guest: there's a gentleman -- host: there's a gentleman named matthew frank writing for national review. let's take your analysis of the approach of the op-ed. he had said that the admin meant on the 14th amendment, doesn't actually protect any voting rights by any direct enforcement action by the federal government? it's the worst kind of "keeping the constitution into with the nonsense to say that today's male citizens over 21 mean all eligible voters as they claim." guest: to put it gently, he is wrong for a couple of reasons. first, the reference in section leo was to mail citizens -- ma citizens. franchised was changed, legitimately so in my opinion, perfectly good thing. amendment, the fact that the reference there is the male citizens does not -- how the constitution works. the other point remains, which is frank lee silly, is that he does not see much of an opportunity for judicial enforcement. that's not necessarily true, but there are numerous provisions in the constitution that are not provisionally enforceable. they can be something that the judiciary is not equipped to enfo

guest: there's a gentleman -- host: there's a gentleman named matthew frank writing for national review. let's take your analysis of the approach of the op-ed. he had said that the admin meant on the 14th amendment, doesn't actually protect any voting rights by any direct enforcement action by the federal government? it's the worst kind of "keeping the constitution into with the nonsense to say that today's male citizens over 21 mean all eligible voters as they claim." guest: to put it gently, he is wrong for a couple of reasons. first, the reference in section leo was to mail citizens -- ma citizens. franchised was changed, legitimately so in my opinion, perfectly good thing. amendment, the fact that the reference there is the male citizens does not -- how the constitution works. the other point remains, which is frank lee silly, is that he does not see much of an opportunity for judicial enforcement. that's not necessarily true, but there are numerous provisions in the constitution that are not provisionally enforceable. they can be something that the judiciary is not equipped to enfo

guest: there's a gentleman -- host: there's a gentleman named matthew frank writing for national review. let's take your analysis of the approach of the op-ed. he had said that the admin meant on the 14th amendment, doesn't actually protect any voting rights by any direct enforcement action by the federal government? it's the worst kind of "keeping the constitution into with the nonsense to say that today's male citizens over 21 mean all eligible voters as they claim." guest: to put it gently, he is wrong for a couple of reasons. first, the reference in section leo was to mail citizens -- ma citizens. franchised was changed, legitimately so in my opinion, perfectly good thing. amendment, the fact that the reference there is the male citizens does not -- how the constitution works. the other point remains, which is frank lee silly, is that he does not see much of an opportunity for judicial enforcement. that's not necessarily true, but there are numerous provisions in the constitution that are not provisionally enforceable. they can be something that the judiciary is not equipped to enfo