they, when they can will cite, the framers and so on. they are very interested in the predecessors in office.

i think that would undermine the decisions the framers had made in the first clause. we are actually going to take those commission districts and make them our own and impose them. kennedy: if it is the latter, it can only be a commission. clement: what we object to is the permanent resting of authority from the state legislature -- justice kennedy: there is a law that says a portion of the commission must submit its proposal to the legislature and the legislature has 30 days and only can overturn it by a two thirds vote. mr. clement: i think that would be a harder case. the question i think you would ask is does that residual authority from the state legislature amount to the authority prescribed districts? i think you can decided either way. you can say they are not cut outcome lately. they had -- completely -- they cannot cut it out completely. they have residual authority. what you can do under smiley and hildebrandt is apply ordinary rules for legislation to the state legislatures. but what you can't do is come up with separate roles that apply to only congressio

the framers, said there ought to be conventions to approve the constitution. when they formulated article 5 and had alternative mechanisms at the federal congress could choose to provide for ratification, they gave the choice, state legislatures are the people in convention. the framers understood the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy and they made a conscious choice. it is hard to make -- to argue that -- they are creating a house elected by the people and a senate appointed by the state legislatures. when they get to the voter qualification clause, they say the people will vote for the congress. how do we define the people? they are the same people that get to vote with the most numerous body in the state house. at various points, the framers obviously -- justice kagan: that suggest popular rule. you have made many exceptions to that over the course of the last 20 minutes. you said as to anything that is not redistricting, it can be done by referendum or initiative without any legislative process whatsoever. you said all these

incentive to put the very young justices on the court, so i think we could make an argument that the framers view was that service on the supreme court would be kind of a capstone and not something that would come early in somebody's legal career. we want to talk a little bit more about this, because people may not be completely up on the various proposals of that are circulating. we will leave aside that two years, but looking at the 18 years, there is at least an argument that could be done without a constitutional amendment if somebody got life tenure on the supreme court, but the actual active job of serving and working day today as a justice -- day to day as a justice would be for the nine

we would call them today special interests, the framers understood human nature. they understood that avarice and greed are part of human nature. so they sought the liberty to divide our between the branches, three branches, legislative, executive, and judiciary, and the federal government and the state and local government. madison explains that the purpose of that is that if power is divided, no special enters, no faction can seize the entire government. if it's all unified, unchecked power means that it can be abused. the framers understood that checks and balances were designed for each of the federal branches to fight against each other. people talk about gridlock in washington, that is part of the constitutional design. gridlock is a way of slowing down the attempt by one branch of government to expand its power. it underscores right now one of the profound dangers of the obama administration. president obama is i believe the most lawless president we have ever seen. he has claimed to be unilaterally ignore laws, change laws. we are a nation that was founded

it's all -- if it's on unified unchecked power means it can be abused, and what the framers understood was, checks and balances was designed for each of the federal government's -- a to fight each other. gridlock in washington was part of the design. gridlock is a way of slowing down the attempt of one government of -- one branch of government to expand its power. it underscores right now one of the profound dangers of the obama administration, which is president obama, i believe, is the most lawless president we have ever seen. he has claimed the authority to unit what -- unilaterally ignore laws, change laws. we are a nation that was founded on rule of law, founded on the understanding that no man is above the law, especially the president, and one of the things that i think is front and center in this 2016 election is whether we the people will reign in an out-of-control president who is refusing to follow federal law for the constitution, whether we will get back to those checks and balances that at the end of the day protect our individual liberty. >> if you have the chance to go

they when they can will cite, the framers and so on. they are very interested in the president -- the predecessors in office. they are interested in what it's become. they use mostly strategically things that were said at the time. lincoln did a lot of this. reach right past this to the declaration of independence. lincoln debt that because they were such defects in the original constitution which he was having a war over. he wanted to go back to the founding values of liberty and equality. presidents who reconstruct american politics and affect the constitution very often reach way back to what they sell to the people as original values. ronald reagan is probably the most recent president who has done that effectively. again, they look back to basic values but not technical originalists. peter: so, there's a kind of moral perspective that comes into play? or is it a story of continuity and legitimation that presidents turn to in basically selling what they are doing today? or it just a fine with they are doing today? hal: yes. i think t

