u.s. constitution. have you ever seen a big writeup about it? occasionally just for fun i write about it, but occasionally for fun i have brought it up at talks at law schools, good law schools, faculty seminars. people listen and say, kind of interesting, , let's go on to te next topic. okay, i'm sure you can find plenty of analogs right where you are. well, that's what gramsci called hegemonic common sense. it's just hoping to us, yes, working of criminals. we don't have to pay attention to the constitution. we can kill anybody we like. i mean, let's go on with that. suppose that i ran right now was carrying out a global assassination campaign in which the leaders sat down every tuesday morning, read a little bit of the islamic equivalent of st. augustine, just war, and then judiciously decided who they're going to assassinate today. namely, of the many people around the world who they consider might be a threat to them, which ones should we assassinate today? how would the australian press react to that? how do they react when it actually hap

u.s. since abortion was made a constitutional right five decades ago.prohibits all abortions after six weekof being pregnant. legislation makes an exception in the case of a medical emergency, although patients would need written proof from a doctor. it does not make exceptis for pregnancies resulting from rap or incest. i am joined by a siting professor at boston university law school. let's start with your reaction to this ruling today. >> this is a very disappointing ruling for reproductive rights of women across america. even though the heartbeat act affects only techs women at the moment, it is setting a very dangerous precedent, which is creating this bounty hunter model, where private citizens can file lawsuits that the minimum judgment, monetary judgment, is $10,000, but there is no limit. effectively, they will sue as many abortion clinics as they want and can, and ultimately caused them to not be able to financially operate, which effectively denies women in texas the right to an abortion. if they can afford it and take time off of work, if th

u.s. constitution says that treaties are the supreme law of the land, the people of the lower elwha saw only injustice foabout 10years. t there'a healinnow, becae thats changi. all of iian couny is here in spirit, and their eyes are focused on the people of the lower elwha. en chantg) (sofmus) - "whe had thecome fro the aner sound like fai tale. the r reacheof the s. how had ey arriv? anher fairtale. bywimming ainst e of theost poweul rivers on eth, past eig deadly dams, all the waup from e pacifi why d they me such a insaneourney? other woer. these lorestones a cleacurrentso high a far om the s, once gave thelife. thgh they ssess litel mo, noegs, hooves, ft. by smming ho, at thetocertaice thpebbles the birth,litel mo, - yeah, just wan welcome you fo. inorth arica of hydy s water aecond, going through each of the big penstocks, and when it's really cranking good, it will actually vibrate through the bedrock, you can sometimes fe it clear across the river. so you just really know there's a lot of power there. there are those that would take out every dam, st to sa a couplof salmo ere are ose

u.s. constitution says that treaties are the supreme law of the land, the people of the lower elwha saw only injustice t there'a healinnow, beuse thats changi. all ofndian cotry is here in spirit, and their eyes are focused on the people of the lower elwha. en chantg) (machiry whirrg) (sofmusic) - "whe had thecome fro the aner sound like fairy tale. the r reacheof the s. how had ey arriv? anher fairtale. bywimming ainst one the mos poweul rivs on ear, past eig deadly dams, all the waup from e pacifi poweul rivs on ear, why hathey madsuch aninsane jrn. these corestones a cleacurrentso high a far om the s, once gave thelife. noegs, hves,eet. th'd climbhe rocki, to e pebbleof tir birth by smming ho, at the certaice noegs, hves,eet. inorth arica of hydy fomanyears, itas thlargest the wor. 25000 gaons water aecond, going rough each of theig pens, d when is really crankin, it will actually vibrate through the bedrock, you can sometimes feel it clear across the river. so you just rely know there's a lot of power there. there are those that would take out every dam, st to sa a couplof salmo ere are

