years. jon: let's bring into the conversation somebody who knows the law quite well, our fox senior judicial analyst, judge andrew napolitano. from what you know of what the president is announcing here, judge, well, what do you make of it? >> well, i agree with the political analysis that our colleague bret baier just gave. legally, the president is on very thin ice because requiring people to have licenses for occasional sales of guns has been rejected three times by the congress. so the president can't write that requirement into the law when the congress has expressly declined to do so and actually defeated attempts to amend the statute to that effect. jon: kind of interesting. we're waiting -- the president has been introduced, but we're waiting for him to appear. there's obviously a loud round of applaus

other's laws.and they were able to create a uniform commercial code. partly with the aid of the uniform -- the uniform code commissioners. there are many ways of trying to create a uniform law where that's necessary. and part of it involves looking to each other, and we wouldn't say that the uniform commercial code is some unfortunate development. i think we'd say it's a very fortunate development and to what extent did it change the law of utah? i don't really know. but, i mean, many ways of looking to these things. and i'm not suggesting one entirely. and what i want to show, and i stop there, is that i don't think engaging in this activity is going to undermine basic american values. i think by and large it will help preserve them. and most of all, it will be the perhaps one practical way to increase the likelihood that the great problems are improved in their solution through a rule of law itself, which is the fifth amendment, the 14th amendment, that then which there is no more basic part of a

caller: i am a law-abiding citizen. i totally agree with what president obama said today on this topic of gun control. i think that he's absolutely correct. gun nk that it is in the lobby's pockets. they should be ashamed of themselves. host: all right, charles, thanks for the call there. richard is on the line, maryland, la plata, richard, gun owner. what are your thoughts? caller: i am 100% in favor of what the president said. it just doesn't make any sense that people should die at the rate they are for really stupid abuse of freedom. so i'm 100% in favor of what the president said. host: richard, do i mind if you ask, you're a gun owner. ? w many guns do you own caller: i live on a farm. i have three shotguns, use them rarely. i have no problem with registration or whatever is necessary to reduce gun violence. i mean, i served in the army. i know what i'm doing. and i just really believe that americans need to wake up and stop watching idly as philo citizens are butchered. host: let's see if paul singer wants to wei

there are details in the law to make sure law enforcement can still do their job efficiently and effectively. starting today, female employees will have more tools to challenge pay gaps between men and women. under the new law, the burden of proof is now on the employer to justify why a man's pay is higher than a woman's pay for the same work based on factors other than gender one of the toughest laws of its kind in the nation. paychecks. mandatory vaccination law goes into effect today. parent can no longer request a so-called personal belief exemption. that in the past allowed parents to skip vaccinations for religious reasons, et cetera. if you recall, the push for this law came last year when a measles outbreak that started in disneyland sickened hundreds of people. california has enacted tough new laws to protect student privacy. any company that gathers information on elementary or high school students cannot use that information for profit. what's more, they are required to protect that data and it can only be used for school purposes. and one of my personal favorites, california is n

, wrongful death laws , and fetal homicide laws to the extent that 50 states have laws that protect the unborn child. we have laws, wrongful death laws in 36 states that protect the unborn child. there are fetal homicide laws in 39 states protect the unborn child. that is a very significant show of public opinion support for fetal protection. host: the guest has referenced many cases that have come before the court for the past 42 years have considered some aspect of abortion. your book has 29 depending on how we count those. we are going to put some of the names on the screen. you have heard references to them. the last one was before the roberts court, whole woman's health versus coal, which is not yet on the schedule. so, as we look at that, let us listen to marianne in pennsylvania. marianne, your comment. caller: i am a physician in philadelphia and i have two things to say. i find it so painfully inconsistent that the child in the womb has no rights, but when scott lacy killed his wife and -- scott peterson killed his unborn child,d his he was accused of killing two people. a law

here's what he wrote about the right to die law.he wrote i do not know what i would do if i were dying in a prolonged and excruciating pain. i am certain however it would be a comfort to consider the options afforded by this bill and i wouldn't deny the right to others. that's what he wrote about right to die. when asked about right to try, his letter supported the compassionate use clause and said the state shouldn't get in the way of that. were you surprised this was the ruling and what do you think of those arguments? >> guest: i think it is an absolute shame. the law passed unanimously in the california assembly and there were a lot of patients who would've understood it from the right to try. essentially what governor brown told people was low, you want to end your life, that is fine with me. that is your value. if you want to fight to save your life, i like the fda worked that out. i'll give them a little more time. the fda has had the compassionate use program for 25 years. i think they've had enough time and so do most patie

law or blasphemy national security law impacted that freedom? how should we respond to the information war launched by groups such as isis on social media? those are some of the questions i look forward to discussing with you all. to start, i want to introduce you to caroline fourest. she's a very well renowned journalist. magazinee editor of -- and a former contributor of " charlie hebdo." you just released nsa, in praise of blasphemy, why "charlie bic.o" is not islamopho the book is available in english on e-book. i invite you to read it, because it's vitally important to read it. caroline, just after the attacks, "charlie hebdo" has been portrayed by some people as islam a phobic. u.s.,hey came here in the to receive awards, they pointed out that in 10 years between 2005 and 2015, out of a total of approximately 500 "charlie hebdo" issues, only 38 covers were dedicated to religion, and seven to islam. caroline, i think it's important to start by explaining what is "charlie hebdo," how important our curtains in france, how "charlie hebdo" staf