they, when they can will cite, the framers and so on. they are very interested in the predecessors in office. they are interested in what it's become. they use mostly strategically things that were said at the time. lincoln did a lot of this. reach right past this to the declaration of independence. lincoln did that because they were such defects in the original constitution which he was having a war over. he wanted to go back to the founding values of liberty and equality. presidents who reconstruct american politics and affect the constitution very often reach way back to what they sell to the people as original values. ronald reagan is probably the most recent president who has done that effectively. again, they look back to basic values but not technical originalists. peter: so, there's a kind of moral perspective that comes into play? or is it a story of continuity and legitimation that presidents turn to in basically selling what they are doing today? or it just a fine with they are doing today? hal: yes. i think that teddy roosevel

for the framers, it was the people, not parliament who was sovereign. and invested the constitution in its authority. they were soon persuaded it was necessary to enshrine the freedom in the bill of rights en route to protect them from the rule of the majority. much of its content in the magna carta and the petition of rights , habeas corpus and trial by jury. did his motivation, not so much by appeal to ancient history but by an appeal to nature and reason? from the puritan covenant, john locke's's theory of natural rights. as i say you will know the answer to that much better than i do. there is an awful lot of writing about it. having marched together for two centuries, the constitution of the u.s. and u.k. went their separate ways. we in the united kingdom had to wait until the human rights act of 1998 before we had a proper bill of rights that the citizens of the u.s. would recognize. patient at the lack of progress by the u.n. at translating binding obligations international law, the council of europe enshrined a similar set of political rights in

the framers understood human nature. they saw it deliberately to divide power between the three branches of government and the federal government and the states and local government. medicine explained the whole purpose power is divided can seize the entire government it is the unchecked power mean said it could be abused that checks and balances was designed to fight against each other that was part of the constitutional design grid lock is a way to slow down the attempt of one branch of government to expand power. it underscores that right now one of the profound dangers of the obama administration that the president obama is the most lawless president we have never see that he claimed to unilaterally ignore and change was. retardation and founded on the understanding no man is above the law especially the president and a blunt the that is front and center that people to read in the act of control president who refuses to follow federal law with the rate get back to the checks and balances that protect the individuals

the original intent of the framers it was to guarantee a person's right to bear arms. how did he write the second one? he gathered all the recommended amendments. there are 132 of them. and he says okay do people recommend? 's a lot of states recommend that taxes will be voluntary. the deep sixes that. we are not going to talk about that. does anybody say we are worried about our right to bear arms? for state say we are worried about a standing army. we are worried that the defense of the republic will be in the hands of a professional standing army and we want to be in the hands of a militia under the control of the state. that is what the 2nd amendment is all about. it has nothing -- so the right to bear arms is a derivative right not a natural right and the decision by scalia is a preposterous thing. [applause] a former student of mine went to harvard law school wrote all about this stuff too and what i don't like from the legal profession for which you are now member of the talk about original intent as if it's a serious theory. they talk about it like it should be

that is a hurdle we will have to overcome, but i think that the fact the framers of our constitution intended that people be able to go to a court of law and settle their disputes. in fact, the seventh amendment to the united states constitution provides for a jury trial in a civil case over $20 in value. that is enshrined in our constitution. and to actual -- close the courthouse doors to make it impossible for someone to go to court, have a jury of their peers decide the facts, and award any damages that may or may not be due, i mean, if we close the door, then we are closing our way of life. so i fight myself to make sure that we keep those courthouse doors open. the third coital branch of government be a-- the third co-equal branch of government can act as the third branch of government. host: thank you. rep. johnson: thank you for having me. host: nutritionix asks if your brand is fda compliant? daniel zadoff is one of the cofounders of the company. what does nutritionix do? daniel: we help restaurants comply with the fda. and helping customers see the full attrition breakdown on

do you think that would have changed the mindset of the framers? so the fact that they say they're not looking at our records is that any comfort or should it be comfort, the act of violation is in taking your records. the act of violation is in allowing the police or a form of the police, the f.b.i. to write warrants that are not signed by a judge. the court goes on to say the interpretation that the government asks us to adopt defies any limiting principle. the idea of a limiting principle when the court looks at things is that the way i see it, it's a difference between something being arbitrary where there is no sort of principle that confines what can happen. if you have a law that has no limiting principle it's essentially arbitrary. this is what hyack wrote about when he wrote in the walk to serfdom. he wrote about the difference between the rule of law and arbitrary and having an arbitrary interpretation of the law. the danger to having an arbitrary interpretation of the law and the danger to having general warrants is that they have been us

