she said because of marbury v. madison, each of us and have constitutional rights that no president or congress can take away. that is what marbury stands for. host: give me your thoughts on why this matters. >> so, your audience has heard of judicial review. in a nutshell, it is not just the supreme court. all courts in the system have the ability to disregard the act of congress or state law, if, in a judge's view, the law is inconsistent with the constitution. the interesting thing about judicial review is, marbury is the first case about judicial review, it actually was not that they grace before the civil war. -- that vigorous before the civil war. marbury becomes more important to later in the story. looking back, it was a more narrow decision than we remember it being. host: you tell a story to tell that has a cast of characters. as we begin, we want to introduce you to names you will be hearing throughout the 90 minutes and understand the role that they played in marbury v. madison coming to the supreme cou

not in the modest form presented by marshall in marbury. having laid down this moderate marker for judicial review, marshall advanced his nationalist constitutional vision, true judicial restraint. marshall managed to assert nationalistic ideals throughout his tenure on the court. and theded both federal same time judicial power by declining to exercise judicial power in a heavy-handed manner. unanimously upheld congress's power charter banks displayed marshall's believe the judicial authority could best be embraced by deference to the democratizing forces of national sovereignty and conversely, the cause of national democracy is best served by a strong but restrained judiciary. throughout his tenure, marshall not only expansively interpreted the commerce clause, he also use the contract clause of government to restrain states from interfering with public and private contracts among both to protect vested property interests, and to strengthen the union by harnessing the energy's of creative entrepreneurs. and the ozzie land case, marshall e

then a rebroadcast of our landmark cases series looking at the 1803 case of marbury versus madison. been ginsburg looking at the very real possibility of an open or contested convention. explain what this all means. what is a contested convention? >> it is when none of the candidates arrive at the commission with the majority of delegates. by definition, they have to contest to reach a majority. host: if there is a candidate with a majority of the delegates but not a majority overall, what does that mean? ben: there is a magic number. you have to get more than that. there will be balloting when the delegates get there and to see if and then balloting your candidate can win enough delegates to get over the majority. a lot of attention on the rules committee. here is the question. how much authority does the committee have over the convention structure? mr. ginsburg there will be two : rules committee. one is the national committee which will meet the week before the convention, come up with what amounts to a working draft. that draft will be approved by the full committee, historical

marbury v. madison.tonight at 10:00 eastern on c-span and c-span.org. >>> book tv's in prime time on c-span2. starting tonight at 8:30 eastern. each night we'll feature a series of programs on topics ranging from politics to education, to medical care and national security. plus, encore presentations from recent book festivals. tune in for book tv in prime time, this week on c-span2. go to book tv.org for the complete schedule. >>> author and former white house domestic policy advisor explains why flphilanthropy distinguishes the u.s. from other nations. that's live at 5:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >>> naac president cornell brooks spoke about

. >> john marshall in marbury versus madison said this is different. law, that is fine with the other branches. >> what sets scott versus sanford a part is it is the ultimate anti-presidential case. it is what you don't want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? , theochner versus new york supreme court said that it should make the decision. >> tonight will explore the slaughterhouse cases. >> during campaign 2016, c-span takes you on the road to the white house as we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span c-span.org. >> earlier today, hillary clinton held a campaign rally at harlem, new york. introducing mrs. clinton was new york senator charles schumer. this is almost an hour. ♪ >> hillary! hillary! hillary! hillary! hillary! hillary! [applause] senator schumer: good morning, harlem! good morning, new york! it is so great to be here and i am so privileged to be able to have the honor of introducing my friend and colleague, hillary clinton -- [applause] who frankly needs no introduction, especially here in harlem. [applause] as

there were acts of the slaughterhouse cases that are a little like marbury. the genius of the marbury decision that chief justice marshall wrote an important decision. if he had come out the other way, it is not entirely clear the decision would have been enforced. he would have picked a major fight. there is a similar sense here with the slaughterhouse cases. if justice miller flips his vote and there is five votes the other way, and they start saying that all sorts of common law privileges are enforced by the 14th amendment against the states, then that sets up the federal supreme court as reviewing all sorts of state laws without really any text in the constitution to strike them down. i think, you know, no one will know what would have happened if the court decides the slaughterhouse case the other way. it would have been a very aggressive assertion of judicial authority to be sure. michael: miller says that. he says that this will make the supreme court and the federal judiciary the perpetual sense of the legislature of the states. chomping at bit is ste

