the founders fully respected, with all due respect for doug, the need to execute the law, the framers expected the senate may be able to block, permanently block the president to staff the executive branch. and the price they will pay for it, ladies and gentlemen, is a political price. there are no shortcuts. by the way, to answer peter's question crispably. there's no way for senate to project the powers. back to my cat and mouse game, no matter how you try to organize thims a willful president that would confuse the two issues. which i think walter confuses. inability to provide advice of consent and unwillingness to provide consent, the inability is one thing, the inability has objective standards. unwillingness is not. and the senate

the finely tune scheme established by the framers provides for three separate and distinct stages of appointments. the first is the nomination by the president alone. the second is the senate's ascent or not to the nominee's appointment, and the third is the final appointment and commissioning by the president. each stage -- at each stage the respective actors' prerogatives are carefully and clearly demark and long been understood to be exclusive and plenary. my conclusion about legal propriety of president obama's reported intrasession recess appointments is straightforward and direct. the appointments were unconstitutional, because there was no senate recess that is necessary for such actions. the president's unilateral determination there was one did not make it so. the constitution vested in the senate the sole and unreviewable power to confirm or not to confirm a presidential nomination for a principle officer of the united states. a decision to deny confirmation can be made for what may be perceived as a good reason, a bad reason or no stated reason at all. the constitution also

let me ask you since, it's constantly looking to the framers, whether you think the framers intended congress to overturn a law by refusing to confirm an appointee, to run an agency, do you think the framers had that as a possibility in minds? >> let me say at the outset, of course, the statement here is a reiteration of what i've been saying and i think the olc memo, with all due respect, is a perfectly good example of what the kind of work one gets from olc, which is not just nonpartisan, they try to look at all the sides and come out with judgment. in terms of your question, i think the framers sort of told us what they think about this circumstance. when they set is up the constitution. laws are made a certain way in compliance with article i that is how laws are made, but there may be other factors that come along the way, funding and other things that are made through other laws. but in terms of nullifing a law, one chamber does not have the ability to do that. the laws are made through presentment clauses. >> i was intrigued, there for i like to see what the other side says, s

all of the framers debates over the general power of appointment. those debates, however, were heated, contentious and revelatory of their awareness of the importance of their decision as to how and where they were going to invest, control over the appointing power. the recess clause, however, on the other hand, was adopted by a constitutional convention without debate, which strongly suggests that the framers thought that the clause would not affect the meticulously developed scheme of checks and balances of the general appointments process, which requires action by both the president and the senate to affect any appointment. this view is corroborated by zend alexander hamilton 1967, when he deemed the recess clause a supplement or an auxiliary in nature. the debate records clearly show that the delegates voiced great distress of the executive and expressed the need for checks and balances to un

adopted by this administration, there's no way for the senate to protect its prerogative which the framers clearly, and again, excellent discussion about what happened in detail and how it is voted upon, i'm not going to belabor that. the senate is totally, totally b berreffed of any power. not just that. i've not heard anybody address my point. if you allow a car don of branch, executive, to pass judgment on whether or not the congress properly legislated, you have completely upset the balance relative to the led legislatu legislature. the senate votes very rarely. lots and lots of senate business is done, without a quorum, in terms of unanimous consent. the way the pro forma works, i actually went and talked to people and done nothing but that for years. the reason they have two members, ladies and gentlemen, in pro forma sessions, is because one member in a pro formula session can do anything, including confirming somebody, be it a supreme court justice, provide any hearings. but legislative power can be exercised in a pro forma session. it's nothing more than a starting point. that's t