the critical thing is not what the framers meant by "the legislature" when they were talking proudly about political theory. what matters is when they were talking about assigning particular authorities in the constitution to particular components of the state government. in that context, as a number of you pointed out there is no doubt every time they assigned an authority to the state legislature, they were assigning the authority to the representative body of the people. now that takes us to the smiley case and the definition of legislature in the smiley case is what this case hangs on, then with all due respect to my friends on the other side, we win. smiley specifically talked about the body question. i am quoting from smiley, not yates or anything else. i am quoting from smiling. what it meant when adopted, it still means for purposes of interpretation. a legislature was then the representative body which made the laws of the people. breyer: that's true. smiley does not help him, i don't think, but it helps you less. but that is the question in the case. everybody assumes. nobo

>> well the framers thought that would be the check impeachment. in the federalist papers they talk about the response to judicial tyranny is impeachment. unfortunately we've seen thomas jefferson that even within the first couple of decades impeachment had become not even a scare crow for the supreme court. any senate that can't muster 50 votes to defeat loretta lynch who told us she would be a lawless attorney general there's no way on earth they're going to muster 67 votes to remove kennedy from office. what i have called for is several things. number one on marriage, i have introduced a amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman. i've introduced legislation stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction over a tax on marriage. the constitution gives that the congress as a check and balance. number three -- on your radio show last week i called for a constitutional amendment putting in place periodic judicial retention elections. such that the people -- >> 20 states had to do this right? >> that's right. 20 states have it in effect. in

respect to the executive functions around recognition when congress wanted the excuse me, when the framers wanted the congress to play a role and the constitution envisions a role for the framers in those executive functions, it's prescribed. article ii gives the senate a role in confirming ambassadors it gives the senate a role in advice and consent for treaties. and there isn't anything in article ii as a structural matter that gives the congress the senate or the congress a comparable role with respect to recognition decisions. justice alito: if i think that that congress generally that congress has the authority under the constitution to require identification information in passports and to specify the identification information that's included, if i believe that, then the effect of your argument, i guess, is that something that congress can do is unconstitutional if it affects the recognition power -- the president's recognition authority in some way. is that -- mr. verrilli: no, our position is narrower. i think all you need to decide to decide this case in the government's favor he

so i think one can make an argument that the framers' view was that service on the supreme court would be kind of a capstone. and not something that would come early in somebody's legal career. i want to talk a little bit more. because people may not be completely up on the various proposals that are circulated. we'll leave aside hadthe every two years. looking at the 18 year, there is at least an argument it could be done without a constitutional amendment if somebody got life tenure on the supreme court. but the actual active job of serving as a working day-to-day justice would be for the nine most junior people of the group. am i right about that? >> this is a proposal that crampton have proposed. they say it wouldn't require a constitutional amendment. i'm skeptical. i think it would require a constitutional amendment. but here i may disagree with justin about the impossibility of the constitutional amendment. when rick perry ran for president four years ago he proposed what i suggested. 18 non-renewable terms. when you have conservatives like rick perry and liberals like me propos

the framers wrote this. that is how they expressed themselves. that is how it should be interpreted on the basis of words they choose, chose, not on the basis of the words that the court would have chosen. david: peter, i know it's a big victory for the president but some people are saying republican are breathing a sigh of relief because they won't have to fiddle with trying to figure out some fix in case those subsidies didn't come down. is there any truth to that? >> well, there might be because speaker john boehner had a press availability today and he was asked directly, okay, now what, mr. speaker? and he would not be pinned down on what was next but he did say that republicans might try to make some changes to the law as they go through the budget. david: giving me a wrap but andy, there are a lot of taxes that go along with obamacare, 20 at last count. does this decision mean all those taxes stay in force? >> david, i'm sorry to tell you this decision is now the law of the land. and the remaining challenges to it are on very, very narrow g