tonight is marbury versus madison. each night, we will air a different discussion on a different case. editcase is from 1803 establish the constitution as the supreme law of the united states and the supreme court's power to review -- judicial review. at 10:00.night it is a 90 minute segment. other. have all of the you can watch these at www.c-span.org. this is last in virginia. caller: good morning. i would like to say one thing about social security. here,ave people come in never worked here. old people. right away, they get social security right now. american people who have worked all their lives have to go to lawyers and everything else to get on it. they never get off social security. i understand the have people. they go back home and live like a king. that's one reason why the government spends so much money on poor people. the majority of it goes overseas. why do the americans and their young people to fight and they send there's over here to buy 7-eleven's. host: that was johnny from virginia. thanks for all

marbury versus madison. that was triggered abuse john adams decided at the last minute when he lost re-election that he would sign awful these different job commissions. and that's where william marbury comes in and he is suing james madison because he didn't get the job. there is knot the issue before john marshal as to whether or not john adams could have been done this. the issue was whether or not thomas jefferson was doing what he was supposed to do in not allowing marbury to have the judgeship. so this issue of going all the way back to a president in the later months right at the end of their term allowing judges to take these positions goes way back, further than 1992. >> gloria brown marsh with her history. miss constitutional law professor, i tip my hat to you, and to you also, carry sef severino. >>> breaking news. after a big night for donald trump, big news about what would have been the next debate with his republican opponents. let's go to dylan buyer, senior reporter for media and politics he

. >> so goes back to marbury vs. madison which chief justice marshall found or inferred the right but to be ordered tuesday carrier your legal duty said he realized -- dea realized right to soak the -- slow things down without formally ever doing anything. there were supposed to get the license and it was clear so they would take their time. >> you cannot go crying to mommy or daddy. it is such a time period. expect able not have the fortitude nor the resources to hire the criminal defense corps in gsa just tell me what i have to do to keep the business going so there are dozens of cases that never see the light of day and they just cannot carry out it isn't harming anybody. >> i forgot to mention the pharmacy had advertised in the article on the government. >> also talking about justice scalia so he wouldn't send everybody to jail but he said this is what it says. and he told me it was crawford vs. washington and their requirement that there has to be a cross examination with the out-of-court statement. so a the lab

it is the first case since marbury v. madison where the court exercise extraordinary power. it was a big step for the court to do it. sets dred scott apart, it is the ultimate precedential case. for the court to step in and exercise judicial review, striking down the missouri compromise in this climate, it was a bad political decision. say,wain: is it correct to even inside the supreme court and dred scott decision is seen as one of the worst the court ever made? .rof. bracey: absolutely you can talk to various colors and most will agree this was probably the most infamous supreme court decision. here, critics say this is an instance of the court really reaching, overreaching into political question. that it does not have the capacity to resolve. it really damages the court's reputation for years to come. there are consequences not just for that nation on the question of slavery, but the standing of the supreme court, going forward. ms. swain: we will hear a lot of names during the next 90 minutes. among them, dred scott, and harriet scott. very briefly, who were they? prof.

i mean marbury versus madison had political ramifications and yet it was quite dismissible, right? so do not be confused with the political question, no of course it isn't. >> i would like to address part of your question. they believe that congress could spread itself and decided not to address or issue and it will depend highly on how congress spread itself in term term of the option that is willing to accept under which conditions. i think this time of crisis is also a time for opportunity. while we address this crisis i also believe that congress should take this opportunity to allow us to make a final decision and also have the administration and the justice department come up with the conditions of the options that are available to us so that the referendum will be finally accepted by congress. i think puerto ricans at this time, with so many changes and challenges, we should take this opportunity commits a golden opportunity to finally resolve a problem. so i believe the final answer will depend on when congress makes that decision but that's difficult for us at this moment.