u.s. constitution.ther and tell you not only is there not a guaranteed right, there's nothing in our u.s. constitution that would prevent a state, a state like mississippi from implementing and placing reasonable restrictions on abortions. >> neil: that restriction in your state's case is after 15 weeks. right? >> under the statute that is being tested at the supreme court, it is a 15-week ban. >> neil: you think it will -- the high court will affirm this and for the first time a time period by which you cut off all abortions, putting an actual time to it after 15 weeks? >> i believe that if the court were to read the united states constitution, the individual justices would read the constitution, i think they would recognize was roe incorrectly decided but i believe casey was incorrectly decided in 1992. >> neil: all right. the governor of mississippi, tate reeves. let's get the read on this from geraldo rivera. i know he doesn't seem that old but he was back there in 1973 following that case. he's kin

u.s. constitutional law and constitutional history, and i think certainly there is a lot to grapple with with regards to proposals to expand the court because of the history of fdr's court packing plan, and fears about the over what is asian of the court -- over politicization of the court. i think there was a range of scholars who brought in perspectives we might not have had, the possibility of a legislative override which is more common in other constitutional systems outside of the united states, systems designed in the 20th century or 21st century rather than the 18th century. it was interesting to see the perspective of advocates and people who were a part of groups that litigated before the courts, it's predictable that many of their perspectives are concerned with the immediate moment we are currently in. i think there was an interesting conversation in the report and hearing about the extent to welch -- which the constitution has to be amended to any proposals that would require constitutional amendments as a feasible option. >> as a member of the commission, folks are emailing to ea

u.s. constitutional law and constitutional history. i think certainly there is a lot to grapple with regarding proposals to expand the court because of the history of fdr's court packing plan and just fears about the over -politicization in the diagnosis of the current political moment as to whether the court has already been delegitimized. and i think there was a range of scholars who brought in perspectives that we might not have had and the possibility of the legislative override, which is more common in other constitutional systems outside the united states, constitutional systems that were designed in the 20th century or even in the 21st century rather than in the 18th century. i think that there are -- it was interesting to see the perspective that many of the practitioners and advocates, people who are part of groups that litigated before the court -- it is predictable that many of their concerns are more concerned with the immediate moment we are currently in. and i think there was an interesting conversation in the report, in

u.s. constitution. that's all -- host: what convinces you that there is a database being collected? what evidence would you say that you have to that effect? caller: i have read that they were 80 republicans. i think it's going through the house right now. the database in one of those bills. host: ok. we'll hear from vero beach, florida. independent line. caller: talking about medicare and social security. the government give us 6% for inflation for 2022. gives the assurance 14 1/2%. medicare goes from 148 to 171. this is being done by bidden, this is wrong. and kept silent when they speak to the president. give them 60%. don't give them 14 1/2. thank you. i appreciate t. host: that's florida. "new york times" talking about boosters and question of whether you should mix boosters or not. the effectiveness that has. carl zimmer writes this morning, people looking for that booster shot probably don't need to fret about what brand it is. many combination of shots are likely to provide strong protection according to a large new study. in comparison of seven different vaccine grands, bri

u.s. senator doing his constitutional duty for the people he represents. shouldn't be that hard. of fact, this is probably your first test of judicial independence. a u.s. senator, of the senate -- of the senate -- read the constitution -- wants to undertake his advice and consent, constitution role with you. okay. you guys have read the constitution, those four judges i just mentioned. but an unelected bureaucrat in the white house, i guess a white house counsel, who knows? it's hard to tell who's in charge there. she's blocking this. give my office a call, 202-224-1026. i'm ready to meet and talk to you any time before the vote. don't worry. i don't think president biden is going to yank your nomination if you call me. heck, he probably doesn't even know this is going on. but you know this is the right thing to do, judges. you've read the constitution. heck, if our meeting goes well, i might even vote for you. but here's the thing, you will learn more about the issues that you're going to have to deal with very soon in your tenure, which you probably don't know anything about, n

u.s. constitution, not a sort of federal destiny in the united states. a part of that that was a little excessive is that they were in love with the idea that it's a unique experiment. some of those professors that he was admiring in the university were also people who joined the know nothing party that he had associated with that were known for their anti-catholic feelings and living under the authoritarian force being they didn't understand democracy. that is a literal kind of question. i think that kentucky influenced him and a lot of ways as was mentioned earlier. not based on capital investments and tremendous imbalances of wealth gave a different perspective and while the racial situation was horrendous, there was interaction with african-americans which none of the northern justices had at all and the fact the ku klux klan was inserting itself so strong also gave him a moral impetus later on. a. >> i understand he was a fundamentalist christian of the time. what do you know about stopping the decision? >> this is a difficult question to answer and

