this de delicate balance that was keeping the country together, and then it was blown apart and an unelected regime took over in kiev. the east part of the country was in shock in horror. if you recall what sort of slogans started coming out of kiev. all russian speakers out. all jews out. all foreigners out. they were torched b by neo-nazis in kiev. but everyone was saying what is that to worry about? this is just a small part of the movement that unseated viktor yanukovych. you can't play games like that. >> let me turn to hunter, that's quite a bill of particulars that you've laid out there, and i'm wondering whether the united states has had that much control, influence, hidden hand as was suggested by alexander. >> i suspect that nobody has done a great job in ukraine over a lengthy period of time. not much by the united states. we've been more or less bystanders. a lot by asia, and a lot by the ukrainians themselves who have had a lot of trouble getting their act together. the question is what do we do now? there are fairly few simple ideas. one, people in all parts of the government i

>> the epa is unelected bureaucrats writing arbitrary laws restricting your ability to live, use energydoes this end up? the epa fining you $50,000 for digging a hole in your backyard or $10,000 for chopping down a tree. it's the hatred of man for animal's sake, and it's a terrible, terrible scorch on x taxpaye taxpayers. >> bob, you're chuckling. >> only guys you would put this up. nothing to do with polar bears, but breaking emission standards. you ought to pay a fine. nothing to do with polar bears. >> where's the due process, though? the epa is acting as the judge and jury. it's dangerous, government overreach. any agency needs ton eliminated, it's the epa. >> you can only emit so much dirty air, and they try to do with the clean air and water bill -- >> let's be fair and balanced here. the law on the book since 1996, if you don't pay a fine, they can go after you, they never used it before, but now they are going to use the rule. >> what's wrong here, eric, is that this is the administration out of control. i don't care whether it's the epa or va, whoever it is, it does not matter.

>> guest: because i think we are reaching a a point in this country where we have this massive unelectedunaccountable, faceless class of basically bureaucrats that have this infinitely complex set of rules and laws and regulations to impose on us. they are never going to do it fairly. they are never going to do it without the biases that the federal bureaucrat what happened as it turns out they are just like anybody else. they want job security. they want more power. they want more budgets and that they can use that power to punish people that might take it away from them and reward people that would help them get more of it why wouldn't they do that? that's human nature. that's why we never wanted that sort of complexity. and by the way as you pointed out the authors of obamacare of obamacare were underpaid hill staffers have stayed up all night and made it up as they went along they are now very well-paid consultants and lobbyists hired by corporations to turn back around and gamed the system and carve out a little piece for themselves. that happens obviously in the tax code and it hap

seen like and i think on elected republicans imposing these laws on people but we've had a lot of unelected democrats imposing their values on others but i think there's a lot of question if i don't hear i'm agreeing with me that we should not have the judicial review in the united states that we should use a system like the u.k. or most european countries do where there where the p. bill get to decide rather than a quick on the lecture court i will agree with marbury was wrongly decided that the second time the judicial review was used in the first half of the one of the nineteenth century which was dred scott that was wrongly decided and i would say every case the in which it is your reviews been used ever since that has been wrong it was about a lot of problems with judicial route you in the past with mary continue to answer all this or does now they've had they've elected they've made themselves constitutional moderns monarchy now is no longer democratic or there is some truth that i mean you have because with you know a lot of these cases i mean if you even look at the gay marriage iss

you have unelected departments that formulate a document that is part of our general plan for the city, and it comes to the board and we have a -- we can vote the whole thing up or the whole thing down, and we have no power or ability to say, we like this but we need to make a change here. and, so, i would say it's incredibly frustrating and this is -- the row has been very frustrating to me because the overwhelming majority of the this document i think is superb. i don't agree with the previous comments about rec and park. i think rec and park although i don't agree with everything the department does, i think overall does a phenomenal job managing our park system which is a very controversial thing. ~ rose we all have strong and conflicting opinions about our park system, but i think the department does a very good job. as i mentioned, the overwhelming majority of this document i completely support. and even within objecti

the health insurance market the idea that one branch of government the judicial branch the only unelected branch of government could have so much power over the other two elected branches of government would have terrified our founders and for good reason too it goes against the entire idea of having a representative democratic republic if nine unelected monarchs can decide what is and what isn't the law what's the point of voting the good news is that there is a solution that solution is for congress to use its constitutionally given authority article three section two of the constitution says quote the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as the law in fact with such exceptions and under such regulations as the congress shall make in other words congress has the power and i would argue the obligation to regulate the supreme court. the only question that had the guts to do it join me now for more on this is mike happen tonio america's lawyer and host of ring of fire radio it happens tom how you doing just great great to have you with us back some months ago i had phyllis

