the framers were quite clear to the contrary.this is one of the few areas where the wasn't much of a debate. my case there was a single person who is suggesting this view that a president should have this authority and he didn't get a second on his motion. and so my preference is that if you want to gut article 1, section 8 him article 1, section 8 do it. but don't blame the framers and tell you again it's in compliance with the constitutio constitution. >> so madison has gotten a lot of attention today, , so just to put at thomas jefferson, i give them a little airtime -- >> this is where i cut off. >> he wrote allocation of war powers provides an effectual check to the dog by transferring the power of letting it lose an executive to the legislative body. >> i think this is been a great hearing. thanks, everybody for coming, and if were still at work 17 years and now, if cain corker-kaine passes, let them know at least some of them were warned. >> thank you, senator. >> it's a pleasure, johnny, a pleasure. >> thank you. [inaudib

the framers probably did not consider the question in front of you. and the materials you are looking from, and face the get all to the question, they may speak in many voices. the interpreter is left with the scatter plot of data from which is necessary to interpolate. what is the best interpretation here? is what i'm trying to come up with an original meeting. -- meaning letting me decide this case how does these -- decide this case. this? these judges decide are also smart responsible people trying to do the same -- right thing, as for different possible interpretations or constructions of what the original materials mean, judges tend to choose the interpretation that seems to them sensible. all, it wise, and after would not make sense to attribute a position -- position to the founders that would not be sensible. the thing is, when judges think is sensible or wise changes over time. the intuition of judges is different. intuitions for 30 and 60 years ago are different. as the judiciary introductions changes, we tend to find in the ambiguities of t

professor turley: the framers were quite clear to the contrary. this is one of the few areas where there was not as much of a debate. in one case, a single person was suggesting this view that a single person should have this authority and he did not get a second on his motion, so my preferences if you want to gut article one section eight, do it but do not blame the framers and do not pretend it applies to the constitution. got a lot ofadison attention today. so to put out thomas jefferson and give him air time, he wrote "the allocation of war powers to congress provide an effectual chat to the dog of war by letting him loose from the legislative to the executive body." been a good day. if we're still at war 17 years from now, if corker-kaine passes us, at least let it be known there were some of us who warned. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> senator, great to see you. ]gavel pound [indiscernible conversation] announcer: c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and

there is the framers envisioned all kinds of checks, including the other branches of government.ongress and the court. we will have to see what they do. what the senate rules will be interesting. chuck schumer has considerable more power than nancy pelosi does. we will just have to see what happens in the midterms is what i would say. it is a two-year period. if democrats take the house, we will see a different dynamic in washington. guest: to the original point of the parties and the role, the constitution does not envision a role for parties at all. in fact, george washington's presidency was trying to prevent factions. they feared the rise of factions and spread out power to prevent entrenched political parties. but did the founders envisioned unique personalities and perhaps iconoclastic personalities taking power? absolutely they did. whatever folks think of the president, we have been through an era where the vice president and the secretary of the treasury dueled each other and killed each other. we went through a civil war. the founders did envision this. they left open t

what were the framers trying to do when they included this process in the constitution? and start by talking about benjamin franklin, who at the constitutional convention got up and said if we don't provide a way to get rid of the president peacefully, they will assassinate him. as he saw it, world history was pretty clear on this, that the stories that the frameers knew of failed leaders was a tale of assassinations, coups, revelation and other sad endings for everyone involved and thought there had to be a way to break the cycle. for him this ancient english doctrine, fallen into disuse on the other side of the ocean but the colonists internalized as english common law and said we can remove the president in a way that imminently threatens society without killing him, without generally destabilizing the country as a whole, and the question of when you can do that and who can you do that was to the framers intimately linked to the question of what will the checks and balances look like? you know the question of who's going to be the president was linked to the question

the framers established the constitution is designed to secure the blessings of liberty. justice kennedy devoted his career to security -- securing liberty. i'm deeply honored to be nominated to fill his seat on the supreme court. >> will get the democrats up in 20live coming minutes or as soon as it gets underway. earlier we took a closer look at the nominee. this is from today's washington journal. washington journal continues. host: joining us to talk about the pic of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court, president of -- what is anthony your organization has interest in that? guest: we care about the courts are we been involved in elections for some time. 2014 was a big year. we are a pro-life organization collecting pro-life senators. 2014de great gains in which led to a great win in the trump presidency. this led to the nomination of gorsuch, now the nomination of kavanaugh. we need the senate to confirm along with perhaps a democrat or two to confirm this nominee. host: what are your initial thoughts? guest: i think he is highly confirmable. iny much like neil gorsu

