patrick morrisey, what are you doing to protect this monument? dedicated to ensuring that this cross, the peace cross has the ability to stay because the implications for the entire country are very significant. all states across the country actually possess memorials that honor the dead and there were quite a few cross memorials. what we're arguing here is that this specific memorial passes the first amendment test. it has a secular purpose for a long period of time in the implications if the plaintiffs are successful would be that you'd have to literally raised tons of crosses down across the country. these are memorials meant to honor the dead. we think the first amendment allows these crosses to remain and we think that the position being espoused here on the other side is pretty extreme. charles: the administrative ruling, what was that based on? is it on public land using public money, how does this decision come about in the first place? >> most of the focus has been that the nature of the memorial because i think the court wrongly conclud

west virginia attorney general patrick morrisey says changing the definition of "waters of the unitedprovide more clarity and control for landowners." with the obama administration they were trying to dramatically expand the definition of what the epa and the army corps could regulate."the epa says the proposal would also reduce permitting fees and barriers to economic development for farmers and developers.but environmentalist worry the change could increase water pollution.a number of concerned environmental are referring to this as the the dirty water rule.melanie benesh with the environmental working group believes the saftey of recreational areas as well as drinking water is at stake.she says removing federal protections would have a negative impact on communities. what that does is put a bigger burden on the state and a bigger burden on the local communities that have to clean up that water. the public can also weigh in on the debate over federallly protected waterways.the epa will have a 60 day public comment period about the proposed change.in washington brie jackson. ( darya

west virginia attorney general patrick morrisey says changing the definition of "waters of the unitedtes" would provide more clarity and control for landowners." with the obama administration they were trying to dramatically expand the definition of what the epa and the army corps could regulate."the epa says the proposal would also reduce permitting fees and barriers to economic development for farmers and developers.but environmentalist worry the change could increase water pollution.a number of concerned environmental are referring to this as the the dirty water rule.melanie benesh with the environmental working group believes the saftey of recreational areas as well as drinking water is at stake.she says removing federal protections would have a negative impact on communities. what that does is put a bigger burden on the state and a bigger burden on the local communities that have to clean up that water. the public can also weigh in on the debate over protected waterways.the epa will have a 60 day public comment period about the proposed change.in washington brie jackson. (vicki)

would patrick morrisey beaten ma manchin? the mandate and the market place, those things have to be worked out. that is up to economists. as a political proposition, it is the requirement, regulations, the patient's bill of rights concept that includes the fact you have to write policies for people who have pre-existing conditions and you can't charge them that much more. in that one case, just west virginia alone, morrissey, signature to the lawsuit, joe manchin used that effectively against him and said he wants to take away your rights as a patient and consumer. as fok news analysis showed, for people living in bright red states, in texas, in kansas, some place like that, it is pretty republicany and people don't like the law, that is probably, this is probably not that catastrophic, but for a lot of republican politicians, this is terrible, now they have to fashion, conceivably -- >> dana: do something. >> have to fashion something, they demonstrated in 2017, that ain't so easy. >> dana: the editorial page writing today p

joining us now is west virginia attorney general patrick morrisey.is leading the 30 state charge to protect the memorial for fred edwards, former executive director of the american humanist association and a plaintiff in the case. fred, i want to start with you. why are you against a memorial that honors those who paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect freedom like the first amendment? >> because we want to honor them all. that is our main thrust. we even have a hashtag, #honorthemall. it because we feel, and we recognize, that a 40-foot tall latin cross on government land broadcast clearly that only christian soldiers are being honored. >> lisa: fred, it is honoring all of the men who died, listed on that memorial. how is it honoring them to remove it? that doesn't make any sense, despite your hashtag. >> in 1985, the cross was declared to be in honor of all veterans of all wars. all veterans were not christians. all veterans include muslims, hindus, buddhists,, atheists, everybody. we wanted to honor them all. that is the whole point of our case. >