the lakes. that's not "constitution's" story. she's here on the coast, but eventually towards the end of the coast she does escape the blockades and meets the british one more time. this is a wonderful portrait of william bainbridge actually painted by sarah peele, one of the first female professional artists in our country, the daughter of charles wilson pierre, and there's a wonderful store we this portrait because it was owned by a family in maryland. they took a floral painting from the wall into the conservator to be cleaned, and the conservator called back and said which painting do you want cleaned? they thought they brought in only one painting, but this portrait was sealed behind another canvas. our best guess might be during the civil war when they weren't sure which way maryland would go, if a portrait of a northern officer might not be appreciated, so we think it was hidden for over 100 years. no dirt, no -- no trauma, so when they pulled it out, you have a beautiful portrait of can you see the ready cheeks of the capt

i think we've been a victim of the success of the constitution. it's been, as one historian said, a machine that goes of itself. and we have had the luxury as a people to just sit back, somewhat ignorant of the structures of government, and let the process of government go along with deciding to we may or may not vote at any give een lection. again, you know, voting was seen as this incredible privilege. it was incredible when people got to vote, and that there would be universal mail suffrage, and there was a big, radical innovation. we've lost that. we've lost that sense of excitement and innovation. >> gordon wood. >> i think the historians are in part responsible for the neglect of the constitution in at least at the university level, college level. i think people here owe you, they're very fortunate. you don't realize that throughout the country most undergraduate schools do not have courses on the constitution and haven't had them for at least half a century. i'll give you one fact that may be wrong, but it's my impression. the women married

said the constitution meant. and i also was motivated to write the book because the charge in the constitution itself. the founding generation that the constitution to their posterity which is often a word we don't use. that is to us. and we have a sacred trust to know what that constitution means, to understand it, to read it, to digest it. and so, again, by doing this, i hope the american people would do that if there were students of the constitution. oftentimes you hear different ideas about the constitution. some will say, the constitution is an elastic document. you can read into it, it is terrible. it has words, and you can read these words, but we have to go beyond that because that is what this supreme court judge or this constitutional scholar says that it means. and then you have those that say the constitution is a living document. the constitution is what it says. you cannot go beyond that. and so we should interpret the constitution literally. and there is this big debate. and people get confused. wh

washington for the constitution of the united states. the ship gained fame during the war of 1812, defeating british war ships in three sea battles and earning the nickname old iron sides. american history tv visited the uss constitution museum in boston located at the same pier where the ship is docked today. the museum's president, anne grimes rand, gave us a tour of some of the museum's exhibits and artifacts which trace the history of the ship from the construction to its role in the war of 1812 to the present day. >> welcome to the "uss constitution" museum. my name is anne games rand. i'm the president of the museum, and i'm pleased to be able to share some of the stories of "constitution's" fascinating career with you. we're here on the first floor of the museum, and the exhibit about me is about "old ironsides" in war & peace. for over 200 years "uss constitution" has been a part of our navy, and if you start here we have a beautiful portrait painted in the 1800s by marshall johnson showing "constitution" with the wind pulling at

some will say the constitution is an elastic document. you can read into the. it is stretch will. it has words, and you can read these words, but we have to go beyond that because that's what this supreme court judge or this constitutional scholar says it means. then have those who say the constitution is a limiting document. the constitution is what it says. you can't go beyond that. and so we should interpret the constitution literally. and there's this big debate. people get confused by this. which one is it? is it loosely interpreted document? is it an elastic document? or is it a limiting document? so i ask we thought to cut through all that. i really didn't care what modern scholars have said about the constitution to be honest with you but i didn't do what the supreme court has said about the constitution. i cared what the founding fathers said about the constitution. and so my journey began there. and, in fact, when originally conceptualized this book, i pitched it to begin with, those of you don't know the publishing process, you pitch an idea and then you're told yes or n

the u.s. constitution. it's true of 50 state constitutions. governors are elected independently of state legislatures where the legislature might be controlled by a different party than the governor. it's an interesting question, whether it's the better model. it is the american model. >> another dimension of american constitution constitutionalism which seems relevant and that is federalism. we have a deeply conflicted feelings about our own federal history. but the fact is that europe is on the verge of failure, the euro zone is going to fall apart, which could have global implications of a disastrous order. and, that what they can't do is what's built into our system, a system of burden sharing, and -- and, transfer of payments, i mean we could handle things that the world will need to handle on an increasingly large scale. >> but isn't there another issue there? i heard governor jerry brown of california say the other day that if the legislature won't agree to something, it goes to the people. and the people can create a referendum and deci