u.s. constitution. r the constitution because we want to protect judges, is just crazy. but with issues of temperament or their knowledge. i do in cases of 9th circuit judge, i send them several u.s. supreme court cases that have an impact on alaska, i ask them to read them, so they are up to speed on big issues in my state, then i talk about issues like second amendment, almost 70% of households in alaska are gun owners this is hugely important to my constituents, these judges, usually don't know anything about the issues. and it is a way to educate them, so when they are on the bench, for life, they are doing things that represent everybody in the circuit. not just where they are from,. in my case, california produces vast majority of 9th circuit judges, alaska gets one judge out of 29. you better believe i'm going to interview every one of them. we finally fought back and won against this latest biden attack on the constitution. trey: to show you how much of a nerd, i am, i was watching c-span, i list

u.s. constitution, talking about the bill of rights and the constitution. that you can watch or you can give him a call this morning as he appears about 11 years later here this morning on mr. hammond ." -- here this morning on "washington journal." caller: i have two statements. the united states with your philosophy, we would still have slave states. a patriot puts the united states, not the state of texas, not the state of florida. if you can remember, texas at one point during the obama administration wanted to secede the union. what you are saying is impossible to credit. guest: first of all, referring back to my point about china, i think you have to differentiate between whoever has the majority in texas. i do not they get anytime a majority of texans have wanted to secede. i suspect the people who talk about it or not that serious about it either. there is plenty of room for federalism without going back to the horrible practice of slavery . one of the things we modified the constitution that we put in the 14th amendment and the 13th of may meant --

u.s. constitution prohibits states from preventing the killing of the unborn. at this point their main argument is that roe has been on the books for a long time and it's too late to do anything about it. that is absurd. of the notion that the american people are stuck with a wicked decision just for the sake of tradition goes against everything the country stands for. by that reasoning plessy versus ferguson which is how loud a segregation for over 50 years would never have been overturned by brown versus board of education. arguing in favor of the state's 15 week abortion band also argued against bowing to president when much has changed, including new imaging technology. >> i think it's advancement in knowledge and concern about such things as fetal pain, what we know the child is doing and looks like and is fully human -- >> 40% of dead people if you touch their feet, their foot will react your car there are spontaneous acts by dead brain people. i don't think a response by a fetus necessarily proves there is a sensation of pain or that there is consciousne

u.s. constitution. not only is there not a guaranteed right, there's nothing in the constitution that prohibits individual states from enacting their own laws. after all, that's really what the founding fathers intended for any issue that is not explicit in the constitution, it should be left to the states and the state legislatures and democratic process. i just want to make sure everyone is clear that if roe v. wade is overturned, that doesn't mean that no one in america is going to have access. although, that might make people like me happy. but what it does mean is that all 50 states, the laboratories of democracy are going to have the ability to enact their own laws with respect to abortion. i think that's the way it should be in america. >> is that a yes, that if roe v. wade is overturned, you will enforce the almost total abortion ban in mississippi that exists in the inevitability or situation where roe v. wade is overturned? yes? >> yeah, jake, that is a yes because if you believe, as i believe,

u.s. constitution which is a post civil war amendment that was designed to address the abuses of enslaving people. families torn apart, forced pregnancies, rape, all those things, physical abuse that was tolerated in america. the 14th amendment was designed to address that. the idea was the 14th amendment encompasses lots of rights, the right to mary, the right to contraception, the right to decide where our children are e educated, the right to our own medical care and the right to tell the state, listen, you can't interfere with my decision to end a pregnancy at a certain time. the ripple effects of this, jim, in my mind from a constitutional standpoint are well beyond roe itself. i think this conservative court has to have that in mind. >> it will be interesting to see when that comes into play. when they pointed out the 14th amendment, privacy is not specifically listed in there, but noted the right was an absolute. so in terms of the state making that statement on potential life which is really in the third trimester, looking at that, looking at what the implications could be far beyo