for purposes relevant to the recess appointments clause and in the context of the constitution the framers did not consider the adjournment like this. to be constitutionally significant it's also a significant here that article 1 section 5 provided that neither house during the session of congress shall without the consent of the other adjourn for more than three days. so, if an intersession adjournment of less than three days were to be considered constitutionally sufficient for the president of the will to exercise the recess appointment power is not clear what if anything would prevent the president from bypassing the constitution's advice and consent requirement and appointing the nominees during even the weekend adjournment, which routinely involved the periods of 72 hours or even more in which the senate may not be actually in the process of holding the committee hearings and so forth. instead assuming they are constitutional president will rely on the memorandum of the opinion produced by the office of legal counsel in the department of justice also known as the olc. this is the pre

do you think the framers have that as a possibility of mind? i think that the mevel with all respect is a perfectly good example of the kind of work one gets which is not just the nonpartisan but they like to look at all of the sites and come out with their judgment. in terms of your question i think they've told us what they think of that circumstance when they set up the constitution. obviously they are made a certain way in compliance with article i. but there may be other factors that come along the way, funding and other things made through the law but in terms of modifying the law, one chamber of commerce doesn't have the authority to notify the law. they are made through compliance by the clauses. >> i was intrigued. i always want to look to see what is the other side say. so i wanted to see what the former office of legal counsel had said under the comparable circumstances. now this president is known for his patience and somewhat sacred assessed for his patience, particularly with this congress. here let's take the office of the consume

that is the part of the constitution that says it may be suspended, it cannot be believed that the framers intended that the danger should run its course until congress could be called together the very assembling of which might be prevented by rebellion itself. specific topic for tonight, of course, is the less ambiguous guarantee in the first amendment. congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or press. again, lincoln determined that in a case of rebellion, especially while congress was in recess, contingency trumped ever the bill of rights. he did call congress back into session but not for four months. and not before the executive branch did abridge freedom of the press and as some have maintained, without constitutional authority. let's look frankly at the record and preparing for this talk and preparing for a book i'm doing on lincoln and the press, i must say, i've been staggered by the numbers that i've been dealing with. as many as 300 separate recorded incidents that included the following -- banning papers from the u.s. mails. interrupting the flow of telegraph

and, therefore, this very important check and balance that the framers placed on the senate. but let's talk about renlg lative power, pass legislation as such. let's begin about a pointments for a second. the president, of course, as we all well know is a participant in the legislative process but he does not have an absolute veto. presidential vetoes can and not be overridden. a president's function of approach, the president, for example, might take the position but any legislation passed by the your rum in the state and as we all know, much of the senate's business cess done without a quarter. with that matter, without a vote being taken. there is nothing untushl about pro forma sections. that legislation r lags is lags and unlawful. without invoking even the need to veto it. the president can determine for himself when congress is in recess concerned is so-called pocket veto. the constitution provides a bill is passed by congress and not signed by the president, it becomes law. within ten days, sundays expected, unless congress by its adjournment prevents the return of a

be different than legislative elections -- remember that we have two branches of government that the framers decided would be controlled by a majority vote. that is the executive and legislative. they did a pretty good job of keeping their fingers in the air, right? i think that people have a right to lobby. i think for people do not have the same access as rich people. i think for people have a lot of things that they cannot do because of the resources they have available, but i think lobbying in general, as long as it is not anything that is secretive, and that is one of the big problems in lobbying -- the secret of aspects of it -- but as long as they do not violate the law, there is going to be lobbying. i think a bigger problem and one that i'm glad i have a couple of minutes to talk about, is the political action committees coming into states and targeting judges. that is a huge problem. look at what happened in iowa. you had a supreme -- you know about the judges that got removed? we do not know about that? ok, let me talk about that for a second year of two supreme court justices wer

that is the part of the constitution that says it may be suspended -- it cannot be believed that the framers intended that the danger should run its course until congress could be called together, the very assembling of which might be prevented by the rebellion itself. the specific topic for tonight of course is the less ambition guarantee in the first amendment. congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. again, lincoln determined that in a case of rebellion, especially while congress was in recess, contingency trumped even the bill of rights. now he did call congress back into session, but not for four months, and not before the executive branch did abridge freedom of the press, and as some have maintained, without constitutional authority. let's look fly