history. >> in marbury v. madison, they said the constitution is a political document, sets it's a and if it's a law we have the courts to tell what it means and that's finding on the other branches. >> what sets dred scott apart is the fact that it's the ultimate anti-per anti-precedential case. >> who should make the decisions? the supreme court said it should make the decisions. >> tonight we'll look at the case that limited the privileges and immunities of u.s. citizenship guaranteed by the newly enacted 14th amendment to only those rights explicitly spelled out in the constitution. the slaughterhouse cases. >>> this month, boris johnson was questioned on the future of the united kingdom's membership in the european union. the uk holds a referendum on june 23 to determine if the nation remains or leaves the 28-member e.u. 2 r the treasury committee is one of the many committees in the british house of commons that is exploring the economic and financial implications of the uk's e.u. membership. this is jus

. >> john marshall in marbury versus madison said, this is different, the constitution is a political document, it sets up the political structures, but it's also a law. and if it's a law, we have the courts to tell what it means, and that's binding on the other branches. >> what sets dred scott apart is the fact that it is the ultimate antipresidential case. it is exactly what you don't want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? and lochner versus new york, the supreme court said it should make the decisions about those demarks. >> tonight we'll look at the case that established the constitution as the supreme law of the united states and affirming the supreme court's power of judicial review, marbury v. madison, tonight at 10:00 eastern on c-span and c-span.org. >>> later today, a review of the u.s./north korea nuclear agreement from 20 years ago and how lessons learned can be applied to the current u.s. agreement with iran. the carnegie endowment for international peace hosts this forum live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. coming up on c-span3 next, american

. >> john marshall and marbury versus madison said this is different. the constitution sets up political structures but it is also a law. if it is the law, we have the courts to tell what it means and that is binding on the other branches. >> what sets scott versus sanford apart is that it is the only -- ultimate anti-presidential case. >> who should make the decisions? york, ther versus new supreme court said that it should make those decisions. next, on road to the white 2004, we look at the presidential campaign with john edwards on it -- on a bus tour. edwards went on to finish second in the oklahoma half -- justst one 0.5% behind. selectederry later edwards as his running mate but they lost to george w. bush and dick cheney in a close election. our coverage begins in the town of idabel, oklahoma. this is just under 50 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, please join me and welcoming the next president of the united states, john edwards. [applause] ♪ [indistinct conversations] >> we are very honored to have you. this is our mayor. senator edwards: nice

he begins as judicial review began in 1803 with marbury versus madison. in which justice marshall wrote -- the powers of the legislature are defined and limited and that limitsthat those limited may not be mistaken or forgotten. in distinguishing between proper judicial deference to legislative majorities, and the dereliction of the judicial duty to police majority excesses, he , the in our democracy legislature's policymaking powers going unrivaled is not unlimited. the constitution is supreme. synonymrable is not a for constitutional. although the political branches decide if laws passed, it is for courts to decide if laws passed muster. if judicial review means anything, it is that judicial restraint does not allow everything. constitutional tipping point where adjudication resembles abdication, courts must not extinguish constitutional liberties -- with nonchalance. this requires fidelity to the super majority against what other majorities must be measured. the super majority that road and ratified the constitution. remain judicially -- that are in ir

marbury v. madison said this is different. the constitution is a political document. it sets up structures but it's also a law and if it is a law we have the courts to do what it means and that's fine with the other branches. >> the fact it is the ultimate at the presidential gave. exactly what you don't want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates. in lochner versus. the supreme court said it should make the decisions spent tonight we'll look at the case that established the constitution as supreme law of the united states and from the supreme court's power of judicial review. marbury v. madison tonight at 10 eastern on c-span and c-span.org. >> lieutenant colonel bradford car is the operations officer of a special-purpose marine air ground task force, crisis response africa command. he talks of his most recent deployment at the potomac institute in washington, d.c. this is about 35 minutes. >> okay, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon to our behalf of mike's wetten and gen

. >> john marshall said in marbury versus madison says the constitution is a political document. setups the political structures, but it's also a law. and if it's a law, we have the courts to tell what it means and that's binding on the other branches. >> what sets dread scott apart is the fact that it is the ultimate anti-press dential case. it's exactly what you don't want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates. >> each week, american history tv's american artifacts visits museums and historic places. up next, a visit to the national museum of the american jewish history in philadelphia. to learn about their poor exhibition, tracing the history of the jewish people in america from 1654 to the present day. this is part one of a two-part program. >> welcome to the national museum of jewish american history in philadelphia, pennsylvania. i name is claire pingle. i'm the associate curator her s at the museum. i'm happy to give you a tour today. the museum was started in 1976 by one of the five original jewish congregations that date back to the colonial period.