it was handed over to icann so they're going to eradicate all these government global some many unelected authorities who control the internet right now and they says what is the goal right now and put simply it's to create what they regard is incredible versions of the websites networks and financial institutions which we all the line every day to remove the man in the middle and any all terrier motives he may have so they're going to replace pay pal e bay facebook google twitter and get rid of these according to this article about the digital anarchists coming out of this conversation with tony to libby who's the c.e.o. chairman of pay three years ago in prague they have sense completely overturned the global payment system and now companies like western union are going to be put out of business because they can't compete with the block chain but the. other companies as well there's a rear guard action going on payment systems like visa and these others are trying to secure a pattern. for to block this revolution and the try to use patent law in this type of thing and they'll try to do

hundred and i think thirty eighth anniversary of our independence day where we broke away from an unelected tyrannical government far away yet the same u.s. government now is doing its very best to suppress people in eastern ukraine who want the very same thing just the ability to proceed from a government that they feel is a president does not represent their views so it is quite actually a sad irony sitting here in the us celebrating independence day president bush anger proposes a time and place for new negotiations with representatives of these republics how committed do you think he is to those talks. well he's committed but his position has already been clear you have to surrender or be killed so i think it talks unless i'm mistaken and it's very possible and i who claim mistaken but the talks will merely be about the conditions of their surrender so those aren't really those that really talks in the true sense of the word so it's hard to be very optimistic about it was so what kind of result do you think will come from them i don't think much will come from them unless i again that's

to unelect people who have been obstructionists.[applause] [indiscernible] [applause] all of the immigration teams -- bring someg to workers to continue this conversation. i want to thank you, pablo, u guys are doing. be a quick to change. we are going to continue this conversation. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] orowth industrynts, a form in the u.s. followed by a look at grown safety. -- drone safety. iraq's ambassador says his country needs more military aid. later the role of isis in syria. book tv sat down with former secretary of state hillary clinton in little rock to discuss her new book. >> getting to the point would you can make peace is never easy because you don't make peace with your friends. you make it with people who are your adversaries who killed those you care about, their own people are those you try to

so you've got unelected state and federal bureaucrats who do not answer to anyone being empowered to regulate what is now the freedom of speech of individuals and entities that for 230 years has been protected by the bill of rights. that all makes a mockery of the idea that this proposed amendment would advance democracy and that's the argument used by its proponents. another argument for the amendment, some voices should not drown out others, also runs counter to free speech. and it also is elitist. it assumes that voters will be manipulated in to voting against their interests because large sums will produce so much speech as to drowned out others and blind them to the voter's crew - voter's true interest. now, tell that to the voters in virginia's 7th congressional district. that incumbent congressman outspent his opponent 26-1. newspaper reports state that large sums were spent on independent expenditures on the incumbent's behalf, many by corporations. no independent expenditures made it -- made for his opponent. but yet his opponent won. now, that doesn't seem to be drowning ou

to unelect people who have been obstructionists. and that turned their backs on the needs of americans in this country every single day. [applause] we would like to thank the panel. [applause] all of the immigration teams -- we are going to bring some workers to continue this conversation. daniel marino. i want to thank you, pablo, rich, thank you for everything you guys are doing. let's continue this fight. do not move, please. it will be a quick change, and we're going to continue this conversation [applause] . [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> coming up lab, a discussion on the escalating violence in iraq and the role of the kurdish regional government starting at 11:30 eastern. also live, under secretary for education ted mitchell will discuss how federal and state leaders can work together to improve the nation's schools. that will be a 12:15 p.m. eastern on c-span two. the facebook question today deals with the supreme court looking for your opin

. >> the fate of the nation's health care may once again be in the hands of nine unelected judges. it's tuesday july 22, and this is now live from los angeles. >> different federal courts with different outcomes. >> breaking news on what could be a huge set back for the affordable care act. >> the subsidies that make health insurance more affordable on the federal exchanges. that's what's at stake here, it is what devastates the affordable care act, but another just upheld those same federal subsidies. >> do you zero in on this and say this is why obama care doesn't want to work? >> what changes for now? nothing. >> republicans take the law, independents lean toward the law. both courts are in the d.c. area. this won't get to the supreme court. >> there are four different cases that are working their way through the federal system. for those who are keeping score, we're still ahead 2-1 here. >> today two bombshell rulings through the fate of the nation's health care law once again into legal limbo. in the panel, subsidies that helped nearly five million americans obtain health care