today, we live under a government that the framers would not recognize. a nation that is no longer governed by congressional action enforced by the president and interpreted by the courts. today, we are ruled more and regulation andve executive fiat. worse, we have done little to prevent our system of separated powers from yielding itself to the sweeping authority of federal agencies and what many call, and rightfully so, the administrative state. we cannot blame political ideology. republicans,ts or the administrative state has only expanded and is growing at the expense of congressional board -- authority and prestige. we have sacrificed our constitutional mandate on the twin altars of efficiency and expertise. we moved from a government by and for the people to government by the bureaucrats and the connected insiders. we areaid that experiencing what james madison warned about in federalist 62, when he wrote about the dangers murky,ing out so many burdensome rules. he warned about "the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising,

when you look at that constitutional tax never get to the intent of the framers unless the words are ambiguous. they say treason or bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors and larry says you cannot look at the framers nobody thought about those provisions there was no debate in the state legislatures and you don't look at the intent of one or two people but the understanding the american people had at the time they ratified the constitution. you really can't get much out of that also would get the text. "justice celia when you see four or five things together you have to do what they have in common. the mantle, sandy koufax, joe dimaggio and other great competitors. okay you would not say them often he is a great competitor but so this is obviously limited to great athletic competitors and what do the terms treason, bribery and and other high crimes and misdemeanors have in common? they are all crimes so look at the text itself and there is another principle of constitutional analysis that is called lenity it is a roman word meaning to you that mean when you construe a statute

i thinksonal opinion, the reason the framers of the constitution made federal judge from voting, secure from forcible retirement, letting them stay in as judges however long they want, is because they wanted to insulate them from pressure. i think that is a good thing. don't think it is proper, looking up the whole picture. the truth is that the president's attorneys got lists sources.t of from the federal society at heritage foundation. they got lists from adf and other organizations. a lot of organizations had their input into what became the president's list. from which he promised he would to thee a justice supreme court. he kept his promise. that is new and different and unique in the annals of political history. i think it is a good thing. it gave everyone a chance to vet nominees to the supreme court had the opportunity to make the call. i think it has been healthy for the system. high on judge kavanagh and he was high on our list, yes. host: let's go to emmett who supports the nomination. caller: the democrats said they were not going to elect anybody who is nominated by trump.

the framers established that the constitution is designed to secure the blessings of liberty. justice kennedy devoted his career to securing liberty. i am deeply honored to be nominated to fill his seat on the supreme court. >>> judge kavanaugh does not have a paper trail to speak of on marriage rights. on the record if a president should be shielded from criminal litigation until they leave office. he has the written that, they should. that, that, could of course been consequential. in any event. as you saw at the top his nomination sparked protests already. already lobbying is under way by the white house to overcome it. the target. wavering republicans and red state democrats. phil mattingly. what's the react they're getting so far. they will align with chuck schumer. what it comes down to right now is five senators. two republicans, senator susan collins, who are, key on abortion rights. three democratic senators, all whom volt ford neil gorsuch. in tight re-election battles. they will be key in the week as head. anderson they will be the senators to keep the close eye out

the framers established the constitution is designed to secure the blessings of liberty. justice kennedy devoted his career to securing liberty. i am deeply honored to be nominated to fill his seat on the supreme court. [applause] >> i am an only child. when people ask what it is like to be an only child, i say it depends on who your parents are. i was lucky. my mom was a teacher. and 60's, she taught history at two largely african-american public high schools in washington dc. example, taught me the example of equality for all americans. my mom was a trailblazer. when i was 10, she went to law school and became a prosecutor. my introduction to all came at our dinner table when she practiced her closing arguments. her trademark line was, use your true, sense, what rings what rings false. that is good advice for a juror and a son. the few women prosecutors at that time, she overcame barriers and became a trial judge. the president introduced me tonight as judge capital. -- kavanaugh. but to me, the title will always belong to my mom. my dad went to law school at night whil

