thehe other hand, if -- if state loses, the state can appeal. so this is a one-way ratchet as it favors the state, and allows governors and other constitutional officers in different states to thwart the initiative process. >> that's the -- that's the way the california supreme court saw it with respect to california law. the governor and the attorney general of california are elected to act in the best interests of the state of california. they made a professional judgment given their obligations as officers of the state of california. the california supreme court has said that proponents -- and by the way, only four of the five are here. dr. tam withdrew from the case because of some -- many things he said during the election campaign. >> well, mr. olson, is it your position that the only people who could defend a ballot, a law that's adopted in california through the ballot are the attorney general and the governor, so that if the attorney general and the governor don't like the ballot initiative, it will go undefended? is that your position?

law state than a common law state. and congress didn't want to have an artificial incentive for states to move from common law to community property; it wanted to treat citizens the same way no matter what state they were in. so it said, we will give a uniform federal deduction based on marriage, and i think what that shows is that when the federal government gets involved in the issue of marriage, it has a particularly acute interest in uniform treatment of people across state lines. so ms. windsor wants to point to the unfairness of the differential treatment of treating two new york married couples differently, and of course for purposes of new york law that's exactly the right focus, but for purposes of federal law it's much more rational for congress to -- to say, and certainly a rational available choice, for congress to say, we want to treat the same-sex couple in new york the same way as the committed same-sex couple in oklahoma and treat them the same. or even more to the point for purposes >> but that's beggi

state costs will be much less, but there will be additional costs facing the states.an additional increase in folks using medicaid is about 21.3 million people. a 41% increase compared to projected levels without the affordable care act. that is according to the kaiser commission on medicaid and uninsured numbers. i want to get some questions on this from the viewers. steven is on the democratic line. good morning. caller: i am calling to say it is a great time to expand medicaid with the dow been above 14,000 and with a lot of our enemies being either dead or in jail. now is the time to expand our borders. social security needs to be expanded. people have been suffering enough on these programs. it is time to strike while the iron is hot. do you know what i am saying? guest: the caller has articulated one compelling side of this argument. the potential to expand health benefits within individual states is a houston lawyer for the states, especially when you consider the fact that the federal government is promising to pick up a majority of the costs. on the other sid

do you and somebody lives in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage but they get married in a state that. will be able to file federal tax returns no married couple no and i you know if you get married in the state that has marriage right now you still can't file federal taxes. but that's because you don't that's because the doma right so you are really restricted to whatever benefits you get in this state that you got married in maryland maryland law outside of maryland there's no protections for you joe thank you both thank you for. the talk more about today's supreme court hearing and its potential outcomes in tonight's lone liberal rumble coming up after the break. wealthy british scientists are. writing for. the market why not. come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike stronger for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into the report. a little worse if you're going to take. the white house to give it to the radio guy for a minute because they all want to call for a politics because you've never seen anything like this on

first factor of course is that the united states has been blocking a settlement of the conflict both in the general assembly and also in the security council so you have there you'd have to say you have a very significant obstacle namely the united states government. the second significant obstacle or inhibiting factor is the fact that the powers to news themselves are not now on the move in a state of mind a spirit to organize civil rights this is civil resistance which is the only thing that can possibly. force israel to withdraw or a combination of mass resistance of the power people in concert with support from the united nations support from the international community's support for public opinion which would isolate the united states and i think force news really withdrawal can only happen if it starts among the powers to people it's basically the same situation as in south africa during the apartheid era it's true in the case of south africa there was huge international support of the anti-apartheid movement there was a lot of action activity in the united nations but the main

our state that is the lowest of the 10 most populous states. our rainy day fund allows us to even out our spending. we have a balanced budget and because our expenses. he absolutely strong successes what i call a u-haul test. going from texas to california is double then the other way. apply thee try to business of rigid the lessons of business -- we tried to apply the lessons of business. the fed can and to keep putting cash. when they get it wrong they hire more people and tighten the noose. market forces drive out incompetents into private-sector everywhere except for washington. lessons learned are big government is not your friend if you are a risk taker. what works in the spirit of entrepreneurship, innovation, etcetera people migrate towards success. levels ofes to all cities, counties, -- and engage in partnership with your citizens. keep your books and your mind open. be sure you do not fall into a trap. operators at u-haul are waiting for your call. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much. i would like as congressmen pearce to take