of the constitution has been for a long time. frankly since the battle over the bank of the united states in the late 1700s. let's go glenn beck makes frequent experiences in her book. since his big rally on the mall, what has happened quite >> guest: i think i mentioned it briefly twice. but you know, i think he was one of the organizers behind one of the big rallies, the largest one in the mall in the. and i think he is one of many disorders commentators who are kind of interested in the tea party and can tune you to give them some air time and a little bit more play in the mainstream. but he certainly not the father of the tea party. if you talk to tea partiers, they don't want a father. they don't want a central leader. they want to be grassroots and dispersed and i want to stay out of formal politics. >> host: next is tina and mesquite, texas. >> caller: hi, how are you doing? first point is growing up in the 60s and integration noa and how to go through some of the oppression and the issues. as i listened to the tea partiers

nationalism is the way a to the democratized constitution. hope turkey will not surrender the democratic reforms to reach a democratic constitution quickly. >> professor gunter, the argument about nominating but terrorists is noted but neither the turkish near the u.s. administration sees the problem changing anytime soon. within the limits of what mr. koker discussed with decentralization with the fact the president or prime minister should not just name the others? it should be a broader discussion to democratize structures which would benefit the kurdish population? that should be plan b if you try not to talk about the terrorist organization during golfing where political reasons? >> i know it is hard to change the terrorism label. stop use the term all the time and see what happens. down the road at, ed drop it. if we drop the label a i think that e.u. and united states would follow. it is up to turkey. with decentralization i think the kurds could settle for a lot less what to the pkk wants to be a party of negotiations i agree. if we d

the u.s. constitution. the two documents that he assisted in drafting and his thoughts on the negative impact of political parties. >> good evening. eeni all i intend tonight to discuss one of the most overlooked elements of james madison's courier or perhaps i should say. the most underemphasized underemphasized elements of james madison's career. and one reason why it doesn't get the emphasis it should get his here as in other areas of his political life, madison self-consciously stood in the shadow of one of his contemporaries, that of tom jefferson. so for example, madison is often seen as lieutenant of jeffersons who claimed credit for drafting the virginia staff for religious freedom atop the virginia general assembly in 1986 and in fact checkers than was wise enough or perhaps we should say machiavellian enough to sketch his own gravestone on which he said that he wanted included statements that he was the author of the declaration of independence and of the virginia religious freedom besides father o

united states military, the fbi, the cia to do everything in their power to bring that constitutionk. >> okay, sir, i have an update. good news and bad news. which do you want first. >> let's start with the good news. >> good news is you got him. congratulations, sir. >> we got him. >> dow want the bad news it? >> yes. >> he didn't have the constitution, sir. >> he didn't have it. >> he didn't have the constitution? >> no, he didn't have it. >> so you now have to address nicholas cage fans all over the world and explain to them why you killed their favorite actor, three, two, one, go. >> my bad. (laughter) >> next time on herman cain, an american presidency, a different crisis. >> america will not negotiate with moon nazis. (cheers and applause) >> jon: welcome back. my guest tonight, a band whose new album is called rise of the phoenix. now to perform deette star starr from that album please welcome back to the program, tenacious d. (cheers and applause) >> we's like to dedicate this strong so the survival of the human race. ♪ the world is freaking turning to poop ♪ ♪ the earth don

if i were starting with a clean sheet of paper, i would not come up with the same constitution. but there is one thing to be said for what we have, that by creating the central figure, by creating the presidency and giving the president a task that the single individual actually can perform, it makes it possible for the spare old system. maybe even if we were to replace it, and i would, still to function. >> thank you very much. >> this is a good start to a discussion, what i would like to do now is to open the discussion to members of the panel to respond to thoughts that they heard expressed by their colleagues and we'll let it go from there and we will leave about a half hour for questions from the audience. >> i agree with i expect at least 95% of what john has just said. i want to touch on -- i think one of the interesting questions is it's been 60 years, why is it that there is no serious discussion of this? because there are a few of us who have actually written about this. and i think part of it is because the legal academy and the legal culture at large is right success