the american rule of law with respect to the constitution he believes in paying attention to what the framers thought they were writing when they wrote that language in that sense he's not going to be an attractive candidate for those above the more liberal persuasion. pro-abortion demonstrators and others began protesting on the steps of the court even before trump made the announcement cavanagh was a former staff secretary to president george w. bush and a former aide to kenneth starr he was the special counsel whose investigation led to the impeachment trial of president bill clinton with trump facing a special counsel of his own he may now have a key ally cavanaugh has already spoken out against indicting a sitting president. in the minnesota law review he wrote the indictment and trial of a sitting president moreover would cripple the federal government rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas of all the people the most self-serving person he could choose in order to protect himself from this criminal investigation we cannot let this

political and social fashions of it day and someone who will interpret the constitution the way the framers intended it to be. the president will also be looking for personal chemistry, central castable looks and relatable stories. the wto just as a key ally makes good on a trade threat. the administration drafted a bill allowing the president to introduce tariffs a he sees fit ignoring the collective rules of the wto. the source says this doesn't mean the u.s. is abandon the wto, but if introduced would likely escalate the retaliatory trade moves already hitting the u.s. last week eu tariffs forced harley davidson to shift some production overseas and yesterday canada slapped statars on $13 billion in u.s. goods and 10% on items like maple syrup, coffee beans and strawberry jam. they're also raising costs on u.s. businesses. in fact, 20,000 companies have asked the department for an exemption. u.s. companies pay tariffs when they import steel or aluminum. that's why the next tariffs, car imports could hurt auto makers. >>> the biggest star in basketball is headed to hollywood. lebron james

when you look at a constitutional tex, you never, ever get to the intent of the framers unless, unless the words of the station are ambiguous and they're just not ambiguous, they say, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors and even larry tribe says that you can't look at the framers. almost nobody thought about the impeachment provisions. no debate in any of the state legislatures and you don't look at the intent of one or two people. you look at the intend or the understanding that the american people have at the time they ratified the constitution, and tribe says, you really can't get much out of that at all so you have to look at the text he has a very interesting example. he quotes justice scalia saying you have to look when you'll see four or five thingsing to you have to see what they have in common. mickey man tell, sandy co -- sandy cow fantastic and joe dimaggio. sam walton is a great competitor bit the lister is obviously limited to great athletic competitors and what do the terms treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors have in common? they'r

the framers really intended that kopg wa congress wants to be dominant branch of government. high office in the executive branch, and i'll say, and article i, what's article i? and the executive. and i'll say no, that's not quite right, it's congress. so congress is the one under the constitution that is supposed to be proposing these amendments, unless we have a separate convention called to propose amendments. this came from congress. you notice there's a preamble there that talks about the conventions of the states wanting to limit the powers under the constitution, wanting to add certain clauses and create public confidence. suggested certain amendments. and here are these amendments. is the word "bill of rights"? there? no, no. then we notice there were 12 proposed amendments. the first one is really a bear. it did not get ratified. if it did, we have 7,000 members of congress. we think reapportionment is bad. the second article did not get fully ratified at that time. it's about pay raises in congress. as you know, there was a government teacher who gave a student a c o

the framers rejected the british approach and requires that there is a crime as a prerequisite. to have have a crime as a prerequisite. >> paul, would it be a crime for a group of americans to aid or advance further if you will. would that be a crime? >> of course. professor dershowitz, it is an honor to be on this program with you. you inspired me to go into a career. and someone who tries to speak up for the little guy. and so i find it kind of ironic now to see your spirited defense of president trump. it is almost as though he is above the law. that the same rules don't apply to him that apply to everyone else. when we look at actual crimes that would justify impeachment, we can think about conspiracy to defraud the united states. if someone was stealing e-mails, if that was part of the plan -- >> i agree. >> -- that is a crime. if they were taking money, all of that more than satisfies the misdemeanor. >> i don't disagree with that. we are not talking about taking money. we are talking about -- >> it is oppo, that hsas a valu in any campaign. it is money. >> when the "new y

there is the framers envisioned all kinds of checks, including the other branches of government.gress and the court. we will have to see what they do. bet the senate rules will interesting. chuck schumer has considerable more power than nancy pelosi does. we will just have to see what happens in the midterms is what i would say. it is a two-year period. if democrats take the house, we will see a different dynamic in washington. original point of the parties and the role, the constitution does not envision a role for parties at all. in fact, george president -- george washington's presidency was trying to prevent factions. they feared the rise of factions and spread out power to prevent entrenched political parties. what did the founders envisioned unique personalities and perhaps caustic personalities taking power? absolutely they did. whatever folks think of the folksresident -- whatever think of the president, we have been through an era where the vice president and the secretary of the treasury dueled each other and killed each other. we went through a civil war. the founders