these are state obligations, this a state matter. but so it becomes hard to nationalize it but i do think either you trust people or you don't. and the one thing i will say which is just an interesting empirical point. these efforts in places like pennsylvania, trying to restrict voting were so completely counterproductive i have to think one of the reasons minority part participation was so approximatelyically high this time was because there was a reaction against these things. i think any party, especially the republican party would be approximatelyically stupid, let alone the fairness issue, to ever try this again. >> well. >> i mean, invincible stupidity is not a stranger in american poll-- politics. >> woodruff: there is everything invincible about the two of you, mark shields, david brook, thank you. mark and and mark and david keep up the talk, on the "doubleheader," recorded in our newsroom. that will be posted at the top of the rundown later tonight. >> brown: again, the major developments of the day: the final hours ticked

the european union in the united states and other states condemn. the extension of settlements but they don't do anything about it language is not. translated into action and what one really needs is firm action on the subject of settlements and i believe that if the international criminal court were to initiate investigation that would send out a message loud and clear to those israelis responsible for the settlement program and for those settlers in the occupied territory that what they are doing is an international crime but what happens to the israeli farmer that's worked hard over many years in some cases to build up a farm to see just lose his land lose his farm well i think it's essential to see israel's settlement policy as a form of colonialism so during the colonial period call in the settled in territories started farms and enterprises and windy colonization came they had the choice to either went back to the mother country or they stayed on and lived under the. new sovereign power and that essentially the choice that settlers would have

on the states.representative hawken said, i don't believe this is what north dakota ns want. thesedisgusting legislators have allowed this to happen in our state. >> thank you, tammi kromenaker, speaking to us from prairie public broadcasting in fargo, north dakota. thank you to longtime representative kathy hawken, speaking to us from the dakota media access, community tv station that also broadcasts "democracy now!" [captioning made possible by democracy now!]

but even that kind of a decision would not preclude us going from state to state and flipping states one by one, under either a state constitutional provisions or through the legislature. >> so i know you're planning on going to oral arguments tomorrow. what do you expect to know after the oral arguments? what are you watching for? what should we be looking for when we release the tape, in terms of either tipping their hand about which way they're going to go, or what might be important in their ruling? >> one important thing to look for is the off-ramp, which is the big kind of standing issue, which is, are the right people bringing this case? so one of the ways in which the supreme court could kick this case, without having to reach the merits of the case, is to say, this case may be meritorious or not, but the wrong parties appealed this. it should have been the governor of california or the california attorney general, since they declined to appeal. the proponents of prop 8 are the ones that are the improper parties that are going to kick it and it guess back down to the district

by state, states deciding for themselves, that is where this debate belongs. this is not something that should be imposed by the judiciary, by the court. returns tois issue the legislature and the representatives were belongs. >> one of the big issues in this case is the integrity not only of states' rights, but the integrity of the initiative process. if it is determined the initiatives passed by voters can be vetoed by that government then that would be a fatal blow to the initiative process. >> think we're done? >> yes. >> yes? the ideahat leave open that this is a state issue and will be a referendum again in other states? >> i am not going to make a prediction on that. thank you for your question. can you talk about -- they were asking about the harm that would be done by asking same-sex couples to marry. what is your answer? >> briefly but, i'll make a small exception talk about the merits -- both sides have agreed in this case that it's impossible to know with any certainty the changes that would be worked on society by redefining a fundamental change i