later, our "landmark cases" series looking at marbury versus madison.emerging infectious diseases and the next pandemic. it is moderated by sonia shah, author of "pandemic: tracking contagions from ebola and beyond." the new york academy of medicine hosted this 90 minute event. ms. shah: thank you all for coming. i usually do not like to stand at podiums because i am kind of short but i will get up on my tippy toes for you. when i first started writing a few years ago i did not predict we would be living through a pandemic of a new kind of pathogen washing over the americas right when the book came out. yet here we are with the zika virus washing over the americas. not my talk, hang on a second. over the past 50 years, we have had over 300 infectious pathogens either newly emerged or reemerging in places where they have not been seen before. the zika is really just the latest one in a plethora of pathogen's have been doing this. in west africa where it had not been seen before. a new virus that came out of the middle east.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> john marshall in marbury versus madison said the constitution is a political document. except that political structures, but it is also a law.

of the united states and affirming the supreme court's power of judicial review, marbury v. madison, tonight at 10:00 eastern on c-span and c-span.org. >>> later today, a review of the u.s./north korea nuclear agreement from 20 years ago and how lessons learned can be applied to the current u.s. agreement with iran. the carnegie endowment for international peace hosts this forum live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. coming up on c-span3 next, american university hosts a forum on puerto rico's debt crisis and political status. then the potomac institute hosts a discussion on returning navy and marine corps commanders. after that, naacp president cornell brooks makes remarks at the national press club. >>> legal scholars and puerto rican representative luis vega ramos examine puerto rico's debt crisis and the territory's political status at a panel hosted by american university. this is 2 hours, 45 minutes. >>> buenos dias, good morning and welcome to the college of law. we welcome those of you joining us virtually in puerto rico and via the webcast. i'm diana sawyer, program c

tonight, marbury versus madison. 1803 ruling found the supreme court has the power of judicial review, allowing it to invalidate acts of other bran of mentf they >> im a hiyf.ution. i doenjoy seeinric of r try andhow thi -- just h they workndhow hey'reade. >> i lovecanistory tv. the esidency, aman artifts, th're fantic ows. i ha idea they did history. hat's prably sething i realoy. a-sn n.nisto tv,bl cta at cthse aiofhechfsafer jep nfd, stie tete arderoitebo stntonudt ner aut e ait smityro wfa oin gg,llthat aedseic temetshorng o en ye bg st t aoc tu s'se tpour us. me rc. fi o ofou ssehe aho ceityt w en m jt s at rdstbi saten me nixutefhe es stentaid roiobhe f tsh hertntof hicmiee twi mone a pcah t pame ns cntct oo s veee sinc mbss. mr sre ipeou wi ke aulstn in t stentndak la nt, dec unetinpirlida.dicoitnd a sthuredve e steahi a thattuaof rrineangedby is hestiz tdleat, aic eopansped at he uit. iteen liri cirnnrd y li tn t re cotits rpi ilaredheoh s s crcn blyur thorauh b as, nt ae a te i nleeon an ndterociv sseesclin

then a rebroadcast of our landmark cases series looking at the 1803 case of marbury versus madison. been ginsburg looking at the very real possibility of an open or contested convention. explain what this all means. what is a contested convention? >> it is when none of the candidates arrive at the commission with the majority of delegates. by definition, they have to contest to reach a majority. host: if there is a candidate with a majority of the delegates but not a majority overall, what does that mean? ben: there is a magic number. you have to get more than that. there will be balloting when the delegates get there and to see if and then balloting your candidate can win enough delegates to get over the majority. a lot of attention on the rules committee. here is the quon