u.s. constitution, which is a set of laws. we have a formal system that creates knowledge.y, all sorts of institutions who obey by a certain set of rules that any hypothesis can be tested. we will check each other out to make sure whether they are right and wrong. we will slowly build up knowledge. that reporting is part of the constitution. lots of americans, millions of americans have simply opted out of it. they simply trust constitutional knowledge and not part of building up the regime. but the hope that some intellectual or some shift so people would say those people are reliable. judy: and for historical purposes, as you were saying. in connection with this to a degree, the house select committee looking into the january 6 attack on the capital, all of that not believing the election results, jonathan. this week, we had an interesting development. mark meadows, who is going to cooperate, then said i'm not going to cooperate, voted to say he finds him in contempt of congress. but in the process, he did turn over documents. we learned these text messages that show memb

u.s. constitution and wisconsin law.is through these actions, the fraudulent elevgts electors sought to undermine the november 2020 presidential election and achieve through fraud a result that their chosen candidates had been unable to secure through a free and fair election or through a bevy of meritless post-election lawsuits challenging the vote. t o we write to draw your attention to the actions and request your office immediately investigate t the individuals responsible with an eye toward assessing whether criminal charges are appropriate.viow they then suggest some possible charges that might apply, in this circumstance, including forgery. falsely assuming to act as a public officer, official misconduct, conspiracy and others. it has been more than ten monthe now since that referral was sent to the state elections commission and to the milwaukeea county district attorney. we don't know if any criminal investigation was ever undertaken by the state io prosecutor there. certainly there have been no public-facing charges that we've seen for any of those people wha took part in the forgery an

u.s. constitution and the way we operate this country especially when you consider the punishment here is the people that have to use these airports every single day. i don't think this is going to make a hill of beans difference but you want to punish people that won't compile. >> quick break. i want to come back and have a chance to flush this out further. don't go anywhere. stay right there. (all cheering) it feels too good to be true. it's kicking back and relaxing as we pick up your car. and when you get paid on the spot, it feels like scoring big. you know the feeling. you just never imagined you could get it from selling your car. well, with carvana, you can. experience the new way to sell a car. >>> i'm back now talking about whether you should have mandates on domestic flights. scott was saying this is punitive as opposed to helpful. juliette, what do you say the argument he raised about this might over burden or overwhelm the mystery of the airports. is that persuasive at all to you? >> there will be administrative burdens that i've written about that can be relatively easy to c

u.s. constitution, that is no longer a partisan issue, that's an american issue.ying to defend somebody like kemp who i disagree with on everything. but a governor shouldn't be replaced and primaried for upholding rult of law. >> well, eric, it's also -- i mean, i remember the days when then-president trump liked brian kemp. i mean, he used to say great things about him. about his -- you know, he liked the way he was handling covid. he -- you know, he couldn't say enough good stuff about him. >> yeah. and you know, that's one of the ironies here. one of the few times donald trump ever attacked brine kemp pr brian kemp prior to this was he thought he opened the state too soon last year, end of april i think it was when kemp opened the state. otherwise, he endorsed kemp last go-around and has now been working people for him largely because donald trump is very transactional. he wanted brian kemp to do something. ironically, though, and just to clarify this whole conversation which makes it more ridiculous is the georgia constitution actually predicts the governor of

u.s. constitution. but i'd go a step further and tell you that not only is there a guarantee right, there is also nothing in our united states constitution that would prevent a state, like mississippi, from implementing and placing reasonable restrictions on abortion. >> this mississippi case has been described as the biggest challenge to abortion rights in this country and decades, it will be among our topics of discussion here tonight. with that, it is a good time to introduce our starting line on this tuesday evening. ashley parker, pulitzer prize chief for the washington post. , carol leonnig pulitzer prize -winning also with the post-coauthor with our friend phil rucker of the new york times bestseller, i alone can fix it. and paul butler, former federal prosecutor at the department of justice. currently a professor at georgetown law. good evening and welcome to you all. ashley, i'd like to begin with you. this is a great headline for the committee. the potential cooperation of mark meadows. they we