there but in the end though i think what's most the biggest check and balance on the court that the framers gave us was article five the amendment process and we've used it seven times to overturn supreme court cases the supreme court decided women did not have a right to vote we overturned that many other examples so in the end the ultimate interpreters of the constitution are we the people the supreme court has a job to do to decide cases and we should leave them to do their job but when they blow it and it becomes a chronic sort of catastrophic slow motion catastrophe for the country we have the duty to use our authority and duty really under article five to amend the constitution to say the supreme court you've gotten off track we get back on the road to a country of equal people equal free people who can govern ourselves and corporations are not among those people exactly are they are merely a tool as you say except little months brilliant thank you so much frankly isn't very glad to be here. to watch this conversation again as well as other conversations with great minds go to our web

supermajority of each house was required to enact foreign commerce regulations demonstrate that the framers intended such regulation to be made by a legislative body rather than an executive or a judicial one. with that i'm pleased with this movement by my colleague from nebraska. i think we're on firm legal ground. i will revisit it again. with that i yield back my time to the gentleman from oklahoma who then yields it back to me. is there anyone else seeking recognition? seeing no one, the question is on the amendment. per agreement with ranking chairman and member rossman, talk will resume on that amendment at 12:30 when the conference committee returns. the gentleman requests both per the agreement with chairman member and ranking member rossman. that will be rolled into the series of three votes. once we readjourn -- i mean, once we start again at 12:30. with that, this markup is recess recessed. >>> sorry we're a little late coming back to congress. the tax cut extension is still going on. it's expected to finish in about five or six minutes, and i know that mr. waxman will be coming

the government is going to mandate a religious organization violate the conscience, that is why the framers the free exercise clause. >> sean: thank you both for being west. we'll continue the next debate in the next segment. rapper nicky shocked the show at grammies. more on this contraceptive mandate issue as we continue tonight on hannity. [ kyle ] my b. [ roger ] tell me you have go insurance. yup, i've got... [ dennis ] ...allstate. really? i was afraid you'd have some cut-rate policy. [ kyle ] nope, i've got... [ dennis ] ...the allstate value plan. it's their most affordable car insurance -- and you still get an allstate agent. i too have... [ dennis ] ...allstate. [ roger ] same agent and everything. [ kyle ] it's like we're connected. no we're not. yeah, we are. no...we're not. ♪ the allstate value plan. dollar for dollar, nobody protects you like allstate. on my feet and exactly where i needed more support. then, i got my number. my tired, achy feet affected my whole life. until i found my number. i tried the free dr. scholl's foot mapping center. in two minutes, i got my foot map

in the text of the constitution evidence is that the framers did not consider an adjournment like this to be constitutionally significant. it's also significant here that article i section 5 provides that neither house during the session of congress shall without the consent of the other adjourn for more than three days. so if an intrasession adjournment of less than three days were considered constitutionally sufficient for the president to be able to exercise this recess appointment now we're it's unclear what, if anything, would prevent the president from routinely bypa bypassing the constitutional's advice and consent requirement and appointing nominees during even weekend adjournments which routinely involve periods of 72 hours or even more in which the senate may not be actually in the practice of holding committee hearings and voting and so forth. instead, in asserting that they were constitutional he relied on a memorandum opinion produced by the legal office ofe departmentn as olc. this olc merm ran dumb asserts the president may unilaterally conclude the sessions such as thos