the constitution establishes a very limited federal government. when the supreme court asked him the obvious question of what limit the federal power would exist if the individual mandate were upheld, the solicitor general, arguing for the government and in support of the constitutionality, could not and did not provide an answer. so the obama administration believes the federal government can force americans to purchase broccoli or gym memberships and don't believe anyone who says otherwise once we start down that road of unprecedented power of the federal government under the commerce clause. critics contend that the whole body of law allowing federal regulation of the economy would be threatened if the supreme court struck down the health care reform bill. they even say that such a ruling would harm the legitimacy of the supreme court. that is just plain nonsense. the supreme court has never addressed a law like this. striking down obamacare would have no effect on any other existing law. the real change in the law and to the country as a whole

and he never said he was the father of the constitution. what he -- he might have been the father of the convention. i think he was so important for getting the convention to happen. but once he was there, he did not persuade the other delegates on a lot of the issue his cared most about. it felt to me like something that people ought to understand better. there are very important people in that convention who have been lost to history and who made a huge impact on how our constitution is written. and madison was very important, too, but these others were just as important. so i wanted to sort of balance those scales a bit. >> give us your take on somebody that we don't known about that you put in this book. >> well, john rutledge is a character who really impressed me tremendously, which was not easy because he was a slave holder and he was a great defender of slavery. there's lots not to like about him. but he was -- he had a modern senseabilty in a lot of ways. he was very cut and dried, he wanted to get to the point. his remarks, it was

secession itself reflects the constitutional crisis. lincoln said at the end of the cooper union address in which remember last week it's the best way to understand that it's a legal brief against the supreme court's decision in dred scott. he said that chief justice taney's opinion is wrong. he said right makes light. in essence, secession became unconstitutional because might made right. after the civil war it became clear that secession or disunion was wrong. that becomes a supreme court ruling in texas v. wyatt in 1868 which explicitly declares secession to be unconstitutional. so lincoln's inaugural address is profoundly progressive in which he establishes far more than any document had the notion that secession is wrong. that at the time was widely debated. now when texas governor suggested secession he was mostly just laughed at. that goes back to the influence of this first inaugural. it's also conservative. why is it? forces fugitive slave act. suppresses slave insurrections and protects slavery in states. he's explicitly hears

gave our side which was the constitution. things on the table. >> randy, this is the point. >> we had obamacare and the constitution -- >> this is precisely the point. every time we have these arguments and i genuinely respect the massive intellectual effort you put into the challenge, i do. it's a remarkable thing to watch. for this thing you don't get the way of setting the table to say the ruling for your side is political and our side is the constitution. >> no, no. >> it is the constitution that's at issue. that's what we are debating. >> isn't that the opposite? >> chris, i said eight justices voted their principles. >> right. >> the four in the majority who concurred with the result voted their principles and the other four voted theirs. i said only one justice decided the case politically. >> i see. one of the big questions after this, there was confusion about what the commerce clause ruling meansç going forward. i think liberals were divided on this. it was interesting to read your reaction. there is one group that

afterward a reporter asked white to define the constitutional role of the court. his reply was chilly. to decide cases. a bystander later recalled the statement was both a brush-off and a statement of philosophy. you could tell by the way he said it that it carried a fundamental belief for him. byron white cleaved to the view he expressed at the threshold of his career, which spanned 31 years, one of the longest in the history of the court. he served with 20 justices, including three chief justices. during his career, he wrote more than 1,300 opinions. 495 opinions of the court, 249 concurring opinions, and 572 descents. imposing as they are, numbers are hard will you the measure of his contribution to the operation of the institution. in white's memorial service, chief justice rehnquist explained, given the force of his powerful intellect, his breadth of experience and his institutional memory, justice white consistently played a major role in the court's discussion of cases at its weekly conferences. his comments there reflected not only his meticulous preparati

if the supreme court in tirpitz the constitution in such a way that it really renders a great threat to our democracy the health of our democracy then the framers set about a mechanism to change the constitution to make sure the supreme court. interpret it interprets it with a light to the reason the rationality which we seem to have a great absence of at the moment i've been very involved over the years with this move to amend the constitution and i secretly was kind of rooting for the supreme court not to strike down citizens united not even to modify it out of concern that it would take the steam out of the movement i wrote a book on on this back in ninety two on equal protection which is now become kind of a bestseller because back then i mean i was giving speeches to law schools and things you know about everything from from the santa clara county all the way forward and people were like what you know they didn't they didn't understand the concept of corporate person and now everybody gets it so might the supreme court have actually set up their own demise you know actually fuel