the framers of the constitution knew that we would have this moment in time, and they gave us the solution. we have to have the courage, the intentional fortitude to stand up for our country and impeach this president. the time has come. no more political expediency. no more driven by the polls. stand for country on a moral imperative. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick -- excuse me, the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. uncan, for five minutes. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, last year cnn reported that the u.s. had interfered or attempted to influence presidential elections in other countries at least 81 times. this is probably a very conservative estimate. this report came from a study by professor dove h. levin of carnegie melon university and apparently was just the tip of the iceberg. his study covered up to year 2000 and these activities may ha

this is part of the wisdom of the framers. original constitution created a free trade zone in the united states but a lot of trade barriers at the border. the founding partner -- founding fathers knew about trade. a lot of the struggles about trade, how the british were going to tax us, in the constitution the commerce clause gave congress the power, not any state the power. free trade stone in the country. the constitution also gave the authority to impose tariffs on foreign goods coming into the united states. wrote hishamilton report on manufacturers. use the tariff and this free trade zone, these figures people we have to create a manufacturing base in the notice states of be a plantation owner in virginia to be wealthy and have a decent living. we moved away from that we allowed in income tax. now only that but a consumption tax like allowed under the original constitution have a natural limit. , fdr can take away 90% of your income. he can't force you to buy something with a tariff. the framers were right about tariffs an

i argue in my book and i think most of the framers good agree with that and i think most constitutional scholars agree with that and judge kavanaugh agrees that they should be able to indict a sitting president but if he does get indicted and he sends that over to the house and there is a plausible case for a crime then impeachment proceedings will go forward. when i don't like is that they're charging him with things like collusion with russia it would be a terrible thing if he colluded with russia but it's not a crime we're losing peers in the criminal statute books only in relation to business people colluding with each other to violate the and i trust less is not a crime for a political candidate to collude with russia look there are crimes that could be committed violations of the election laws but let's see the evidence the main thrust of my book is that you need to have a crime most scholars this with so i'm out there pretty much by myself making the argument and it will work i went back in history and that's the conclusion i gave you agree with kavanagh on that the president can

the framers established that the constitution is designed to secure the blessings of liberty.ustice kennedy devoted his career to securing liberty. i'm deeply honored to be nominated to fill his seat on the supreme court. my applause my mom and dad are here. i am their only child. when people ask what it's like to be an only child, i say, it depends on who your parents are. [laughter] i was lucky. my mom was a teacher and in the 1960s and 70s she taught history at two largely african-american public high schools in washington, d.c. mckinley tech and hd woodson. for example taught me the importance of equality for all americans. my mom was a trailblazer. when i was ten, she went to law school and became a prosecutor. my introduction to law came at our dinner table when she practiced her closing arguments. her trademark line was, "use your common sense. what rings true, what rings false?" that's good advice for a tour, and for a son. one of the few women prosecutors at that time, she overcame barriers and became a trial judge. the president introduced me tonight as judge kavanau

the -- it was correct, the statement that the framers tried to set up something that wasn't going to ppen. but it relied on individuals to stand up for what they believed was right about america. the republicans have uni formally refused to do that. this man needs to leave office. and the democrats can't do a thing about that. and even if we win both the house and the senate, in the fall, we can't do anything about it because you need two-thirds of the votes in the senate to get rid of them. we can't do it without republicans. when dick nixon cheated the people and lied to their face, the republicans went to him and said, mr. president, you have to leave office. there is no courage of any kind in the republican party today, the country depends on their courage. >> howard dean, a fitting point to reflect on. >>> up ahead, donald trump saying what you're seeing is not what's happening, an important corrective. steve schmidt is here when we're back in just 30 seconds. >>> back with the other top story tonight, michael cohen telling people he is ready for a plan to smear trump's campaign