u.s. constitution and reduce the likelihood of dangerous military adventurism abroad. this year bipartisan groups of legislation -- legislators and house and senate have reform bills would begin the reassertion of the legislatures war powers. we are delighted to have one of the legislatorsrs involved in ts effort here with us today. today's policy forum will discuss the role of congress and u.s. foreign policy and the recent push to reassert the legislative branch, branches oversight over warov authorizations, armed sales and emergency declarations. we're joined today by senator chris murphy and the cato institute jordan cohen and gene healy. senator murphy will give introductory marks followed by jordan and gene. the senators schedules us not allow them to stay for the entire that but we are grateful to have him here with us. senator chris murphy junior senator from connecticut is the mantra of the national security powers actty of 2021 which is cosponsored by senator bernie sanders of vermont and mike lee of utah. he serves on the senate foreign relationse committee

u.s. constitution. that's all -- host: what convinces you that there is a database being collected? what evidence would you say that you have to that effect? caller: i have read that they were 80 republicans. i think it's going through the house right now. the database in one of those bills. host: ok. we'll hear from vero beach, florida. independent line. caller: talking about medicare and social security. the government give us 6% for inflation for 2022. gives the assurance 14 1/2%. medicare goes from 148 to 171. this is being done by bidden, this is wrong. and kept silent when they speak to the president. give them 60%. don't give them 14 1/2. thank you. i appreciate t. host: that's florida. "new york times" talking about boosters and question of whether you should mix boosters or not. the effectiveness that has. carl zimmer writes this morning, people looking for that booster shot probably don't need to fret about what brand it is. many combination of shots are likely to provide strong protection according to a large new study. in comparison of seven different vaccine grands, bri

u.s. constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation and the province and duty of the judiciaryeed, if the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the united states and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery. the nature of the federal right infringed does not matter. it is the role of the supreme court in our constitutional system that is at stake. that was chief justice john roberts today, mr. under statement, nevertheless saying that letting texas ban abortion this way means state can just over rule the constitution now. states can overrule the federal court. supreme court doesn't have to be obeyed anymore, not if this is how it's going to go from her on out. chief justice mayore was on the side of the argument, as well and said, quote, the court should have put an end to this madness months ago before the ban first went into effect. it fails to do so then, fails again today. the court then betrays not only the citizens of justice but our constitutional system of governme

u.s. constitution that's a set of laws. media part of it, checking it out, experts, academy,o bay a certain set of rules that any hypothesis can e tested and we'll slowly build knowledge and that reporting is part of that constitution. lots of americans, millions and millions of americans have simply opted out of it. they don't trust the constitution of knowledge and are not part of building up the democratic regime. it's still important to do what the a.p. reporters did to keep the constitutional knowledge going and keep some intellectual or emotional shift to say, yes, those people are reliable. >> woodruff: and for historical purposes. as you were saying, in connection with this, to a degree, the house select committee looking into the january 6th attack on the capitol which was all about not believing the election results, jonathan, this week we had an interesting development, mark meadows, who was going to cooperate, then said i'm not going to cooperate. house then voted to say to find him in contempt of congress. in t

u.s. constitution and wisconsin law. through these, actions the fraudulent electors thought to undermine the presidential election, and achieve through fraud, a result that their chosen candidate has been unable to secure through a free in fair election. or through a bevy of merit list lawsuits, challenging the results of the vote. we rate to draw your attention to these actions of these electors, and re-request your office immediately investigate the individuals responsible, with an eye toward assessing whether criminal charges or appropriate. they then suggest some possible charges that might apply in a circumstance. including forgery, falsely assuming to act as a public officer, official misconduct, is conspiracy and others. it has been more than ten months now since that referral was sent to that state elections commission and to the milwaukee county district attorney. we don't know if any criminal investigation was undertaken by the state prosecutor there. certainly there has been no public facing charges that we ha