the government is going to mandate a religious organization violate the conscience, that is why the framersercise clause. >> sean: thank you both for being west. we'll continue the next debate in the next segment. rapper nicky shocked the show at grammies. more on this contraceptive mandate issue as we continue tonight on hannity. are you still sleeping? just wanted to check and make sure that we were on schedule. the first technology of its kind... mom and dad, i have great news. is now providing answers families need. siemens. answers. >> sean: another awards show and controversial performance at grammies, it was nick any monage by mocking the catholic faith. a man dressed like the pope, she staged a mock exorcism while performing her song titled "roman holiday." ♪ ♪ >> sean: joining me is fox news contributor and columnist, janeanne borelli. and new york civil rights coalition, michael myers. good to see you. as i was watching. i thought, let's take another page out of the madonna handbook and lets it always seem to work. >> this is another example of an assault of catholic church. look

again so i mean gang government doesn't work gang government does has never worked the founders of the framers didn't have gang government in mind it's not in the constitution and it's frankly unconstitutional as roger just pointed out it's really just a way to pass the buck for example the the base closure commission congress knew this was this is back you know what almost a decade ago it seems that congress knew that there with all these military bases around the country and because there were so many of them in so many congressional districts they couldn't get enough congress members to say ok let's close even the totally useless ones the ones that are just a total waste of time so they outsourced it to again the reason they had to do this was because defense contractors got really really slick they put a small facility in every congressional district in the country and by the way it's still that way so if anybody talks about cutting any of their budgets they can threaten any member of congress with ads saying hey. it was the way people off in his own district now they're trying to do the s

the framers of the conconstitution but it in the bill of rights. government cannot enter fear with the practice of religion. >> this is what happens when individual free people, citizens and consumers lose their choice. for example, igor, i know you disagree. for example, let's take a catholic hospital and say the hospital doesn't want to offer health insurance that has the morning after drug and other contraceptions, people inside the hospital should have the choice and the freedom to buy their own health care package with a government tax credit or some such thing. that is what is missing from this crazy top down government control bill. >> well, larry, the regulations specifically says that churches or nonprofits that specifically deal with religion or have a lot of people in the same religion are exempt. so that is your waiver right there and i've spoken to a lot of catholic group, i spoke in george town, they said they are providing already this kind of, they are already providing birth control to their employees, why? because a lot of catholi

and that's something that's very unaccountable and i don't think the framers had in mind. the second thing is -- >> call it a tax. so -- now it's unconstitutional because you end up buying the insurance -- >> you call -- if you call it a tax, then as michael suggests, it's going to be distributed in a different way more broadly. because i don't think congress is going to pass a tax and i'm not sure they could that's limited to healthy 29-year-olds. but even if they did, then it's on budget and that's better. second point and i can't resist saying about the militia act. of 1792. because i do think it's different. which is first of all congress was given specifically the power to raise a standing army and certainly be argued that the militia act was an act pursuant to that power. that's important for two reasons to me. one, congress is given the power to raise armies. and separately given the power to regulate them. and it was recognized that the constitution itself that those were separate things. the power to raise an army was very controversial. and gave rise to the second

i don't think that is what the framers had in mind. >> called a tax? it is unconstitutional because you end up buying the insurance? >> as michael suggests, it will be distributed in a different way more broadway. -- broad way. >> at least it would be on- budget and i think it would be better. i can't resist saying something about the militia act of 1792, because i do think it is different. congress was given the power to raise a standing army and can certainly be argued that the militia act was pursuant to that power. it is important for two reasons. congress is given the power to raise armies and regulate. it was recognized that those were separate things. the power to raise an army was very controversial. the power to regulate and army wanted was raised was not controversial at all. by contrast, if you look at the commerce clause, which gives congress the power to regulate commerce. it assumes that there was actual commerce ongoing that congress had the authority to regulate. that was the power, because it assumed congress to be regulated that was no

