ms. elizabeth who is chief counsel of the constitutional accountability center here in washington d.c. we have mr. robert weiner who is a partner in our own supporter. we'd like to ask each of the witnesses to stand and be sworn in. please raise your right hand is where the testimony you are about to give before the committee is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> thank you very much. we'll start with you. >> please turn your microphone on. >> i was just talking about the importance of this committee and the city senators have already indicated that the real issue of this hearing is the rule of law. this is going to be a nation covered by law pursuant to prerogatives or is it going to be a political pursuit. i think that's what happened in this case. i don't think they interpreted the law but very dramatically revise the law. if you receive subsidies on exchange established by the state under section 1311 anyone who speaks english knows that's not a reasonable interpretation. the proponents have argued they can't this butte that the language command

ms. elizabeth b.ydra, chief counsel of the constitutional accountability center here in washington, d.c. and we have mr. robert weiner who is a partner at arnold & porter. i'd like to ask each of the witnesses to stand and be sworn in, please. will you raise your right hand? the t do you affirm the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, thetruth, t whole truth, and nothing but the truth?e so help you god. thank you very much. mr. carvin, we'll start with you. please turn your microphone on. >> is it on now? thank you. i was just talking about the about t importance of this hearing, as a number of senators have already indicated while the policy issues here are obviously very important, i think the real issue for this hearing is the rule of law. is this going to be a nation govern by laws enacted by this body pursuant to constitutional ed by co prerogatives or unelected bureaucrats?happen and i think that that's exactly what happened in this case. i think this is an extr

i, loretta elizabeth lynch. ms. lynch: i loretta elizabeth lynch. >> do solemnly swear.the united states. against all enemies. foreign and domestic. that i will bear true and faith and allegiance to the same. that i take this obligation freely. without any mental reservations. or purpose of evasion. and that i will well and faithfully discharge. the duties of the office. on which i am about to enter. so help you god. ms. lynch: so help me god. [cheers and applause] ms. lynch: well. so much to say, many people who mean so much to me. everyone here means something very special to me. and i thank you all. mr. president, thank you so much for your words and your presence here today. to say that my heart is full is such an understatement. but one does not get to this place, this department to this theater or this podium alone. and i'm no different. i owe thanks to so many whom i'm so pleased to be able to acknowledge here today. mr. president, thank you for your faith in asking me to lead the department that is the conscience of this nation, that represents more than any othe

ms. palmieri: he is an important progressive voice. we talked about elizabeth warren earlier. we have two other candidates on the democratic side there are strong progressive voices. we think this is all for the good. we think that the democratic primary in 2008 health to elect a democratic president in 2008 because there was so much coverage of democrats talking about this these issues host: i guess -- talking about these issues. host: i guess what i was asking is if it is stage-managed. if you are complicit? ms. palmieri: no. host: is cecilia here? she has a question. while she is doing that, someone else has a question. >> hi. you were sort of addressing this before that there has been a media lockdown, or there hasn't been one. one question i have about the medias relationship with the campaign, often we are hearing from a campaign official, or hearing things that are paraphrased and not quotable. why do you think the campaign team needs to be obscured in this way. ms. palmieri: this was raised to me this week by some of your colleagues. it is true across the board people

ms. palmieri: he is an important progressive voice. we talked about elizabeth warren earlier. we have two other candidates on the democratic side there are strong progressive voices. we think this is all for the good. we think that the democratic primary in 2008 helped to elect a democratic president in 2008 because there was so much coverage of democrats talking about this these issues. host: i guess what i was asking is if it is stage-managed. if you are complicit? ms. palmieri: no. it is never that interesting. host: is cecilia vega here? she has a question. while she is doing that, someone else has a question. >> hi. you were sort of addressing this before that there has been a media lockdown, or there hasn't been one. one question i have about the media's relationship with the campaign, often we are hearing from a campaign official, or hearing things that are paraphrased and not quotable. why do you think the campaign team needs to be obscured in this way? ms. palmieri: this was raised to me this week by some of your colleagues. it is true across the board, people default

ms. palmieri: of course, you have not seen the inside of it. host: what would i see? [laughter] host: it has been a lot written about said elizabetharren's affect. what she is thinking. mr. mook: senator warren has been a forceful advocate on economic issues. there have been a lot of people waiting in, which i think is great. the more debate, the better. we welcome that. she is one of many voices that is out there advocating to really reshuffle the deck. that is something you will hear hillary talk about tomorrow and in the coming weeks. there is a real sense that the deck is stacked against everyday people. they are working even harder but not seeing it in their paychecks. as i have said before, there is a desire out there for a leader that will go to bat and fight every day. there is a real distress about the paralysis in washington. the sense that stuff cannot get done, and people know they need someone with experience to cut through that and get things done. i think our party is really aligned around solving this problem, breaking the logjam so that the middle-class kid get ahead. host: what would be the ideal time to get sena

ms. palmieri: of course, you have not seen the inside of it. host: what would i see? [laughter] host: it has been a lot written about elizabeth warren's affect. what is derailed the about her being out there, her communication is affecting things? mr. mook: senator warren has been a forceful advocate on economic issues. there have been a lot of people waiting in, which i think is great. the more debate, the better. we welcome that. she is one of many voices that is out there advocating to really reshuffle the deck. that is something you will hear hillary talk about tomorrow and in the coming weeks. 22:23:23 this is a test caption from the national captioning institute. there is a real sense that the deck is stacked against everyday people. they are working even harder but not seeing it in their paychecks. as i have said before, there is a desire out there for a leader that will go to bat and fight every day. there is a real distress about the paralysis in washington. the sense that stuff cannot get done, and people know they need someone with experience to cut through that and get things done. i think our party is really aligned around solvin

elizabeth raised earlier. >> do we have other questions and comments? go right ahead. ms. rice: i want to dig in a little bit deeper on this sort of plaintext of the language issue. and, and alito focusing in the fair housing case on the fact that no, you just look at the plaintext of the law as it was written in 1968 and if the plaintext as it was written in 1968 did not mean to include disparate impact you cannot include disparate impact. in opposition to that, justice scalia went through a very, very long discussion on the fact that you have to look at the law holistically. you have to look at the law and all of its elements when you are trying to determine whether or not there was statutory intent for whatever the question is. and i think that is very important during back to the point that ann made earlier because in my mind if scalia votes against disparate impact he is going against the president that he has already set forth, the belief that he has already set forth. that really does raise for me the pretextual issue michelle but you were talking about, what is you

ms. warren wants the authority to hire f.c.c. commissioners she should first have to win a presidential election. "wall street journal" editorial board on the letter that elizabeth warren sent to the f.c.c. agenda stalls. two years later that pledge has been thwarted by bickering among the five members. couple of stories in the paper about the s.e.c. and this is another story that anthrax was sent to 51 more labs. pentagon saying that we expect this number to rise. that 51 is more than twice as many laboratories as previously believed. michael in byron, georgia you support legalizing marijuana. go ahead. caller: yes, ma'am. i've never heard of a domestic dispute because somebody smoked a joint, you know. i they legalize alcohol. marijuana has so many good benefits, you know. that little girl who was having all those seizures that chris christie denied getting the medical marijuana and she went from having 2000 a month to three a week. anything that's going to help somebody that much why would the government be oppose it? and all the tax money they make off it. that tax problem they say that we have, that would cure it. look at colorado. the money that they're ma