u.s. constitution, article i, section 9, no money will be drawn from the treasury but in the consequence ofropriations made by law. as we know well the bbb is not law because senator manchin announced he wasn't going to go for it. don't they, doesn't the constitution get in the way of what congressman jayapal and others are suggesting? >> if this government was working the way it was supposed to the constitution would get in the way of democrats plans but unfortunately we're getting to a problem boeing on for decades at this point, congress basically handed all of its law making power including budgetary decisions to the presidency for such a long time that honestly it is pretty unclear whether biden would have the power to do this or not based on constitutional interpretation. so if he were to try and ram this through via executive order, i don't know if they would be able to stop him, republicans in the senate or even the courts. the courts would have to step in at this point but there is a very good chance he tries to do that based on his record thus far. david: wow, you think a very goo

u.s. constitution.nt was a constitutional and legal revolution. and some black spokesman by the 1890s in the turn of the 20th century would often refer to 1865 as the year zero of a new calendar, a new beginning to history itself. but you have to incorporate the white south into an american union, a society that had just lost approximately 18% of its adult male population in war. how do you reunify those people at the emotional level with the side that is the victor? ♪ you've got to try a little kindness ♪ ♪ yes, show a little kindness ♪ ♪ just shine your light for everyone to see ♪ ♪ and if you try a little kindness ♪ as a professional bull-rider i'm used to taking chances. but when it comes to my insurance i don't. i use liberty mutual, they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wooo, yeaa, woooooo and, by switching you could even save 665 dollars. hey tex, can someone else get a turn? yeah, hang on, i'm about to break my own record. yeah. only pay for what you need. ♪ liber

u.s. constitution. he was subjected to physical and psychological abuse and enhanced interrogation techniques instead of being -- one of the most abusive regimes in modern history. this was no practical value in terms of intelligence or any other tangible benefit to u.s. interests. i might note, seven of eight jurors wrote this handwritten letter to the court. all of them were u.s. military officials. for nearly 20 years, 20 years, the detention facility at guantanamo mo has defied our constitutional values and the rule of law. today we live in a world in which the war in afghanistan, our nation's longest war has finally come to a close, yet went on remains open. 39 detainees remain. more than two thirds of them have never been charged with a crime. let that sink in. two thirds have never been charged, in 20 years. how cannot be justice? 12 detainees are innate military system that has failed time and again in sharp contrast to our criminal justice system. for instance, the case against alleged 9/11 co-

u.s. constitution.nd louisa swain was the pioneering woman who cast the first legal vote in a general election under wyoming law on september 6, 1870. i cannot think of a better name for a federal building in the first state to recognize this right and enshrine full suffrage for women into law. many women played an essential role in the journey toward suffrage but louisa swain's simple act of voting, though quiet, was the shot heard round the world and she deserves i believe this recognition for a federal building to be named after her in cheyenne, wyoming. i want to thank both senator cardin and van hollen for joining me in this legislation. after mrs. swain left wyoming she made her home in maryland. she is buried in baltimore where you can visit her grave. i know that both senator cardin and senator van hollen are proud of their home state's part in the story of women's suffrage and being from wyoming i cannot even describe how proud i am of our role. it is a privilege to sponsor the legislation with

u.s. constitution, talking about the bill of rights and the constitution.t you can watch or you can give him a call this morning as he appears about 11 years later here this morning on mr. hammond ." -- here this morning on "washington journal." caller: i have two statements. the united states with your philosophy, we would still have slave states. a patriot puts the united states, not the state of texas, not the state of florida. if you can remember, texas at one point during the obama administration wanted to secede the union. what you are saying is impossible to credit. guest: first of all, referring back to my point about china, i think you have to differentiate between whoever has the majority in texas. i do not they get anytime a majority of texans have wanted to secede. i suspect the people who talk about it or not that serious about it either. there is plenty of room for federalism without going back to the horrible practice of slavery . one of the things we modified the constitution that we put in the 14th amendment and the 13th of may meant -- the