20% of kids are obese and more americans will go without food today than at any other time since the framersht of your feeling about that, which i know is heartfelt and sincere, what do you think when you see individuals making $94 million a year and paying taxes at an extremely low rate on them? >> it's a stupendous amount of money to make. i think the challenge is whenever the issue of taxation comes up, we have this rabbit warn of tax policy, tax law, tax code. it's inpossible to fathom. people spend their lives looking for every twist and turn. and to the extent that some people enjoy some benefit, it's because there isn't an overall thoughtful approach to taxation. now, whatever it is that they may be able to claw back from is just a piece of a much bigger mosaic. we're running about $1.3 trillion deficit right now. what's striking about that is we have to borrow about 42% of that. >> and as you point out, the focus on these little issues -- and i put the kkr pay in the category of small issues. >> right. >> distracts us. they're beautiful rhetorically. they're marvelous to demagogue. b

massachusetts supreme judicial court, should we abandon marriage as we know it and as it was known by the framersnstitution? has america been wrong about marriage for 200 years? where generations that have spent thousands of years from also of a look -- all civilizations -- are they wrong about marriage? are the philosophies of all the world's major religions just simply wrong? is it more likely that more people amongst -- four amongst the seven that sat in massachusetts?" -- i believe that is the case. he went on to say that marriage is not solely for adults. marriages also for children. marriage is principally for the nurturing of children. the children of america have the right to have a father and mother. i know the goodness in the heart of both romneys. mitt meets my tests. he shares the audience. he is confident. he is electable. my fellow conservatives, it is my pleasure to introduce to you, governor mitt romney. [applause] ♪ [applause] >> thank you. great crowd. wow. thank you. please. [applause] thank you. thank you. please. wow. great reception. thank you. thank you. [applause] thanks f

speaker, to the warnings of our framers and founders. and with this i close, jonathan witherspoon, a minister who signed the declaration of independence, said a republic once equally poised must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty. john adams followed by saying, liberty lost once is liberty lost forever. we would do well also to take the heed of enemy voices who desire the destruction of america and its liberty less we unwittingly follow and fall into their advice. the advice such as this that was said america is like a healthy body and its resistance -- its resistance is three-fold. its patriotism, its morality, its spiritual life. if we undermine these three areas, america will collapse from within. joseph stalin. may god grant us mr. speaker, wisdom so that our president, this congress and all of america will never let these words be a prophecy fulfilled. and i yield back. mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman for his powerful words. and at this time i would recognize the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe. mr. roe: i thank the

he makes it a point to watch justice every week with the other air framers in the shop on the uss lincoln and the other vigil an th anti. thank you for watching. thank you for your service. all of the people back at the states appreciate it and are thinking of you. that's it for us. thanks for joining us. e-mail us your comments at foxnews.com. you know how to get rid of a sore throat let me know. stay with us. bret baier anchors our special coverage of the nevada caucuses. take it away, bret. >> republicans in nevada pick their choice for the top of the presidential ticket. coming up we will bring you the results of the nevada caucuses. you will hear from all of the candidates you will have expanded audiences with special guests. they are deciding how the 28 delegates to the national convention will be distributed. officials are expecting lower than normal turnout. chairwoman says she is hoping the final turnout will be higher than in 2008. mitt romney is gunning for a second straight win following a victory in the florida primary last tuesday.

massachusetts supreme judicial court, should we abandon marriage as we know it and as it was known by the framersut marriage for 200 years? were generations of the spend thousands of years from all civilizations wrong about marriage? are the philosophies and teachings simply wrong, or is it more likely that four people among the seven that sat in a court in massachusetts have erred? i believe that is the case. [applause] he said marriage is not solely for adults. he said marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. children have the right to have a father and mother. i know mitt romney meets my tests. my fellow conservatives, it is my pleasure to introduce to you, a great american, governor mitt romney. ♪ i was born free i was born free free, like a river raging ♪ >> great crowd. wow. thank you. please. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. please. wow. great reception. great room. thank you. [applause] first, thank you to al for that warm and generous introduction, and thank you for this extraordinary crowd at cpac. it is a great conference so far. for that, i suppose we