there was some disagreement among the courts and we were able to play a significant the role that the framers intended for us and here you have thousands of cases, you will not be able to do that. >> we have to decide on merits but that doesn't carry the same weight that a decision on the merits from a supreme court does, so it's not the same, same problem. >> i know that you are pleased to be concluding the term and then maybe some criticism of summer vacation and valid criticism. >> a recess, not a vacation, not a respite. [laughter] >> we are technically always in session. the first of october, ended that the term ended and 2018 commenced. defensive responses. [laughter] >> believe me, forever after i will refer to it, it will stick in my mind. >> but anyway, you were asking -- [laughter] >> i think gave the most effective answer to it all and papers were saying justice brandes, how can you justify taking two months and going here and there and yonder and you replied and my judgment quite certify vasively, you say i can do 12 months of work in 10 and not 12. >> i use that a lot. [laughter]

constitution should be , if youted as written the, if you go back to 1770's, there was no question the framers couldn't have thought about unreasonable searches of your cell phone, or a whole host. these are things that didn't exist then and judges have to apply the principles to a new set of facts. in terms of the rights are talking about, let's talk about the right to privacy. the question i would pose, do you want the government telling in your you can do bedroom? do want the government controlling who you can marry and you're right to marry? those are the sorts of things protected by the right to privacy under the 14th due process clause. i think it is easy to talk about these fake rights that may exist but in reality these are the rights that protect your privacy, privacy and the privacy of all americans. we will hear from chad. caller: i want to say the guests , that was a fantastic response. the constitution has to evolve based on things that we couldn't see. people needt on and to keep that in mind. to my comment. i don't think it is fair to rush a confirmation vote within 60 days sidi

the framers put that in for anti-corruption. s a heavy, heavy back and forth and legal issue to how broud that is. does that mean, as conservatives contend, a specific monetary payment to the official or a bribe or on the other side, does it mean anything of value, in this case, revenue coming into the trump hotel in washington, d.c. revenue from foreign officials staying there. one judge, in december of '17, george daniels in the southern district ruled the case could not go forward. he made an interesting observation in his opinion. in the constitution, it behooves me to point out, congress can approve a particular one. if that's the case, congress should adjudicate this. however, a judge this week ruled the opposite saying the case against the administration and president trump can go forward because they took a broader definition. amazingly, a professor at georgetown made a study on the definition of it. he went back to dictionaries from 200 years ago. the judge cited him 17 times. the point is, the professor, to keep it simp

understand those terms as they were understood by the people who ratified them, and that could be the framers in the case of subtext. it depends on when it was ratified of course, when that relevant question is. but the idea that that is what we are looking at, not today will i read this and think -- when i think due process, i think something, you know expansive and broad. , that is one interpretation. but when we are reading laws, we have to look at the words as they were actually passed. we have to be very careful not to redefine the terms. i think that would be the question that would ignite debates. i know justice scalia and justice breyer used to have a famous almost touring debate team going around. that is one of the things they would talk about, how broadly you can look at some of these things. at a certain if it gets too point, broad, then it is just an empty vessel that supreme court justices can import their own view of the world. and that is not what we -- we don't elect them. the only what we not elect them for, we don't elect them at all. that is not why they are there. they ar

understand those terms as they were understood by the people who ratified them, and that could be the framers, it could be, it depends on when an amendment was ratified when that relevant question is. but the idea that that is what we are looking at, not today will i read this. when i think due process i think something expensive and bro ad. wen we are reading laws, have to look at words as they were actually passed. we have to be careful not to redefine the terms. i think that would be a question that would ignite debate and i know justice scalia, just as riordan used to have it -- justice breyer used to have a debate, and that was one thing they would talk about, how broadly you can look at some of these things. because of the certain point of ooe gets to broad -- two broad, then it can be an empty vessel. we don't elect supreme court justices at all. they are there to interpret and bring into effect the laws that are passed by elected representatives. so they are people putting areent in -- so if there people putting content into the law has to come from the legislature, not the bench. wou

provisions and in particularly with respect to the constitution he believes in paying attention to what the framers thought they were writing when they wrote that language in that sense he's not going to be an attractive candidate for those of the more liberal persuasion who would want the constitution to be seen as a living document as it's sometimes called i was just talking to our correspondent john hendren there you may have heard us talking about the next step in the process and of course he now has to go through the senatorial hearings despite the fact that he will be subjected to rigorous scrutiny of probably from members of both sides of the house is there anything really that's going to stop this going through in october. i don't think so. this feels like deja vu all over again when neil gorsuch was nominated by president trump he was straight out of central casting. of course there were there was opposition to his nomination but it didn't stop it from going through because the republicans had already eliminated the option of a filibuster had gone with a simple fifty vote majority this nom