. >> john marshall in marbury versus madison is a political document that sets up the political structures it's also the law and if it's the law we have the courts to tell what it means and that is fine and the other branches. >> the fact that it's the ultimate case is exactly what you don't want to do. >> who should make the decisions about the debate and the supreme court said it should make the decisions about the debate. >> tonight we look at the case that limited the citizenship guaranteed by the newly enacted 14th amendment only those rights explicitly spelled out in the constitution. the slaughterhouse cases. >> the deputy chair of the people's freedom party in russia talked about political opposition under vladimir putin. he also touched on the political climate in chechnya. he believes it has become an ideal environment for the recruiters. hosted by the council this is about 90 minutes. >> welcome to the atlantic council. i am the deputy director of the center here at the atlantic council. i'm delighted you can join us here today for this important presentation of the report title

the supreme court observed in the famous case of marbury versus madison that the constitution is written down so these limits will be neither mistaken nor forgotten and is intended to govern clerks and legislatures. favordges in the liberals reject those limits. they look at written law such as the constitution such as a starting point that words without any real meaning. they are often support and defend the constitution that is .eally to defend themselves in the long run, their constitution is one of their own making. i am really surprised that democrats and their allies turned to a fictional constitution when prompting the senate to do it job. that constitution simply does not exist. leads foronstitution the president in the senate, the decision about how do exercise their respective powers in the appointment process. what is the senate's job regarding the cecelia -- the scalia vacancy? it is to exercise and consent power under the circumstances we face today. we are not without guidance in exercise our to power regarding's justice scalia. we can look at president. . hardly -- precede

. >> john marshall in marbury v. madison said this is different if the constitution is a political document. it sets up the political structures but it's also a law and if it is a lot we have the courts to tell what it means and that's fine on the -- that's binding on the other branches. >> the fact it is the ultimate anti-presidential case exactly what you don't want to do. do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates. lochner versus. the supreme court said it should make the decision about those debates. >> tonight we'll look at the case but denied blacks citizenship under the prosecution and invalidated the missouri compromise. scott v sanford tonight on c-span and c-span.org. >> u.s. digital services and tech experts from silicon valley to washington, d.c. to of government information systems problems. the agency estimated by mikey dickerson conformal google googe employee who affects a healthcare.gov website. he and his team spoke at the computer history museum in mountain view, california. this is a

. >> john marshall in marbury versus madison said this is different. the constitution is a political document, but it is also a law. have the long, we courts to tell what it means. that puts dred scott apart, the fact that is the ultimate anti-presidential case. it's exactly what you don't want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates. the supreme court said it should make the decisions about those debates. >> we look at the case the citizenship, and the consequent is. tonight at 10 a cocky start c-span and c-span.org. >> look now at emerging infectious diseases and what is being done to prevent the next pandemic. posted by the new york academy of medicine, it's about 90 minutes. ms. shah: thank you all for coming. i usually do not like to stand at podiums because i am kind of short but i will get up on my tippy toes for you. when i first started writing this book a few years ago i did not predict we would be living through a pandemic of a new kind of pathogen washing over the americas right when the book came out. yet here we are wi

. >> john marshall in marbury versus madison said this is different.t is a political document that sets up the political structure but it's also the law and we have the courts to tell what it means and that is on the other branches. >> it's the fact that it's the ultimate presidential case exactly what you don't want to do to be the >> who should make the decisions about the debate the supreme court said it should make the decisions about those debate. we look at the cases that limited the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the newly enacted 14th amendment to only those spelled out in the constitution. the slaughterhouse cases. >>> former commander of the u.s. africa command retired general william cape was joined by diplomats from the middle east earlier today. they had a discussion on combating terrorism and the also talked about strategies and lessons learned for fighting threats from groups such as isis, al qaeda and boko haram and the role of the international community hosted by potomac institute university center for terrorism studies at wa

john marshall in marbury versus madison said that this is different, the constitution is a blood willocument and it sets up the political structures, but it is also a law. if it is a lot we have the courts to tell us what it means and that is find a by the other branches. >> what cedric scott apart is --t fact that is the only in the first anti-presidential case. >> who should make the decisions about those debates. the supreme court said it should make the decisions about this debates. >> landmark cases begins this monday night at 10:00 eastern on c-span and c-span.org. next, editorial cartoonists on their influence on the presidential election. then, they discussion about europe's efforts to combat terrorism and deal with refugees. after that, a look at what a contested convention is. and how republican party rules may affect the cleveland convention this summer. >> political cartoonist and humanities scholars discuss the power of editorial cartooning and its influence on the presidential election. they also talked about censorship and freedom of speech. from the new hampshire insti