this legislation strikes the correct balance between the framers' intent to place the power of the purse in the hands of congress, which retains under this bill the ability to approve or disapprove of any presidential line-item veto, with the need to cut out wasteful spending from biggie backs -- that piggy backs on much larger must-pass legislation whether it's an omnibus or appropriations bill. we know that this body has been unable to produce cleaner, leaner spending bills. and i think it can be a constructive step to enlist the help of the president of the united states in removing unnecessary and indefensible pork from spending bills. i would also add that this bill is a welcomed change from many of the other so-called budget reform bills that have been brought forward by the house budget committee. the house budget committee has brought forward bills to pretend that inflation doesn't exist. they brought forward bills to have funny scoring, trick scoring, dynamic scoring rather than the usual objective process of the congressional budget office. but you can't pretend the deficit awa

the intervening century has been based in part on their analysis. here is one of their conclusions and i quote from their 1905 report. framers of the constitution were providing against a real danger to the public interest and not just an imaginary one. they had in mind a period of time in which it would be harmful if an office were not filled. not a constructive inferred, or imputed recess as opposed to an actual one. so in other words they are saying ycan' use an overly technical set of logic in order to reach the conclusion that you've got a recess. now, that conclusion was followed up by an attorney general's advisory opinion, by attorney general doherty which was issued in 1921. among other things in that report he explained that regardless of exactly where you draw the line, under no set of reasonable circumstances can you infer that a recess and adjournment lasting less than three days could be deemed a recess for purposes of the recess appointments clause. he went on to say it's probably too short even if you take it out to seven days or ten days. and every since then our analysis informed by those positions. if noth

he has enumerated powers under the constitution and that is what he is supposed to do. >> sean: and you himself go into our founders and framersrtantly the philosophers that inspired them, those that believe in limited government, separation of powers all the things that you talk about as a constitutional attorney. it raises this question in my mind, what is the antidote to cradle to grave obamacare, $5 trillion in debt, redistribution spreading the wealth? what is the antidote? >> i've got a plan. that plan is called the constitution of the united states. it's the only antidote. under attack by the left and you cannot have big government you to happenianism and limited government -- utopianism and they trash the constitution as ruth bader ginsberg did in egypt. constitution constrains obama, pelosi and reid. these people are not be interested in being contained. i know people who knows marx is. you should know who -- lock and others, he says when these people lose by virtue, then the republic is gone. it doesn't matter what kind of constitution you write or what kind of obstacles. when our public officials have lost their vir

. >> not only does the line-item veto fly in the face of our constitution and the framers' protections, but budget experts also doubt its effectiveness as a spending reduction tool. look back to congress' experience with the line-item veto under president clinton. he wielded this authority to little effect, in saving taxpayers' dollars. in fact, congress declared that the "misuse," that he misused that authority and overturned nearly half of his cancellations. so, to summarize the line-item veto, it's likely to be abused and not likely to save money. >> the bill passed the house yesterday by a vote, 254-173, 197 republicans joining 57 democrats, 41 republicans and 132 democrats opposed the measure. the vote caused some oddities in the tally. minority leader nancy pelosi broke ranks and supported the measure, as minority whip steny hoyer, james clyburn, and john larson voted against it. a similar bill was filed last year by senator mccain and harper, a delaware democrat, and has 42 cosponsors. what duppinge about the house passing this legislation? we're going to begin with a democrat i

and the -- this is something that certainly the framers of the act, when they were putting it together, thought was critical. they looked at some states that had tried to do other insurance reforms including trying to make sure that insurance was available generally to everybody and that you wouldn't be denied insurance because you had a high-risk condition. states had tried that without an individual mandate ran into problems. at least one state massachusetts, tried it with an individual mandate and it was perceived as being more successful so it was perceived that the individual mandate was critical. i don't think it was perceived by everybody that it was the only way to accomplish adequate health care reform there were earlier versions of the act that kind of more affirmatively embraced the taxing power and taxing authority but in the end, it was settled that the health care act would pass and it would include this individual mandate. what i think gives rise to the central constitutional issue is the starting observation that this is really a fairly unique or completely unique, depe