to alter or abolish the electoral college, very difficult to do by constitutional amendment and until it ever finds a way to make the u.sdemocratic, which cannot be amended in the constitution, we will never fully have majority rule. we do not have majority rule in the united states now. the democrats represent in the u.s. senate in a 50-50 senate, the democrats represent 41 million more people than republicans do, but it's a 50-50 senate. >> yeah. >> two of the last six presidential elections have been won by the person who did not win the popular vote. how long can a democracy function with its institutions operating in such ways? probably for a long time. we've operated for a long time already this way, but we now have this acute issue because our politics is so divided, so polarized, so separated into completely different information systems that we really do wonder how many more elections wonder how many more elections we can sustain under this system. and now the greatest worry is whether the republican party is organizing at the state and local level sufficiently to rig the next elections in their favor. that may

whatever the number, and you refuse to enforce federal immigration law, you are violatin the constitution of the u.s just a debate between the right and left. this is a constitutional reality. what is the attorney general of the united states doing? he is busy suing the state of georgia under 1965 voting rights act under a phony political law the suggesting that georgia is discriminating against minorities, what georgia is doing no such thing that is the biden administration andra reject of school choice. that is discriminating against minorities, attorney general is also suing the state of texas, they don't like the state's abortion law they passed. trying to intervene in a case already working its way up to be present the to u.s. supreme court, but he wants inhe on that case, democrat and biden administration d belive in abortion on demand. what else is happening? attorney general threatening parents and taxpayers who dare to challenge school boards and teacher unions, inxp other words we have a lawless department of justs they is focused on a political and policy agenda and will not enforce exist

u.s. and texas constitution. >> your reaction to what's happening with the landowners?s down there. she has right. the property is being damaged. they are scared because they don't know who's crossing their property or don't know if it's cartel or drug runners and they are losing both property and damage to their livestock so it makes it hard for them to do business and many of them, i've seen ranchers shut down, it is a cost to the ranchers. >> we hear almost nothing about this, it's a dimension in the story but those almost totally unreported on. it's not just that you have your business disrupted, workers don't want to be in the areas where they feel unsafe but as far as i'm hearing from of the federal government's response is complete silence, you think it will change? >> i certainly hope so. this is where it would help of the biden administration would send people down, if the president or vice president would come and communicate with the landowners and get a sense of what they are going through, the fears they have and dealing with the economic cost. i think if t

the same when when a constitutional right is being frustrated by a state process, and you saw to participate in the manners that you're participating now because the supremacy of the u.s. law or constitutional right is not being respected. >> i want to be very clear that we are not be here to be an authority just because the state enacted an unconstitutional law ordinary that would not have great threat to that present ramsey because under 1983, there would be a free of any and so the riskier is. [background sounds]. is not tied to the underlying issue, is tied into the fact that the state has structured this and delivered an attempt to prevent federal courts from doing anything about the violation because estate is never before and unfortunately this comes up in the kind of situation that would print the united states to intervene in this matter. >> i take you to another questioning started with this, and these extremely unusual unprecedented circumstances, you said the court is not powerless to graphically, will you are the less argument and there were much of the last argument was all about what his relief look like and how should we graph relief if it were appropr

the same, when a constitutional right is being frustrated by a state process, have you sought to participate in the manner that you're participating now because the supremacy of a u.s. law or constitutional right is not being respected? >> well, i want to be very clear, justice thomas, that we're not asserting here an authority to sue just because the state enacted an unconstitutional law. ordinarily that wouldn't present the same grave threat to supremacy because under sections 1983 or ex-parte young, there would be a swift remedy in court. the interest here is tied to the fact that the state structured the scheme in a deliberate attempt to prevent federal courts from doing anything about the constitutional violation. because a state has never before crafted an enforcement scheme like this, there's not been the kind of situation that would prompt the united states -- >> general prologuer, can i take you to another stance that you started with. in these extremely unusual, unprecedented circumstances, you said the court is not powerless to craft relief. you heard the last argument, and there were -- much of the last argument was all about what would relief look like