. >> john marshall in marbury versus madison said this is different, the constitution is a politicalocumentary it sets up the structures. but it is the law. and we have finding it in the other branches. ultimatethe anti-presidential case, exactly what you do not want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? and the supreme court said it should make the decisions of those debates. announcer: landmark cases begins tonight on c-span and see c-span.org. joe biden called for the confirmation of merrick garland in a speech at georgetown university law center. fromplains his combination 1992, which republicans have used to justify their refusal to hold hearings on the current nominee. this is 40 minutes. [applause] >> hi, everyone. thank you. lisa down. my name is joe biden. i have worked for victorian nurse for a long time. and i mean, long time. and i'm told the dean of students when i met him, i almost decided not to do the speech here. my son went to georgetown and my staff went to georgetown and my son did his first year of law school here at georgetown. he ended up

madison --rsus marbury versus madison, it is also a law. if it is a law, we have the court to tell us what it means. >> it is the fact that it is the ultimate anti-presidential case, exactly what you do not want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? as the supreme court said, it can make those decisions about those debates. announcer: on c-span and c-span.org. bidene president joe called for the confirmation of president obama's pick for the supreme court in a speech at georgetown university lawson. he explains his comments on the nomination process from 1992, which republicans have used to justify their refusal to hold hearings on the current nominee. this is 40 minutes. [applause] vice president joe biden: hi, please sit down. my name is joe biden. and i have been here a long time. i am told that the dean of students, when i met him, i almost decided not to do the speech here. although my son and staff went to georgetown, and my son did his first year of law school here in georgetown. --duating from e-mail, but [lau

. >> john marshall in marbury v. madison said this is different your the constitution is a political document. it sets up political structures but it's also a lot and if it is a law we have the courts to do what it means and that's binding on the other branches. >> what set dred scott apart is the fact that is the ultimate at the presidential case. it's exact what you don't want to do. >> who should make the decision about the debate. and lochner v. new york the supreme court said it should make the decisions spirit tonight we look at the case that struck down many state and federal regulations on working conditions that violated the 14th amendment guaranteeing liberty of contract. lochner v. new york tonight at 10 eastern on c-span and c-span.org. >> our road to the widest coverage coverage continues today with vermont senator and democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders talking to voters at a campaign rally in new york's south bronx that will take you there live at 7 p.m. eastern here on c-span2.killerse >>

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> john marshall in marbury versus madison said the constitution is a political document. except that political structures, but it is also a law. and if it is so we have the courts to tell what it means and that is fine on the other branches. .. lives as well as he spent too. a discussion about race hosted by the aspen institute at the newseum. this is in downtown washington, d.c. right between the capital and the white house along pennsylvania avenue. they will focus on new attitudes, opportunities, challenge for people of color in the united states in the 21st century. this is expected to run into the afternoon and we will be hearing from several panels of speakers. we will hear first from some the people involved in putting this together at the aspen institute as well as the senior vice president of diversity at comcast corporation. later, the state of race in an election cycle, and raised in universities and urban settings. there will be a short break around 11:30 a.m. eastern followed by discussion with juan williams on some of th

john marshall in marbury versus madison said this is different.constitution is a political document and sets up the political structure but it's also the law and if it's the law we have the courts to tell what it means and that is finding other branches. >> it's the ultimate anti-presidential case. it's exactly what you don't want to do. who should make the decisions about those debates and the supreme court said it should make the decisions about those debates. tonight we look at the case that established the constitution as the law of the united states and affirming the cover of the judicial review. mulberry versus madison tonight at ten eastern on c-span and c-span.org. >>> this week on our program the communicators, we focus on encryption, privacy and surveillance. here's a look. >> the chairman of the house judiciary committee is our guest this week on the communicators. hearings have been held on the encryption fbi apple issue. what's next? >> those earrings were helpful at educating members of the committee and other members of congress and