time we thought that section 215 was vague, and it turined into to a much broader pro program than the framers attended. >> you were on a advisory board of which many thought were a place to puts a side problems and study them but yet it is your board that helped to determine that the patriot act needed to after you came back to give a perspective to the kon verizon shall acts that needed to be fixed? do you feel that the boards needed to be fixed? >> yes, pretty much everything in the handbook is consistent with the reports that the five of us spoke. it was noon mouse, and anti-terror ism anti-terrorism, and i worked on the privacy, and from all of the perspectives, we said that we need to get rid of the bulk data collection collection, and we need to get rid of the fisa report, and all of it is kon sisconsistent with the report. >> and if the freedom act is passed in the senate, many people will be held by the tell conn company, and how does that work, and what is the difference here? >> well, it is not a surprise that the phone companies keep phone records. they do it for billing a and lot

clear goals, exit strategies, a plan to pay for it and it's got to be authorized by congress as the framers of our constitution intended. if you measure calls to dramatically increase troop levels in iraq to fight isis i'd argue that none of these tests can be met. fourth, we believe that military action is only worthwhile when there is a political strategy to clean up the mess once the fighting ends. this is our caution. the u.s. military is the most powerful in the world but even it has limits. if there isn't a political answer on the ground to remove the impetus for terrorist organizations, then military gains are only going to be temporary and rarely worth the price in lives and treasure. fifth, we believe that covert actions like mass surveillance and large scale cia lethal operations have to be constrained. the dramatic expansion of our intelligence operations after 9/11 needs greater oversight and restraint. the usa freedom act is a step in the right direction but more has to be done, like taking large scale military operations like drones away from the cia for good. sixth, we believ

clear goals, exit strategies, a plan to pay for it and it's got to be authorized by congress as the framers of our constitution intended. if you measure calls to dramatically increase troop levels in iraq to fight isis i'd argue that none of these tests can be met. fourth, we believe that military action is only worthwhile when there is a political strategy to clean up the mess once the fighting ends. this is our caution. the u.s. military is the most powerful in the world but even it has limits. if there isn't a political answer on the ground to remove the impetus for terrorist organizations, then military gains are only going to be temporary and rarely worth the price in lives and treasure. fifth, we believe that covert actions like mass surveillance and large scale cia lethal operations have to be constrained. the dramatic expansion of our intelligence operations after 9/11 needs greater oversight and restraint. the usa freedom act is a step in the right direction but more has to be done, like taking large scale military operations like drones away from the cia for good. sixth, we believ

so, not only did the framers or the authors of the law intend for there to be disparate impact, but when those who were opposing the law meant to infer or confer the intentional standard in the statute, it was rejected by the congress. subsequently, in multiple years, senator orrin hatch tried to amend the fair housing act by adding an intentional standard. so, after the law was passed in 1968, senator hatch tried on many, many occasions to change the law by adding this intentional standard. every single time it was rejected by the court and in 1988 when the law was amended to really expand and broaden coverage to include two protected classes. disability status and the familial status at that time again, this intentional amendment was introduced. it was rejected, but what congress did do when it amended the law was it said there were three instances that we don't want to apply to disparate impacts. one example is remember familial status is now a protected class. what congress said is if local musicality's past a reasonable occupancy standard, we do not mean for the reasonable occupancy

presidents have tools at their disposal that go far beyond anything envugsed by -- envisioned by the framers of the constitution. the constitution says that the role of the president is not to write laws but to -- quote -- "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" -- end of quote. we now have a massive administrative state made up of departments and agencies to which congress has delegated enormous power that make religions with the force of law -- regulations with the force of law. moreover these agencies have the power to enforce their own regulations and the primary role in interpreting their regulations in individual cases. thus they exercise legislative executive, and judicial power all in one. but this concentration of power in the executive branch agencies creates a strong temptation for presidents to use it to implement their agenda irrespective of congress or the law of the land. i've been very critical of president obama for a number of actions that i think exceed his legal authority from using the clean water act to trying to regulate land use decisions in virtually every c

that's a hurdle we have to overcome but i think that the fact -- the framers of the constitution intended that people would be able to go to a court of law and settle this dispute. in fact, the seventh amendment to the united states constitution provides for a jury trial in a civil case at expense in over 20 tuesday -- $20 in value and that's the procedural hurdle and close the courthouse door to make it impossible for someone to go to court and have a jury of their peers decide the facts. and award any damages that may or may not be due -- we close that door, then we're closing our way of life. so i'll fight myself to make sure we keep those courthouse doors open, that the third coequal branch of government in fact be adequately restored so it can act as the third coequal branch of government, joining us, halfway johnson member of the judiciary committee. >> nutritionix asks if your brand is fda compliant? daniel sadoff, what do you 0. >> we help restaurants reply if fda regular legislation is by showing calorie counts on the menu boards. >> why are you showing your wares here at cef? wh