coming into the united states. he was clearly anti-cinematic. ultimately he does get discredited and was forced out, but not before he shut down immigration to the united states. >> host: professor allan lichtman, what did the group america first, what was there involvement in jewish immigration to the united states? >> guest: they were not primarily to learn. and america was formed during the war to prevent america from getting involved. even if britain was about to go down to fall to germany, they said america should not get involved in this war under any circumstances. their absolute isolationists. their famous spokesperson was none other than the great american hero, charles lindbergh , the man who flew solo across the atlantic. in 1941, he gave a controversial speech in des moines, iowa in which he said un-american influences are pushing us into the water and specifically stated britain and the jews. so the jews represented in the forefront by the chief spokesperson for america first as a primary force for pus

on the other hand, if the state loses, the state can appeal. so this is a one-way ratchet as it favors the state, and allows governors and other constitutional officers in different states to thwart the initiative process. >> that's the -- that's the way the california supreme court saw it with respect to california law. the governor and the attorney general of california are elected to act in the best interests of the state of california. they made a professional judgment given their obligations as officers of the state of california. the california supreme court has said that proponents -- and by the way, only four of the five are here. dr. tam withdrew from the case because of some -- many things he said during the election campaign. >> well, mr. olson, is it your position that the only people who could defend a ballot, a law that's adopted in california through the ballot initiative are the attorney general and the governor, so that if the attorney general and the governor don't like the ballot initiative, it will go undefended? is that you

assistant secretary of state for public affairs p.j. crowley resigned from the obama administration after making comments regarding the military detention of whistleblower private bradley manning an open forum crowley said that manning streetman was quote ridiculous counterproductive and stupid and since his resignation crowley has been outspoken not only about bradley manning but also about the effects of the u.s. drone program in countries like pakistan and yemen well earlier today i had the chance to speak with p.j. crowley and self i first asked him about what he saw that made him want to speak out about manning and here's what he had to say. the last thing that the united states needed was another story a negative story about detention policy particularly one involving our own soldiers . it was creating a significant international controversy that was point of contention between the united states and the united nations over access to bradley manning and i thought that this dynamic was actually undercutting the credibility of with a

that is the reality of the situation if you go state-by- state.t will be 50 years of people waiting to get those basic kinds of equality. that is the reason why civil- rights movements are entitled to go to the supreme court and say, this kind of discrimination ought to be taken off the table. it is unacceptable and not justified under the standards it applies. that is what the plaintiffs in the doma case andy perry case have done. and the doma case is even weirder. these are people who were married in their states. >> the state of new york would have recognized the marriage. >> there are people who dispute it. but now the governor of the state of new york. >> it was not settled in 2009 when the woman died. many any rate, there were people married under their state. >> why should those people have to come to congress in order to be treated with minimal debates ebright their own government when their state have married them? >> i think that brings the question of of minimal dignity. this gets to the whole question of exactly what doma does, which p

>>next state to legalize gay marriage. >> what state? >> illinois. >> susan. >> immigration reform is going to run into big trouble in congress. >> really. mort. >> what i think the economy is going to remain >>> i predict that president abi of japan trying to revitalize his economy by loosening its grip on inflation will overshoot. he will go into debt, it will go into debt

then let's proceed state-by- state. let's look at it state-by-state. that is what we normally do, not as a block. i do not know how satisfactory that answer is. i want to know what your responses -- if he is right, if he is right that there is an irrationality involved if you were writing it today in a treating state a that is not more discriminatory than massachusetts, if that is true you would respond state-by- state? or is this a matter we should consider on its face? i want to hear what you think about that. >> let me give two responses, justice breyer. the first focuses on the practical operation of the law. the consequences that flow from it. i do not think that shelby county or alabama ought to be able to bring a successful challenge against this law on the basis that it ought not to have covered arizona or alaska. the statute has a bailout mechanism. those jurisdictions can try to avail themselves of it. and if they do and it does not work, they may very well have an as applied challenge they can bring to the law. but that does not justify, giv

christie and bob mcdonald in blue states. like new jersey, purple states like virginia. down the ground game. national, 50-state strategy, we didn't have to go through the hoopla of press conferences, we just went out and did the heavy work of rebuilding the party. coming off of massive losses in 2006 and 2008. so raince is just being silly. i understand that, he wasn't complaining about debt and concern about debt when i was writing checks to wisconsin when he was chairman and wanted to win the state legislature, which they did. win the governorship, which they did. we focused both at the federal and the state level. and at the end of the day, the members were all on board about going into debt to win. now the rnc had a surplus, they had money in the bank at the end of the 2012 cycle. but they had nothing to show for it you lose eight house seats, you don't win the white house, when you should, that to me is more than enough evidence of what's wrong. there's no message, there's no focus -- calling this an autopsy, if you want to talk about branding? well that's some sma