. >> john marshall in marbury versus madison is different. it is a political structure but if it is a law we tell other courts what it means. >> it is the ultimate anti-presidential case. it is exactly what you don't want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates. and lochner versus new york, the supreme court decision. >>> the pentagon and state department officials overseeing efforts to close the guantanamo bay detention facility testified before congress wednesday. president obama last month announced his plan to close the guantanamo bay prison, but republicans have expressed opposition. this hearing of house foreign affairs committee is an hour and a half. >>> this committee will come to order. president obama's race to empty the guantanamo bay detention facility is on. in recent weeks and months, many hardened terrorists have been released. many of them have been sent abroad, and according to the president's closure plan sent to congress last month, another 35 are set to be transferred this summer. unfortunately, we kno

i mean, maybe marbury v. madison was wrong. there are people who argue certain aspects were. and the concerns i have in terms of workability are not so much the details. i guess something would work out in the labor area. it would certainly affect the bar. it would certainly affect the integrated bar. it would certainly affect at least student fees at universities. it would require overruling a host of other cases, i think, at least two or three that i can find, and that's quite a big deal. mr. carvin: it certainly is. justice breyer: and so what is it, in your mind, that you can say from the point of view of this court's role in this society in that if, of course, we can overrule a compromise that was worked out over 40 years and has lasted reasonably well, not perfectly, i guess people could overrule our decisions just as easily. i've had a few dissents. in those dissents i think i'm right and the others are wrong, and then think i'm wrong and they're right. all right? there are a lot of people who think that. you see where i'm going? i'd like you to talk for a minute, beca

. >> john marshal in marbury versus madison said this is different. the constitution is a political document. it sets up the political structures. but it's also a law and if it's a law, we have the courts to tell what it means and that's binding on the other branches. >> what sets dred scott apart is the fact that it is the ultimate anti-precedent shl case. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? and lochner versus new york the supreme court said it should make the decisions about those debates. >> tonight, the case that limited the privileges and immunities of citizenship guaranteed by the 14th amendment to only those rights spelled out in the constitution. the slaughterhouse cases. >>> the washington institute held a discussion on why foreign fighters are a major challenge for intelligence officials here in the u.s. and abroad. the discussion comes as brussels investigates the terror attacks that killed more than 30 people including 2 americans this month. this is about 90 minutes. we'll show as much as we can until the heritage founda

. >> john marshall in marbury v. madison said this is different. the constitution is a political document. it sets up political structures but it's also a law. and if it is a law we have the courts to do what it means. spent what sets out dred scott apart is the fact that it is the ultimate anti-presidential case exactly what you don't want to do. do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates. and lochner versus. the supreme court said it should make the decisions about those debates. >> landmark cases begins monday night at 10 eastern c-span and c-span.org. >> remarks now from irs commissioner john koskinen on potential budget cuts to his agency and why tax return revenue could decline as the result of this decree. he's this decree. he spoke just after national press club for about one hour. >> welcome to tax season. americans now have three weeks, 10 hours and 58 minutes to get their federal returns filed. who's counting? for our speaker, everything is tax day. john koskinen is the commission of the irs where he oversees the collection

law of the united states and affirming the supreme court's power of judicial review, measure bur -- marbury vs. madison. >> irs commissioner john cost ken anyone worns that budget cuts could many do cline in -- he touched on the irs's mention to -- from the national press club, this is about an hour. >> welcome to tax season. for our speaker, every day is tax day. he is the commissioner of the internal revenue service and oversees the collection of $3 trillion each ear in individual, corporate, employment, gift, and estate taxes. it seems that every tax season generates a headline or two just few. this year they included the irs's concerns about scammers who telephone or e-mail taxpayers, ask for identifying information, something cost he claims the irs would never do and a presidential nominee says the irs has odd differented his returns for 12 years because he is a, quote, christian. last fall he was accused of obstructing investigation into the allegations the irs targeted conservative groups before the 2010 and 2012 elections. the committee has taken no action on the revolution and the

the supreme court observed in the famous case of marbury v.adison that the constitution is written down so that these limits will be neither mistaken nor forgotten and is intended to govern courts as much asor legislatures to activist judges that liberals favor reject those limits. they look at written law such as the constitution and statutes merely as a starting point as words without any real meaning. it's an old to support and defend themselves since in the long run their competition is one of their own making. so i'm hardly surprised thatn wn today democrats and their left wing allies turned to a fictional constitution when telling the senate to do its job. that constitution simply does not exist. the real constitution madam president leads to the president and to the senate a decision about how to exercise their respective powers in the appointment process. what is the senate jobs regarding the scalia vacancy? the senate's job is to determine the best way to exercise its u advice and consent power under the circumstances we face today. t