do you think that would have changed the mindset of the framers? so the fact that they say they're not looking at our records is that any comfort or should it be comfort, the act of violation is in taking your records. the act of violation is in allowing the police or a form of the police, the f.b.i. to write warrants that are not signed by a judge. the court goes on to say the interpretation that the government asks us to adopt defies any limiting principle. the idea of a limiting principle when the court looks at things is that the way i see it, it's a difference between something being arbitrary where there is no sort of principle that confines what can happen. if you have a law that has no limiting principle it's essentially arbitrary. this is what hyack wrote about when he wrote in the walk to serfdom. he wrote about the difference between the rule of law and arbitrary and having an arbitrary interpretation of the law. the danger to having an arbitrary interpretation of the law and the danger to having general warrants is that they have been us

so not only did the framers or authors of the law intend for there to be disparate impact, but when those who were opposing the law meant to infer or confer intentional standard in the statute, it was rejected by the congress. subsequently, in multiple years senator orrin hatch tried to amend the fair housing act by adding an intentional standard. when the law was passed in 1968, senator hatch tried on many occasions to change the law by adding this intentional standard. every time, it was rejected by the court. in 1988, when the law was amended to broaden coverage to include protected classes -- disability status and familial status -- at that time again the intentional amendment was introduced and rejected. what congress did do when it amended the law was it said there are three instances we do not want to apply to disparate impact. one example would be familial status is a protected class. congress said if local minister pawleys -- municipalities pass a reasonable occupancy standard we do not mean for that reasonable occupancy standard to be challenged by the fair housing act under the

so not only did the framers are the authors of the law intend for there to be disparate impact but whenthose who were opposing the law meant to infer or conferred the intentional standard in the statute, it was rejected by the congress. subsequently, and multiple years, senator orrin hatch tried to amend the fair housing act by adding an intentional standard aired after the law was passed in 1968, senator hatch tried on many, many occasions to change the law by adding this intentional standard. every single time it was rejected by the court and in 1988 when the law was amended to really expand and broaden coverage to include two protected classes. disability status and the familial status at that time again, this intentional amendment was introduced. it was reject it. for congress to do when it amended was sad there are three instances that we don't want to apply to disparate impacts. one example is remember familial status is now a protected class. but congress said was this local municipalities has a reasonable occupancy standard, we do not mean for the reasonable occupancy standard t

so, not only did the framers or the authors of the law intend for there to be disparate impact but when those who were opposing the law meant to infer or confer this intentional standard, in the statute it was rejected by the congress. subsequently, in many, multiple years, senator orrin hatch tried to amend the fair housing act by adding an intentional standard. so after the law was passed in 1968, senator hatch tried on many, many occasions to change the law by adding this intentional standard. every single time it was rejected by the court and then again in 1988 when the law was amended to really expand and broaden its coverage to include two protected classes, disability status and also familial status. at that time, again, this intentional amendment was introduced. it was rejected. but what congress did do what it amended the law was it said there are three instances that we don't want to apply to disparate impact. so one example of that would be because, remember familial status is now a protected class and what congress said was, if local municipalities pass a reasonable occupanc

i think one can make an argument that the framers view was that service on the supreme court with the kind of a cast-off and not something that would come early and someone's political career. talk a little bit more because this may not be completely up on the various proposals that are circulating. the lake decides every two years. looking at the 18 near there is an argument that could be done without a constitutional amendment if somebody got tenure on the supreme court. but the actual job of serving and working day-to-day just if would be the nine most junior people at the group. am i right about that? >> they say it would require a constitutional amendment. i think it would require a constitutional amendment. here i may disagree about the impossibility. when rick perry ran for president four years ago he proposed what i suggested. 18 near nonrenewable terms with conservatives like brick. liberals like me but proposing maybe it becomes where possible. what is interesting on the rare occasion i get interrupted with applause proposed in 18 near nonrenewable term limit. [applause] i d

incentive to put the very young justices on the court, so i think we could make an argument that the framerswas that service on the supreme court would be kind of a capstone and not something that would come early in somebody's legal career. we want to talk a little bit more because may not be completely up on the various proposals of that are circulating. we will leave aside every two years, but looking at the 18 years, there is at least an argument that could be done without a constitutional amendment if somebody got life tenure on the supreme court but the actual active job of serving and working day-to-day justice would be for the nine most junior people of the group. am i right about that? >> they say would require a constitutional amendment. i'm skeptical. i think it would require a constitutional amendment but here i may disagree with johnson -- justin about the constitutional -- when rick perry ran for president he proposed just what i have suggested, 18 nonrenewable terms. we have conservatives like rick perry in liberals like me but proposing this. maybe it becomes more plausible.