41 states that currently ban same sex marriage. three, the court could side step the merits itself and decide that once a state has offered gay couples the same rights as straight couples such as in a domestic partnership there is no reason to deny the status of marriage. this kind of ruling would affect the eight states with civil union laws including california. they treat same sex couples like straight couples in all ways but one. four, the justices could agree with the lower court cans ruling that once a state has allowed same sex couples to marry and given them all the rights of straight couples there is no legal justification for taking away that right as proposition 8 did casting a ruling this way would only affect california. five, the court could dismiss the appeal on grounds that the backers of the proposition don't have legal standing to challenge the lower court's ruling. in this situation the appeals court ruling could be vacated on the same grounds letting the district's ruling stand marriages to start here in califor

or they could rule congress should let the states decide in matters of state law.r they could rule on a range of many other legal theories. but there is a considerable generation gap. while 73% of adults under the age of 29 believe same-gender marriage should be legal, opposition grows as people age. only 35%f americans over the age of 65 support it. the average age of the justices is extensive. >> so how much the average age of the justices being 67 and that age group more likely to be antigaye marriage or antigay rights, how much are the justices going to take into account the cultural shift? and what do we learn from their questions this week about the cultural shift? >> there has certainly been a cultural shift if for no other reason people are exposed to same-sex marriage in a positive way. anyone who watches prime time television or the movies has been exposed to this, and i don't think that's a bad thing. i think what's interesting with the. is jusopinion is how prahm dramt is. i heard i pugh research that showed 58% of americans supported same-sex marriage

there is the 50 states. everyone has a fundamental right to marriage. >> the ninth circuit when it struck down prop 8 tried to craft an opinion that was particular to prop 8 to keep the supreme court at bay. the fact at least four justices thought they should take the case, suggested that was not an entirely successful effort. i don't think the court is really anxious to weigh into this thicket. something is trying to stack the deck all together by finding they don't have standing may be attractive. >> the interesting thing here for me is that when you pair doma with -- the federal policy -- with the very california specific ruling about prop 8 that the appellate court wrote, really just for california, that ruling, if the supreme court were to strike down doma and prop 8, that would be an incremental step relative to the 50-state solution. >> if they don't strike down doma on some broad ground. >> nobody as you pointed out, scott, nobody will be able to get newly married of same-sex couples if dome an mafal

guest: it is going to vary state by state. insurance companies will bid against each other for access to the market. some states will be passive and see any interest company can come on in and we will give consumers the maximum for its possible and hope that their competition drive down costs. host: states are going to be controlling whatever this setup? guest: affectively, yes. what affordable care act provides for is in states where they exist, the federal government can and build their own exchanges and operate them early on. there will be stayed input. host: 17 states and dc will establish a state-based exchanges. 26 states will likely default to the federal exchange. explain the difference between a state-based exchange and a federal exchange. guest: the consumers may not see much at a distance -- see much of the difference. the one state by and, they want states to have a stake in the outcome. they know who the players are and they have been regulating insurers in their states for years. i think the obama administration

president barack obama is about to visit the state of israel the first time during his time in office the so-called peace process we're told is not on the agenda so what is the real purpose of the visit around syria to cope with what i call the great unraveling in the arab muslim world what does obama hope to achieve beyond paying his respects. to cross obama's upcoming visit to israel i'm joined by norman finkelstein a new york political analyst and an author and in amman we haven't we robin he is coeditor of. gentlemen you can jump in anytime you want you know crosstalk rules maureen if i can go to you first i mean why is obama going to the middle east now what does he want to achieve. it doesn't appear that he's trying to achieve anything people who know us foreign policy much better than i have suggested that the purpose of the visit is simply to visit and to check that box and to be able to demonstrate that he's been to israel and to get out of the way at the beginning of his term and that doesn't certainly as as you yourself mentioned the so-called peace process is not on the ag