rick santorum thing and the social issues you were talking about in the last hour is that what the framersfreedom from religion and for religion. and the idea that somehow they were going to be asking who is the better christian? who is really religious in this race? even ronald reagan during his conservative time, there was no way in 1984 he was talking about the kind of issues that have now gone beyond the consensus of where the country's at. contraception as you were talking about earlier, women's rights, gay rights, we've moved beyond these social issues that the republican party is talking about. and you're right. if they go too far, there may be some republican establishment guys who say, wait a minute, neither of these characters or any of these characters are going to win. the problem is in a primary system, there are no bosses left. there used to be bosses who could broker things at conventions. i don't know who they are anymore. that's the problem. >> isn't it fascinating, in the american system the presidential candidate, the front runner becomes the symbol for the entire party.

over whether it is a majority or supermajority would be required to enact more -- demonstrates the framersed such regulation to be made by a legislative body rather than an executive or a judicial one. and with that i am pleased with this movement by my colleague from nebraska. i think we are on firm, legal ground. we will revisit this again and with that i yield back my time to the gentleman from oklahoma who then yields it back to me. is anyone else seeking recognition? seeing no one, the question is on the amendment. per the agreement with chairman upton and ranking member waxman, both will be postponed on the dingell amendment at 12:30 when the conference committee returns. >> the gentleman requests a recorded vote as per the agreement with chairman upton and ranking member waxman. that will be rolled into the series of three votes. once we re-adjourn, i mean once we start again at 12:30. with that, this markup is in recess. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] medical professional groups believe the changes would jeopa

for purposes relevant to the recess appointments clause and in the context of the constitution the framers did not consider the adjournment like this. to be constitutionally significant it's also a significant here that article 1 section 5 provided that neither house during the session of congress shall without the consent of the other adjourn for more than three days. so, if an intersession adjournment of less than three days were to be considered constitutionally sufficient for the president of the will to exercise the recess appointment power is not clear what if anything would prevent the president from bypassing the constitution's advice and consent requirement and appointing the nominees during even the weekend adjournment, which routinely involved the periods of 72 hours or even more in which the senate may not be actually in the process of holding the committee hearings and so forth. instead assuming they are constitutional president will rely on the memorandum of the opinion produced by the office of legal counsel in the department of justice also known as the olc. this is the pre

the framers would surely shake their heads at the idea of transferring this much authority to the executive branch. so powerful was this defense defense of the congress' role that -- was this defense of the congress' role that james madison in one of the federalist papers said the power of the purse may be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people for obtaining a redress of every grievance and for carrying into effect every just and sa lmbing utary -- salutary measure, james madison, end of quote. not only does the line-item veto fly in the face of the constitution and our founding fathers, but also look back to congress's experience with line-item veto under president clinton. congress declared that the, quote, misuse -- that he misused that authority and overturned nearly half of his cancellations. so to summarize the line-item veto, it's a power likely to be abused and not likely to save money. in an effort to better this flawed bill, to at least improve its chances of having a tangible effect on gov

i don't think that is what the framers had in mind. >> called a tax? it is unconstitutional because you end up buying the insurance? >> as michael suggests, it will be distributed in a different way more broadway. -- broad way. >> at least it would be on- budget and i think it would be better. i can't resist saying something about the militia act of 1792, because i do think it is different. congress was given the power to raise a standing army and can certainly be argued that the militia act was pursuant to that power. it is important for two reasons. congress is given the power to raise armies and regulate. it was recognized that those were separate things. the power to raise an army was very controversial. the power to regulate and army wanted was raised was not controversial at all. by contrast, if you look at the commerce clause, which gives congress the power to regulate commerce. it assumes that there was actual commerce ongoing that congress had the authority to regulate. that was the power, because it assumed congress to be regulated that was no