that the constitution gives the u.s. and the president of the united states. let's get immediate analysis from john bash. he was a clerk for supreme court justice scalia. he's joining us from pittsburgh right now. it's a little complex, but the bottom line, john, seems to be that obama care, as it's called, is in fact constitutional. >> that's what i'm seeing, too, wolf. >> hold on, john, kate baldwin is getting more information from inside the supreme court. kate, what are you learning? >> wolf, i want to read you a key quote in the majority opinion. the majority opinion written by and read by the chief justice himself. at the end of the opinion he says, the framers created a federal government of limited powers. and assigned this court of enforcing these limits. the court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the affordable care act. under the constitution that judgment is reserved to the people. he goes on to say the judgment of the court of appeals, the 11th circuit, where this case came from, reversed in par

so if the constitution is the compact between the states, secession is constitutional. and lincoln clearly was arguing that it's not a compact. he's also wanting to argue against a common southern perspective as reflected by jefferson davis who makes a very logical point that one of you pointed out. the colonies had a right to secede from the british, and if the colonies, if we as a nation had the right to leave britain, why suspect it the right of a sovereign state to secede from the government? a very logical assumption. it's no coincidence that davis gives his inaugural address on washington's birthday, specifically referring to the birthday of the man most identified with the establishment of american independence, an establishment that results out of an act of disunion. and so secession, like the slavery debates which we discussed last week, it self-reflects this constitutional crisis. point out that dred scott creates this constitutional crisis. secession, itself, reflects the constitutional crisis. lincoln said at the end of the cooper union address in which reme

only four of the founders in congress objected and none of them objected on constitutional grounds but even with that history going back to the founders who pretty much knew their original intent when they started this country so-called originalist antonin scalia is determined to do his best to blow up anything that comes from a democratic president and the odds over it in trade right now around seventy eight percent that scalia will prevail and that the individual mandate will be knocked down on thursday so here's the good news if scalia does this president obama the democrats should take the concept that we're all in this together which after all is the core concept of obamacare and the mandate they should take that a step further this country already has a really good single payer health care system which has worked marvelously for several generations it's called medicare and it's so be loved by its users that they'll show up at tea party rallies with sighs and say keep government out of my medicare you damn socialists medicare is already in place already working already tied into s

those three enigmatic and inviting words in the constitution, "the executive power." as the moderator of this distinguished panel, i plan on being seen more than heard, but i do feel obliged to answer a question i know that my colleague and friend judge silberman would want me to answer before going further. what are you doing on a panel about the executive power? you know, my colleagues on the d.c. circuit, for whom i have boundless admiration make two assumptions about me, neither of which is correct. first, that my time as senate legal counsel predisposes me to side with the congress in disputes between the political branches. and second, that my association with byu and its sponsoring church means i must know mitt romney. [ laughter ] about that first assumption, the fact that i once had a statutory obligation to defend the powers of the senate when they were called into question, and to advise the senate leadership how best to use those powers did not mean that i don't have an appreciation for the importance of executive power in the constitutional scheme. you ma

the constitution stopping one thousand nine hundred three constitution. so the national authority of. the independence of. the judicial for the power of the presidential or put it into the region what about the but a government that has the constitution as its sole reference mother gets only because of. the judiciary and the independence of to be sure it is so important and vital. human rights and fundamental freedoms rights of women all this all those principles should be shot in trying in addition to the none discrimination on the exits and in addition to the basic nature of the. of the religion that it has its all its or as defined in the constitution i think. that the military has made itself responsible for whiting the new constitution are you confident that the military will be able to give the people a constitution that exceeds the military that's going to by the constitution it's a constituent assembly that will have to wait until that simply with the ordeal of presentation by all factions of our society nobody expects that many people die because

purposes when we think about the 1787 constitution. there is a difference between the two and the supreme court picked occupy that difference. >> the two can stand side by side and in the eyes of the law be kong? >> exactly. >> as we close here, this closing day of the court and wondering what's next for you as the summer progresses. this is a long process for you coming to this conclusion. >> i am out of the government so i have a lot of private clients that i will represent and celebrate this with. hopefully get a little rest in the days to come. thank you so much for talking to us. >> thank you. >> with today's supreme court ruling upholding the law, we want to get your comments and feedback too. you can go to our facebook page, post your thoughts and share your opinion with others. they will remain on the top of the page for the remainder of the day. more reaction now beginning with house majority leader john boehner and other members and house republican members. this is about 20 minutes. >> good afternoon. thank you for coming. ea