then let's proceed state by state. let's look at it state by state. that's what we normally do, not as applied. all right. now, i don't know how satisfactory that answer is. i want to know what your response is as to whether we should -- if he's right --if he's right that there is an irrationality involved if you were writing it today in treating state a, which is not too discriminatorily worse than apparently massachusetts or something. all right? so -- so if that's true, do we respond state by state? or is this a matter we should consider not as applied, but on its face? i just want to hear what you think about that. >> let me give two responses, justice breyer. the first is one that focuses on the practical operation of the law and the consequences that flow from it. i do not think that shelby county or alabama ought to be able to bring a successful facial challenge against this law on the basis that it ought not to have covered arizona or alaska. the statute has bailout mechanism. those jurisdictions can try to avail themselves of it. and if they

states. it's become clear to me, if it wasn't clear before, that there are cultural differences in america between those people who have grown one guns and know how to use them. they are comfortable with them, they use them safely for hunting or recreation or self-defense. and then there are other people who are scared by guns because they've never been around one. perhaps they live in an urban area where the only gun they see or hear of is one in the hands of someone committing a crime. so i think first of all i would just say in an aeffort to legitimate for the entire united states in a one size fits all proposal is a mistake. and i would say that this is not a ban on weapons. the senator from california who i have great admiration and respect and affection for acknowledged that this legislation does nothing to deal with the fact that many of these weapons which will now be outlawed are already in the hands of law abiding american citizens. so it is not a ban. it sls not -- what it does imp

kim and a state have the power, or is obligated, to give a state driver's license?ederal license. the driver's license is controlled by the state's deep policy is controlled by the fed. the governor had to take this position because her state suffers the most from the immigration problem. lou: absolutely. the states of arizona has been upheld in the majority he had to defend state law before the supreme court. i want to bring the audience up to date that is not being reported. with a deferred order by president obama, only three states permit drivers licenses for illegal immigrants but as many as 40 states are now interpreting the deferred deportation order to confer that right day make moves to pass that into w as the executive order or a change as a result of the deportation order it is a startling trend or attention is not brought to either. now let's turn to the export -- expert witness what you make of this man? has he destroyed single-handedly whenever there was for the defense? >> he tries to find any reasonable doubt and says there is a possibility there is

the state has interest in defending the law. are startingts interest to the state. the concern is about how society and the institution of marriage will be damaged by this radical definition. >> you agree that moral disapproval as off the table? we are not going to criminalize a homosexual activity. we cannot do that. we disapprove of its. we are not going to allow same- sex couples to call themselves married because we disapprove. >> moral disapproval has nothing bases for these defending traditional marriage. are there some voters who may have boded because of proposition 08 because of moral disapproval? it goes both ways. of course people will have a mixed motives. think the states in the house report and on the floor are off the table? not consider them? of course a lot of this will tie into which standard of review the court and adopting. when you have plenty of statements in the congressional record discussing the importance of uniform eligibility it is weird cherry picking to say we will give decisive wait to these one or two or three statements. >> one or tw

just this past november four states very liberal states voted on this issue.lost all four of those votes. but my side had 45%, 46% of the vote in all four of those liberal states. in fact, those marriage amendments that i supportd that would keep marriage for a man and woman outran mitt romney in the four libertarians ra libern average of 4 points. and then. >> chris: i have to go to nicolle. how important do you think same-sex marriage is as a gateway issue for republicans maintaining credibility with new younger voters? >> i think what is most important is that the debate remains civilized and that it remains intellectual and remains the debate about the role of marriage in our life and we have to have room in our party for both mr. bauer and me. >> chris: on that note of unusual agreement, thank you both. thanks for talking with us and we will hear what the justices have to say when they consider these two cases this week. thank you both for coming in. >> thank you. >> chris: up next we will continue the discussion with the sunday group. will the supreme co