creates a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government precisely because the framersdidn't think the branches would do a very good job of checking themselves. yet the federal government has grown so massive and the information disparities between the executive branch and the other branches has grown so great that it's really not possible or desirable to leave oversight entire try to the congress and the courts. in the intelligence area in particular there's substantial reliance on internal oversight. that's in part due to some of the limitations on congressional and judicial review in the national security context which we heard about on the earlier panel. and, in fact when administration officials talk about some of those limitations on external review they often invoke a level of overtake that happens from within. so this tells us that this internal regime is at least in part being used to compensation for a lesser degree of exalternatival oversight as well as to compliment that oversight when it exists. the panoply of oversight is indeed impressive. the nsa surveil

he said the great achievement of our framers was they sympathize freedom and tradition. he said freedom requires tradition for law and order, for inspiration. but the tradition requires free gum to escape stagnation, to escape coercion. you have to have a dose have a does above, that one without the other isn't something we strive for. when i think how we compare different ways of mixing liberty and virtue, and i think how different the american revolution was from the french revolution. the american revolution with throughout the king but kept their religious bearing. this is a perfect uestion for the media. are we a christian nation? we were founded by people predominately christian in people predominately religious and kept their religion as part of their tradition. we also cap the democratic representation. we kept the health of burgess has been going on 150 years. we have a revolution that we were remarkably lucky it turned out as well as it did. part of it is her sophomore eedom but we didn't give up on believing we had to have a virtuous nation, there had to be an

it in our own time, that it only comes into focus as a human experience moves on and said that the framersf our constitution, they understood that and why they used these broad sweeping terms of principles of interpretation that allowed subsequent generations to apply these principles to new circumstances so yes, those elements change. if it says you have to be 30 years old to run for the united states senate there's no ambiguity about that. what does equal protection of the laws mean? who are we counting as equal exactly? that doesn't say, for instance. so that's how the majority sees it. host: the dissenters saw it very differently and saw the constitution as a very -- as more of a limited grant of power that does not give judges the right to what they felt would be essentially to shoehorn their own personal values into constitutional law by disguising them as the application of timeless principles. they felt the term justice scalia in his term used a judicial putch using a german term for overthrow of government. so from their point of view this was, we're quite explicit about elitist l

i think one could make aneringment that the framers' view was that service on the supreme court would be kind of a capstone and not something that would come early in somebody's legal greer. -- career. touchdown mr. greenhouse: -- people might not be completely up on various proposals. ms. greenhouse: there is an argument it could be done without a constitutional amendment if somebody got life tenure on the supreme court but the actual act of the job serving as a working day-to-day justice would be for the nine most junior people of the group. am i right about that? >> they say it wouldn't require a constitutional amendment. i'm skeptical. i think it would require a constitutional amendment. but here i disagree with justin about the impossibility of a constitutional amendment. when rick perry ran for president four years ago, he proposed what i suggested 18-year nonrenewable terms. mr. chermerinsky: we have conservatives like rick perry and liberal like me, maybe it's plausible. i have spoken to audience abouts this, it's interesting on the rare occasion i get interrupted with the cla

incentive to put the very young justices on the court, so i think we could make an argument that the framers view was that service on the supreme court would be kind of a capstone and not something that would come early in somebody's legal career. we want to talk a little bit more about this, because people may not be completely up on the various proposals of that are circulating. we will leave aside that two years, but looking at the 18 years, there is at least an argument that could be done without a constitutional amendment if somebody got life tenure on the supreme court, but the actual active job of serving and working day today as a justice -- day to day as a justice would be for the nine most junior people of the group? >> they say would require a constitutional amendment. i'm skeptical. i think it would require a constitutional amendment but here i may disagree with justin. when rick perry ran for president he proposed just what i have suggested, 18 nonrenewable positions. maybe it becomes more plausible. i've spoken to a lot of audiences about this and it's interesting, on the rare