officials expressed concern over the constitutional changes. they called on military leaders to follow through on their promises. >> we're particularly concerned by decisions that appear to prolong the military's hold on power. >> nuland warned that the military's actions will have an impact on relations between the u.s. and egypt. u.s. officials had earlier decided to continue military aid. the aid began more than 30 years ago, after egypt signed a peace treaty with israel. >>> joining us now is an expert on egyptian politics. thank you very much for joining us. we haven't yet heard of the official outcome of the presidential runoff. and yet the military council announced its intention to revise the constitution. why is that? >> i think the military council predicted that the muslim preemptive move. immediately before the runoff, the military purchased the military court. this has allowed them to wield more power than before until a new parliament is formed. i think the latest move by military council is meant to retain presidential power until

however, i think that we would be ignoring the shift in constitutional history that took place yesterday if we don't recognize some silver linings concerning the ruling on the individual mandate. one, it was a meaningful reining in of congress' authority under the commerce clause. it was a reining in that was unanticipated by scholars and pundits for the past two years, but it was a way that is going to give life and breath to future potential legal challenges for acts by congress that are premised upon the commerce clause but also hamstring congress in the future when it concerns their exercise of authority based on the commerce clause. importantly, as i understand it, the ruling yesterday was the first time there had been a ruling that congress exceeded the commerce clause on a safety -- social safety net issue since the time of fdl. well, we won on the individual mandate. but of course we lost as it concerned congress' taxing authority. for me personally, and i think i can probably speak for probably everyone, this came as a total surprise for several reasons. one, congress didn't con

we still have the original constitution. quite short, quite brief, as, john, you said, designed for a presidency that does not necessarily fit with the modern presidential role and in particular the role of the president as domestic leader. i will say that the idea of the president as legislative leader began almost at the beginning. this is one of those topics where the plan went awry almost from the outset and jefferson was the leader of a political party and was immensely influential. having to -- for being so brief and being so brief in particular about executive power and hence putting all sorts of important decisions like the one about presidential succession, specifically in the hands of the president. i would say that if you wanted to justify the system we have, and wanted to say, what is the role of the president, and we're thinking about should the president be making detailed decisions about how to structure the bailout? should the president be deciding monetary policy? quite possibly no. but one powerful argument

amend the constitution to overturn the citizens united, reform the system to remove money as completely as possible from the process and elect reformers who will do that in both parties. we are at a crossroads, but it's important to note that this is nothing accidental, coincidental or just happen to happen. it's a decision to suppress the vote, to validate policies that have increased the deficit and increased unemployment in our country and that is exactly what they have in mind. yes, sir? >> that's a pretty tough bond on george w. bush's attorney general, michael mu casy and alberto gonzalez before that. what's the difference between what republicans are doing to eric holder right now and what the democratic majority did to michael mukasey and alberto gonzalez? >> well, i -- in the house, our con term. of congress was addressed to josh bolton. i can't speak to the other cases. they never came to a vote on the senate floor. in the house, however, we did take a vote on the floor and the circumstances are quite different. we were talking about political intervention in the hiring of u.s

thank god that the supreme court followed the constitution. >> wow, barbara, great. >> senator ben cardin. >> well, first, ben cardin, senator from maryland. and have the honor of serving with senator barbara mikulski and the people of maryland. i want to thank senator mikulski, i want to thank senator harkin, and i want to thank my colleagues here from the house of representatives for their incredible work on behalf of the american people. this is a good day for the american people. they won today. it's also a good day for the rule of law. the supreme court decision affirms prior precedent and confirms the proper role of the congress of the united states. it allows us to move forward with quality, affordable health care for all americans. where health care is a right, not a privilege. we are able to continue to move forward. it allows us to move forward with the reforms, to protect consumers against the practices of insurance companies that would deny them coverage, pre-existing conditions, and now allow families to keep their children on their insurance policies to age 26. and allows us