state. the legislators in the kircher case had no individual particularized injury, but this court recognized they were proper representatives of the state's interests. >> at least one of them has suggested that it seems counterintuitive to think that the state is going to delegate to people who do not have a fiduciary duty to them. that is going to delegate a responsibility of representing the state to individuals who have their own views. they proposed the ballot initiative because it was their own individual views, not necessarily that of the state. scalia offered the question of the attorney general. the attorney general has no personal interest. >> true. >> though he has a fiduciary obligation. >> the attorney general, whether a fiduciary obligation or not, is in normal circumstances the representative state to defend the ability of the state enactments when they are challenged in federal court. but when an officer does not do so, the state shirley hawes -- surely has every authority an

>> it's not even just the numbers, but the fact it's in all 50 states, red and blue states, rural communitiesnd progressive communities, it's catholics, it's people everywhere. and i think that that's something the court looks at. they look at what america thinks, and america is ready for marriage equality. >> and the ruling will not come out until late june. jimmy, if we look at the attorneys involved in this case, the ones who are arguing on the side, on one side, we have chuck cooper. on the other side, ted olson, along with boyes. both arguing prop 8 should be struck down just as another landmark ruling, loving versus virginia, which overturned a state ban on interracial marriage. 30 states have amendments banning marriage equality. what will those states be watching for in today's arguments? >> i think it's up to the supreme court justices. they'll decide whether everyone should be treateded equally under the law or not. i think that we've even seen, going back to public opinion, polling in states that have a ban on same-sex marriage, ohio 53%, a poll showed yesterday they favor reversin

and this is also there it's setting up a local think tank state state by state think tanks tell us about that's right and several states in louisiana they set up a new one just in the last couple years called the pelican institute but in other places they took existing state think tanks the mackinaw center in michigan. some of the pacific rim. center in california and they've expanded them they've added huge new grants to hire some of these reporters to hire more political operatives to really expand their operations and put more pressure on the state legislatures and the state governors who is the. well you know i talked to the state policy network and they said today that you know their people have no coordinated agenda but if you look at the last four years and i listened to some of their kind of strategy meetings they're clearly going after after unions they're talking about consolidating power by and acting with these voter id laws going after acorn this kind of pave the way before james o'keefe and really just even the gerrymandering issue that these kind of absurdly drawn congress

states marry people. but whether you are married and not makes a difference in a lot of different federal context. there are over 100 federal laws that depend on some way whether you are married or not. your social security benefits, your driver benefits, whether you get to family medical leave to take care of your spouse, whether you're federal government recognizes your spouse is your spouse. and yes, taxes change as well. at the same time, there are 130,000 married same-sex couples in the united states today who doma says requires the federal government to treat those 130,000 married same-sex couples as unmarried in each of those federal context. that is what caused what happened to edie to happen, that she was treated as on married -- unmarried although she spent 40 years with the woman who became her spouse. they spent time together, good times and bad, in sickness and health, just like any married couple, and for the federal government to pretend there marriage does not exist is unfair, un-american,

the less perceived state-by-state. let's look at a state-by-state. that's what we normally do.now i don't know how satisfied are you that answer is. i want to know which are responses, if he's right, that there is an irrationality involved if you're writing it today in treating stay day, not to to massachusetts or something. so if that's true, do we respond state-by-state? or is this a matter we should consider not a supplied, but on its face. i want to hear what you think about that. >> to make it to responses, justice breyer. the first one focuses on the operation of the law and the consequences that flow from it. i do not think shelby county or alabama got to bring a successful challenge on the basis that it ought not to have covered arizona or alaska. the statute has been a mechanism. those jurisdictions can build themselves out of it and if they do and it doesn't work, they may very well have a challenge they can bring to the law. that doesn't justify given the structure of the law that there's a tailored mechanism. >> i don't understand the distinction between facial and