marbury versus madison had political ramifications and yet it was quite justiceable, right? so don't be confused with the political question. no, of course, it isn't. >> i would like to address your final part of your question. statehood wanted to place in 2012 recognized by the demonstration. i also believe that it is critical for congress to express itself. congress has decided not to address our issue and it would depend highly on how congress expresses itself in terms of the option that he's willing to accept under which conditions? i think that this time of crisis is also a time of opportunity and while we address the fiscal crisis, i also believe that congress should take this opportunity to allow us to make a final decision that they're willing to accept and also have the demonstration to the justice department come up with definitions of the options that are available to us so that the referenda would finally be accepted by congress. i think puerto ricans at this time with so many changes and challenges, we should take this opportunity, this as a golden opportunity t

. >> john marshall in marbury versus madison said the constitution is a political document and sets aitical structure. it's also a law. if it's a law, we of the courts to tell the means. >> the fact it is the ultimate anti-presidential case. it's exactly how you don't want to do it. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? this record set it should make the decision -- the supreme court set it should make the decision. >> we will look at scott b sanford tonight at 10:00 eastern. >> this is my first election i will be participating in. i think it's important to be involved, especially with out and -- without an incumbent. i'd a friend who went to the polls on tuesday and said it was the most crowded it ever been. >> the reason why had decided to vote in this primary election is because this election season has probably for most people been the most captivating ever. i feel like it's important to be represented in the election process. >> i'm voting in the selection because with the extreme racial disparity in this country and economic inequality, it is essential that we ch

. >> john marshall said in marbury versus madison says the constitution is a political document.setups the political structures, but it's also a law. and if it's a law, we have the courts to tell what it means and that's binding on the other branches. >> what sets dread scott apart is the fact that it is the ultimate anti-press dential case. it's exactly what you don't want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates. >> each week, american history tv's american artifacts visits museums and historic places. up next, a visit to the national museum of the american jewish history in philadelphia. to learn about their poor exhibition, tracing the history of the jewish people in america from 1654 to the present day. this is part one of a two-part program. >> welcome to the national museum of jewish american history in philadelphia, pennsylvania. i name is claire pingle. i'm the associate curator her s at the museum. i'm happy to give you a tour today. the museum was started in 1976 by one of the five original jewish congregations that date back to the colonial period.

. >> john marshall in marbury vs. madison said this is different.he constitution is a political document. it sets up the political structures. it is also a law. and if it's a law, we have the courts to tell what it means and that's on the other branches. >> the fact that it is the ultimate antiprecedential case. it is exactly what you don't want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? in lochner, vs. new york the supreme court said it should make those decisions of the debates. >> tonight we'll look at the case that struck down many state and federal regulations on working conditions that violated the 14th amendment's guaranteed liberty of contract, lochner v. new york tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. >> i am a history buff. i do enjoy seeing the fabric of our country and how things work and how they're made. >> i love american history tv. american artifacts. the presidency. they're fantastic shows. >> it's something i'd really enjoy. i had no idea they had history. >> with american history tv it gives you

. >> john marshall said this is different in marbury versus madison. because addition sets up the political structures but it's also the law and if it's the law we have the courts tell us what it means and that's binding on the other branches. >> what sets it apart is the fact that it's the ultimate anti-presidential case. >> who should make the decisions about this debate. the supreme court said it should make the decisions about those things. tonight on the special primetime edition of booktv nonfiction authors on international affairs next, julian borger on his book

the supreme court observed in the famous case of marbury versus madison that the constitution is written down so that these limits will be neither mistaken nor forgotten and is continueded to govern courts as much as legislatures. the activist judges that liberals favor reject those limits. they look at written laws such as the constitution and statutes merely as a starting point, as words without any real meaning. their oath to support and defend the constitution is really an oath to support and defend themselves, since in the long run their constitution is one of their own making. so i'm hardly surprised that today democrats and their left-wing allies turn to a fictional constitution when telling the senate to do its job. that constitution, however, simply does not exist. the real constitution, madam president, leads to the president and to -- leaves to the president and to the senate the decision about how to exercise their respective powers in the appointment process. what is the senate's job regarding the scalia vacancy? the senate's job is to determine the best way to exercise its