the framers established that the constitution is designed to security the blessings of liberty. justice kennedy devoted his career to securing liberty. i am deeply honored to be nominated to fill his seat on the supreme court. my mom and dad are here. i am their only child. when people ask what it is like to be the only child, i say it depends on who your parents are. i was lucky. my mom was a teacher. in the 1960s and 1970s, she taught history in the public high schools of washington, d.c. and mckinney tech and h.d. woodson. her example taught me the importance of equality for all americans. my mom was a trailblazer. when i was 10, she went to law school and became a prosecutor. my introduction to law came at our dinner table. her trademark line was use your common sense, what rings true and what rings false. that's good advice for a juror and for a son. one of the few women prosecutors of that time over came barriers and became a trial judge. the president introduced me tonight as judge kavanaugh. to me, that title always belongs to my mom. my dad went to law school at night w

i argue in my book and i think most of the framers good agree with that and i think most constitutional scholars agree with that and judge kavanagh agrees that they should be able to indict a sitting president but if he does get indicted and he sends that over to the house and there is a plausible case for a crime then impeachment proceedings will go forward. when i don't like is that they're charging him with things like collusion with russia it would be a terrible thing if he could with russia but it's not a crime we're losing peers in the criminal statute books only in relation to business people colluding with each other to violate the and i trust us is not a crime for a political candidate to collude with russia look there are crimes that could be committed violations of the election laws but let's see the evidence the main thrust of my book is that you need to have a crime most scholars this or that so i'm out there pretty much by myself making your fiddle i went back in history and that's the conclusion i gave you agree with kavanagh on that the president cannot be indicted i do

if you go back to the 1770s, there was no question that the framers couldn't have thought about unreasonable searches and seizures of your car or your cell phone or a whole host of -- or semiautomatic weapons, so these are things that didn't exist then and judges have to apply the principles in the constitution to a new set of facts. in terms of the rights that you're talking about that aren't in the constitution, let's just take the right to privacy. the question i would pose to you is, do you want the government telling you exactly what you can do, for example, in your bedroom? do you want the government controlling who you can marry and your right to marry? because those are the sorts of things that are protected by the right to privacy under the 14th -- the due process clause of the 14th amendment and the 5th amendment. so, i think it's easy to talk about these, quote, fake rights that may exist, but in reality, these are the very rights that protect your privacy, my privacy, and the privacy of all americans. >> let's hear from chad in baltimore, democratic caller. hi there. >> hi there.

the framers established that the constitution is designed to secure the blessings of liberty. justice kennedy devoted his career to securing liberty. i am deeply honored to be nominated to fill his seat on the supreme court. [ applause ] my mom and dad are here. i am t child. what it as like to be an only child, i say it depends on who your parents are. [ laughter ] i was lucky. my mom was a teacher in the 1960s and '70s, she taught history at two largely african-american public high schools in washington, d.c., mckinley tech and h.d. woodson. her example told me the importance of equality for all americans. my mom was a trail blazer. when i was 10, she went to law school and became a prosecutor. my introduction to law came at our dinner table when she practiced her closing arguments. her trademark line was "use your common sense, what rings true, what rings false." that's good advice for a juror and for a son. one of the few women prosecutors at that time, she overcame barriers and became a trial judge. the president introduced me tonight as judge kavanaugh. but to me, that t

consequence caution as it was written, that the living, breathing document should reflect what the framers mental the time they wrote it. >> we have seen that with his judgment base when he chose gorsuch. when it comes to someone like judge barrett. she was just confirmed last year and three democrats voted for her. the senate already confirmed her through the process of these difficult questions. mitch mcconnell -- charles: we have to take a quick break. what do you think of the notion she is too catholic is that insulting or what? >> if she is the right person for the job, she should be nominated. if they are going through a religious test like feinstein did. people rejected that. that's an ugly thing to do. that's the epitome of being un-american. charles: that's donald trump, jr. getting the crowd going big time. we'll take a quick break and be right back. the digital divide is splitting this country. we have parents who are trying to get their kids off of too much social media and computers, and then we have parents who would only hope their children have access. middle school is a re