>> well, kenya is a strategic partner to the united states as was stated earlier, it is a key ally in our fight against terrorism in the region. many will remember that our embassies were bombed in 1998 by terrorists come it out of somalia. kenyan forces are in somalia fighting against those very same terrorist organizations. it also is a economic hub in east africa so many american businesses like ford and others are based there. general electric. and so it's key to the region as a whole and the neighboring countries like south sudan which we've played such an important role diplomatically in trying to bring peace there rely on kenya and its ports. >> ifill: you know something of uhuru kenyatta. what do we know about him other than he's the son of a very famous leader of the country, a very wealthy man and now under this cloud. >> he's also very much a person who respects the west. he was educated in the united states. he's been pro western in his outlook. he's been the minister of finance before and the deputy prime minister. he's always had strong relations with the united states.

two states, two states have legalized the recreational use of marijuana.rado and washington . colorado collects more than $5 million in sales, $5 million in sales from dispensaries, pot dispensaries, marijuana. washington is reportedly collecting some $750,000 in taxes, although they have been having trouble getting dispensaries registered with the state. it is affecting their revenue. pot smokers procrastinating. hard to imagine. well, regarding that $13 billion pornography industry, 13 billion. california is earning about $36 million per year just in revenue from the porn industry. it's worth about a billion dollars overall to the economy, just in southern california. well we are on the subject of sex in addition to the so-called vice taxes, some states are actually putting -- imposing taxes. in illinois requiring the strip club operators to impose a $3 charge for their customers the tax is expected to raise a million dollars annually. texas has also got eight vice tax. it is a little different. a little bigger deal in texas. $5. they are getting jus

coming up a state of the state's execution in which he highlight the low lights.her words road trip. a reminder that saying what will they think of next only temps fate. and small government legislatures doing their best to ignore the constitution and force big government on women. and some good news for you, texas is on its way to becoming a blue state at which point i expect the republican defender of the electoral college system will say, you know we need to talk. it's "the war room" on a wednesday, and we will be right back. ♪ billy zane stars in barabbas. coming in march to reelz. to find reelz in your area, go to reelz.com um, hello. these ugly stains are ruining my good looks and style. and good luck using that cleaner. excuse me, miss ? he's right. those are tough hard water stains, and that cleaner's not gonna cut it. truth is, 85% of us have hard water and many don't even know it. you need lime-a-way. lime-a-way is specially formulated to conquer hard water stains. it's 4 times more effective at removing lime scale than the leading bathroom cleaner. see

my state legislature is trying to fix that problem by requiring my state law enforcement division by taking all of these adjudications and putting them into the system. we have thousands of people out there who have had their day in different courts and have been found to be dangerous to themselves and others and the system does know about them when it comes to gun purchases. this is one area we should be able to rally around. >> under the current law, this person would be allowed to go to a gun show to buy a gun. this does not change it. >> the question about regulating private sales at gun shows. one thing i will never be able to support this if i buy a shotgun for markell or given to a family member, -- shotguns for mark or give it to a family member, i will never put that into the federal system. taking private firearms to a public place -- i think that is a work in progress. i would add one that. in 2010, there were 76,000 people filled a background check. there will only about 62 prosecutions. 19% of those who failed a background check in 2010, 13,862 people for fugitive from j

>> the original intent of separation of church and state to protect the church, not the state.he real reason we wrote that, governor, we discovered on the journey for four years there is enormous biblical illiteracy. we are -- it is embarrassing being a young american who haven't learned the stories and you go to overseas and someone mentioned david and goliath and samp samp and you have no idea what is talked about. it is ridiculous as not knowing shakespeare. as literature it is literary malpractice. we are not suggesting, governor, that it should be taught in school as religion. we understand completely why that doesn't happen in public schoolings. but we do feel that it should be taught as literature. these stories are a fownation of western civilization, certainly this country . our money said in god we trust. our president had his hand on the bible. this time two biblings. these stories should be told. >> roma, you and mark are both believers and it is a challenging venture to take a spiritual message and put it in a very secular market place was network television. talk