the found -- the framers said, no, war is too important to allow one person, the president, to decide on it. but we gotten away from that. we've gotten away from it because we didn't have time, that was the excuse, with the missiles flying over, you couldn't call congress into session. then came iraq. we had a resolution for the use of military force. then came libya. plenty of time to consult with nato plenty of time to consult with ashe countries no, time to consult with congress. i believe that was unconstitution -- and foolish as it turns out -- but unconstitutional use of force. now we have the middle east. in iraq and syria, we're get manager and more into the war. i'm not commenting on the intelligence of that right now. it may be we have no choice but to fight isis. it may be, as the republicans seem to want without saying so, we should have a lot of boots on the ground, buzz that's what they mean when they say the president is doing it halfway. or maybe the bigger threat is iran and we should turn our attentions to iran instead of passively alying with iran against isis. or m

clear goals, exit strategies, a plan to pay for it and it's got to be authorized by congress as the framersed. if you measure calls to dramatically increase troop levels in iraq to fight isis, i'd argue that none of these tests can be met. fourth, we believe that military action is only worthwhile when there is a political strategy to clean up the mess once the fighting ends. this is our caution. the u.s. military is the most powerful in the world but even it has limits. if there isn't a political answer on the ground to remove the impetus for terrorist organizations, then military gains are only going to be temporary and rarely worth the price in lives and treasure. fifth, we believe that covert actions like mass surveillance and large scale cia lethal operations have to be constrained. the dramatic expansion of our intelligence operations after 9/11 needs greater oversight and restraint. the usa freedom act is a step in the right direction but more has to be done like taking large scale military operations like drones away from the cia for good. sixth, we believe that strength at home lea

it scales up very well and a lot of the air framers have seen the value proposition of what the gears so we are talking to a number of folks. you have to find that business solution that works for both of us. greg: just explain what the here turbo fan is and why it is so hard to do. guest: you have a gear in front of the engine. what it does right behind the low compressor. all it does is it divorces the low turbine to -- from the fan. and allows the fan to operate at its optimum speed. you have this gear in front of the engine so on and a320, if you were to put it in horsepower it is 33,000 per shaft horsepower going through that gear. the gearbox does not weigh much more than the transmission in your car. if you have a sports car maybe it is 500 sports -- horsepower. it is a big deal. we spent 20 years to get there. guy: very great talking to. joining us from pratt & whitney. we're talking to tony fernandes and tim clark, the ceo of emirates. his take on the flight taking place. more on bloomberg.com. some great stories from the scene at the paris air show. back to you. anna: thank

he says the constitution itself says nothing about marriage and the framers and trusted states with thect of the domestic relations of husband and wife. there is no dispute that every state at the founding and every state throughout history until a dozen years ago defined marriage in the traditional biologically rooted day. stuart: justice kennedy wrote the majority decision and it was a 5-4 decision. rick, i am saying this is the sweeping victory for pro gay marriage forces if i can call them that, a sweeping victory. gay marriage is now allowed in all 50 states. your comment please? it is as sweeping as i am saying it is? >> i think is of big win for the consistent conservative position that government should stay out of people's business, that the individual has the right to jews their future. i think this is what conservatives should have been rallying all along. this is something that if you are a consistent conservative you want government out of your business. what the supreme court is saying today is everyone gets a right to choose their mates. this is a fundamental right that e

that's the framer. not the real bet. that's the one you frame.at was such a race. >> 40 cents? >> there were other bets placed that were perhaps more lucrative. it was incredible. truly incredible. you heard going in this horse might be different than the other ones. >> didn't you feel like we have heard this before? it's going to be a letdown? >> yes, and you're waiting right here because this is usually where it falls apart, on the back stretch coming down the homestretch for the horse to fall behind. look how strong american pharoah is widening the lead as he goes, and an incredible story. first time since 1978. >> 37 years. >> will it happen? and it finally happened saturday. >> i had chills. that was an incredible moment. i always kind of feel bad about horse racing but when they're in the full gallop there's nothing more beautiful. >> probably the greatest triple crown winner since 1967. >> all right. that wasn't the only thing that happened this weekend. we run the gamut. last night, i went to the tonys. mark went to the tonys. >> you went