the u.s. constitution as a body. and we require that every bill cite the section of the constitution that allows congress to consider the legislation. my motion to instruct simply maintains this desire of the house by protecting states' rights under the 10th amendment. the 10th amendment reads, the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibtsed by it to the states -- prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states or to the people. and i believe that the issue of laws related to distracted driving are best left to the states. that's why as a state senator in my home state of tennessee i voted three times for distracted driving law on the books today. as a mother and a grandmother and a nurse i strongly, strongly support absolute safety on our roadways. i also believe that there's no one in this chamber who doesn't support safe driving laws. but this motion to instruct is not about safety. it's about the state's rights under -- states' rights under the constitution and stopping f

i think they were motivated by a vision of the constitution. i appreciate that vision. i just don't think that ultimately describes the american constitution. >> republican members of congress have called the chief je justice's interpretation very conservative. do you agree with that and if so, can you plain somewhere? >> i think that the chief justice's interpretation of the constitution here is one that does focus on tradition. i think that's what led him to reject the commerce clause argument. i'm not quite sure that was the right answer in the case. with respect to the tax power, he said that the real issue is how something functions. this functions like a tax, he said for that reason it's constitutional. i don't know if you want to call that conservative or liberal or what. i prefer to call it being lawyerly. the chief justice among many of his great traits he's a darn good lawyer. >> in that note going into this, so many people said this was going to be a defining moment for the roberts' court. in making this decision, do you see it as such? >> it was a defining is

i've spent a lifetime fighting to defend the constitution and defend conservative principles. we have seen conservatives all over the state unite behind this campaign. we were outspent five to one, yet we're in this runoff because tea party leaders and republican women and grassroots conservatives came together. just about every conservative leader in the state has endorsed this campaign, from kelly shackelford to peggy venable, and just about every major conservative leader nationally has endorsed this campaign from sarah palin to sean hannity to rick santorum. if you think the answer to what's happening in washington is to send another go along to get along establishment politician to washington, then you have an easy choice in this race. if you think the answer is to send a strong conservative and a fighter, then i ask for your support. please come out on july 31st and bring ten of your friends. texans are standing up and i give you my word when we win this race, texas is going to lead the fight to stop the obama gener agenda and to restore the constitution. >> thank you gen

clause of the constitution. is the requirement that every american have insurance outside congress's power to regulate the intrastate commerce. that's the toughest question and when we know the answer a little after 10:00 this morning we'll know how much of this law if any will no longer be on the books. >> we will know the answer at 10:00. let's walk through what the court can do. they could strike the individual mandate. they could strike the expansion of medicaid. they could strike the entire thing. they could punt in a way and cite tax law for the punting. where do you come down on that? what do you think is likely to happen there? >> are you asking me? >> yes, i am. >> i think you left out one very distinct possibility which is that they simply affirm the whole law. most of the time when congress -- when the supreme court considers the constitutionality of federal legislation, they say it is fine, it is not the supreme court's job to decide whether law is a good idea, whether they would vote if they were mem

the americans of this country revere the constitution. they long cherish their liberties and will not surrender them without a fight. since the enactment of obamacare, i have seen efforts by patriots in my district, my state and across the country trying to repeal obamacare and i'm inspired by their passion to defend the constitution. this generation of americans will not allow history to say that we presided over the demise of the american experiment in limited government. it is true that the struggle against obamacare has been long and difficult and sometimes met, as today, with disappointing results. but those of us who still believe in our founding principles, i offer some advice from thomas jefferson, who said, the grounds of liberty is to be gained by inches. and we stand here tonight all together pledging to work alongside the people of this great nation who will fight inch by inch in defense of the constitution, and we will repeal obamacare. mr. speaker, obamacare must be repealed entirely because if it is not, the constitutional r

the only way we can firm up freedom and reinvigorate the constitution is for the people of this country to fight back against this overreaching decision. thank you all very much. [ applause ] >> thank you, attorney general abbott. the national federation of independent businesses as i mentioned earlier, represents the bulk of commerce in the united states and certainly one of the greatest sources of new jobs, so karen, will you talk about the impact on the group you represent as well as legal issues and particularly, if you concentrate on what this -- or how this applies to the economy. >> right. thank you, general meese, and it's great to be with you again, attorney general abbott. it has been wonderful, nfib, i need to start by saying with the partnership we've had with the states. it's meant so much to our members and to the organization so we really are so happy that you all welcomed us into the lawsuit. so yes, as the attorney general mentioned and i think you've seen especially in a lot of the 24 hours after coverage, there are some silver linings in this decision in that we did w