it is a state. the two-state solution presumes that israel isn't already a state. and abbas has written that he will never recognize israel's sovereignty. and creating a two states will only give them cause to internationalize a legal conflict with israel. >> the reality as we know it now, this is not, i'm not really debating this particular question. it is israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu who does not truly accept what we call a settlement based on a two-state solution. an independent, viable state. for the palestinians, in the west bank and gaza and occupied east jerusalem in a viable independent israeli state in the very heart of the arab world. you're absolutely correct. israel is an independent state. the question to you and to many israelis, israel must embed itself in its environment. israel must be integrated into the region as a good citizen as long as the palestinians, and i'm both as a scholar of the middle east and also as an american. as long as the palestinians remain disinherited, they will be there peace and stability. israel is very powerf

no state that bans gay marriage now would have the ban overturned, it would mean no state that would allow gay marriage would have that overturned. no case that recognizes civil unions would forcibly have the civil unions converted to marriage either. that seems like maybe it could be the most likely outcome of today's case. honestly, who knows. ted olson, the lawyer, was asked after the arguments today what he thinks the court is going to do, having stood there, toe to toe with justices and talking to them an hour. he was asked what he thinks the justices are going to do, and his answer was, and i quote "no idea." we did get to hear the justices at lengths, not just on procedural issues, but also on gay rights. what they said was not only fascinating, but may have bigger implications for the other half of this issue, which will be heard tomorrow. tomorrow, it isn't a single state's ban up for review like today. tomorrow the arguments are about a federal law, the bill clinton defense of marriage act, doma. it says a marriage in any one state is a marriage everywhere in the u.s., for

the capital left up to the states. left up to the states. we have an extreme ideologist for a governor and he is not going to do it. we will be punished. i would love to hear your answers. guest: it has fallen to the states on things like medicaid expansion at how to setup exchanges. states were given a buy-in to the law. employers and coverage -- i think it is a fear that employers will drop coverage. there are certain penalties in place if they do. but there is a fear out there. it could become an unaffordable problem. this is something republicans warned against. host: paul ryan writes in today's "the wall street journal" about the budget he plans to unveil this morning and his ideas for medicare and medicaid. we will be covering that news conference here on c-span at 10:30 this morning. good morning. caller: good morning. i cannot understand how anybody can rationalize asking the government to do anything more than it is doing. it cannot pay for what it is supposed to be doing now. it is saying it has to tax us smart to get more revenue

law state than a common law state. and congress didn't want to have an artificial incentive for states to move from common law to community property -- it wanted to treat citizens the same way no matter what state they were in. so it said, we will give a uniform federal deduction based on marriage, and i think what that shows is that when the federal government gets involved in the issue of marriage, it has a particularly acute interest in uniform treatment of people across state lines. so ms. windsor wants to point to the unfairness of the differential treatment of treating two new york married couples differently, and of course for purposes of new york law that's exactly the right focus, but for purposes of federal law it's much more rational for congress to -- to say, and certainly a rational available choice, for congress to say, we want to treat the same-sex couple in new york the same way as the committed same-sex couple in oklahoma and treat them the same. or even more to the point for purposes >> but that's beg

they want and need a state. requirements for a state are 67 borders and halt to settlement activity. the other piece here that obama said clearly, i think should give us some caution, is the palestinians should drop their push to push this to the united nations and do it through this direct dialogue and direct negotiations and dialogue. >> not very likely. >> that's never happened. we had 20 years of direct dialogue. it's never happened. the key for the u.n. so critical for palestinians is they could take their state hood to the international criminal court and get a directive on the international human rights issue and preoccupation an president obama said no. >> given what the professor has indicated, do you think there's any possibility obama makes any progress. if all the conditions ex-exist for successful negotiations for peace, does it bolster israelis there and america sympathizers with israel and also want to see a broader push for palestinian rights to be acknowledged? >> i think what we saw today was,