governor snyder and unelected managers are trying to balance the city's books on the backs of the poorey are leaving 17,000 without water to drink. they can't cook for their families. they can't bathe. they can't even flush a toilet. >> what kind of government would allow its people to live without water. what kind of people are we? >> you are can't live without water. you want to cut off a family's water without notice because you're late? >> can't take a bath, wash clothes, cook food, it's unsanitary. >> how do i live? i don't want to get emotional on camera, but this is my life. you're taking everything that i have worked for. >> water is a basic human right. it should be available to everybody, not just for those who can afford it. it's time to restore services immediately. joining me now live from detroit, reverend charles williams wi williams, ii, president of the national action network. reverend david alexander bullock, national spokesman for the change consortium. thank you for being here. >> thanks for joining us. >> reverend williams, you led proare tests today. give the vie

because one of the concerns that i have had again since being in elected office is the habit of unelected bureaucrats writing the rules and regulations based on sometimes very nebulous laws. it has been my position here that congress has, in the past, aggregated some of its responsibility by allowing that to happen. i believe that in the legislation we write and certainly i have been attuned to this and have worked on this in legislation i have put forward is that we do not allow the discretion by the executive branch to implement laws in ways that do not represent what i believe congress intended when it passed the law. and so i appreciate very much your emphasis on this, because i think you're right. we do have a fourth branch of government that has developed. i think max vaber said it over 100 years ago, the bureaucracy would essentially take us over. it is a very, i think, dangerous situation that we have, and it is something that the congress needs to jealously guard because we absolutely have got to write the laws more clearly and to stop that practice by the executive branch. >> i

it's been the conservatives who said restrain the unelected judges, let the elected branches do their job. and in particular they've upheld the concept of standing. the courts only deal with disputes. and that has been for all of our history, tightly interpreted to mean you can't just sue because you disagree with the policy. you can't just sue because you think somebody's misinterpreting the constitution. you have to show that a particular action negatively affected you that is different than anybody else. that is absolutely totally different from this. they used to be on some lawsuits where the president tried to send the troops into battle. a strong series of opinions, including from judge robert bork, the conservative who is equal to antonin scalia said, no, congress, you're big boys, if you don't like what the president's doing, you straighten it out the notion that standing doesn't count for anything, you don't have to be particularly injured. the judiciary will be the umpire -- those go contrary to the republicans, and one other thing, during the bush years in particular, the g

because one of the concerns that i have had again since being in elected office is the habit of unelected bureaucrats writing the rules and regulations based on sometimes very nebulous laws. it has been my position here that congress has, in the past, aggregated some of its responsibility by allowing that to happen. i believe that in the legislation we write and certainly i have been attuned to this and have worked on this in legislation i have put forward is that we do not allow the discretion by the executive branch to implement laws in ways that do not represent what i believe congress intended when it passed the law. and so i appreciate very much your emphasis on this, because i think you're right. we do have a fourth branch of government that has developed. i think max vaber said it over 100 years ago, the bureaucracy would essentially take us over. it is a very, i think, dangerous situation that we have, and it is something that the congress needs to jealously guard because we absolutely have got to write the laws more clearly and to stop that practice by the executive branch. >> i

create laws of this breadth should be made by our representative branches of government, not by unelected federal agency officials. >> woodruff: also today, the president's council of economic advisers issued a new report that warns delaying climate action could cost the economy billions of dollars. >> ifill: the former governor of minnesota, jesse ventura, was awarded nearly $2 million in damages today in a defamation lawsuit. a federal jury agreed author and ex-navy seal chris kyle didn't tell the truth in his book claiming he and ventura got into a bar fight in 2006. ventura was also a former navy seal and said the fit never happened. >> woodruff: more than 35% of americans have debts and unpaid bills that have been reported to debt collection agencies. the urban institute, a washington based policy research center studied the credit files of seven million americans to come up with that figure. it found the average amount reported to collection agencies was more than $5,000. the highest concentration of people delinquent in their payments live in southern and western states. >> ifill:

. >> the fate of the nation's health care may once again be in the hands of nine unelected judges.day july 22, and this is now live from los angeles. >> different federal courts with different outcomes. >> breaking news on what could be a huge set back for the affordable care act. >> the subsidies that make health insurance more affordable on the federal exchanges. that's what's at stake here, it is what devastates the affordable care act, but another just up

why will we let unelected judges decide whether a law that has been passed is enforced or not. >> this the "so sue me headline" we've been watching from the president. so something is just brewing down the road that actually could be so much more detrimental to obamacare. so something pending right now. a key ruling. could come down very soon. that could essentially desecrate obamacare. it's at the d.c. court of appeals. the circuit is about to decide a big question. whether tax credits and subsidies, you know those things you were going to get when you you went on the exchange, the state exchanges and bought health care and you maybe didn't have enough money, you were going to get a subsidy so you can use them for your health insurance? that was coming from the federal government. the lawsuit is saying, here's the problem, you can only use those credits on the state-run exchangings. the way obamacare is written it doesn't apply to the federal exchanges. there's a big problem. there are 36 of those federal x exchan exchanges. 36 states use the federal system. 13 states created their ow

claimed he could make it, not just an umpire calling balls and strikes, why isn't it just a matter of unelected judges sng for life imposing their political preferences on the rest of us? now, max is a very loyal research assistant. his reply was, well, read larry tribe's book. [laughter] good for you, max. the umpire analogy, he told her, was great pr, and it actually did contain a germ of truth. namely, good judges -- like good umpires -- should apply their flossties consistently -- philosophies consistently. they shouldn't bend them to cut slack for their favorite players or teams. to help those that they liked bring home the pennant or to hurt their political adversaries. that much is true. but, of course, the umpire analogy is a vast oversimplification. it suggests that personal judgment, personal understanding of what the constitution about, what its ambiguous terms heene, what our national -- mean, what our national history commits us to have nothing to do with it all. ambiguous language like liberty, equality, ambiguous principles like what the role of the court should be, how active a

claims he could make it, not just an umpire calling balls and strikes, why isn't it just a matter of unelected judges serving for life, imposing their political preferences on the rest of us? max is a very loyal research assistant. his reply was, well, read larry tribe's book last night good for you, max. the umpire analogy he told it was great pr and it actually did contain a germ of truth, namely good judges like good umpires should apply their philosophies consistently. they shouldn't bend them to cut slack for their favorite players or teams, to help those that do like bring home the pennant. or to hurt their political adversaries. that much is true. but, of course, the umpire analogy is a vast oversimplification. it suggests that personal judgment, personal understanding of what the constitutional -- constitution is about, what is ambiguous terms mean, what our national history commits us to, have nothing to do with it all. ambiguous language, like liberty, equality, ambiguous principles like what the role of the court should be, how active a role he should let in american life. all of th

>> well, you've got an appointed, unelected emergency manager. reports only to the governor. runs the entire city of detroit. at the end of the day, what this collection process is about is about showing that the water department is sustainable financially so that it can be sold. it will no longer be a city asset, but it will be bought by a private company. we've seen in the city of detroit since the emergency manager has come many of the city-owned assets liquidated. this has happened in flint, michigan. it's happening in detroit, michigan. this isn't about 90,000 or 100,000 customers who owe $150 paying their bills. this is about trying to stabilize the water department on the backs of the most vulnerable so that you can sell it and make a profit, but that profit won't even benefit the citizens in the long run. >> wow. well, this is a story i know we're going to continue to cover. i know there are protests planned on friday. national action network is there. maude, when is your group going to be in detroit? >> we're going to be there on the 24th, and we're going to march ac

something resembling a third world nation as detroit makes its way through bankruptcy court the unelected body of officials put in charge of that city a republican governor rick snyder have done something that the u.n. has called a violation of basic human rights they've shut off water to thousands of motor city residents in june alone more than seven thousand detroiters had their water pipes turned off by private contractors that the city's emergency manager kevyn orr has hired to do his bidding according to or and other city officials the shut off need to happen because detroit hers are delinquent on their water bills and are therefore costing the financially strapped city a huge sum of money but others are more skeptical. as mark lucas put it in a recent piece in the guardian the targeting of detroit families is about something else it is a ruthless case of the shock doctrine the exploitation of natural or unnatural shocks of crisis to push through pro corporate policies that couldn't happen in any other circumstance the water shutoffs are a way to make the balance sheet more attractiv

because one of the concerns that i have had again since being in elected office is the habit of unelected bureaucrats writing the rules and regulations based on sometimes very nebulous laws. it has been my position here that congress has, in the past, aggregated some of its responsibility by allowing that to happen. i believe that in the legislation we write and certainly i have been attuned to this and have worked on this in legislation i have put forward is that we do not allow the discretion by the executive branch to implement laws in ways that do not represent what i believe congress intended when it passed the law. and so i appreciate very much your emphasis on this, because i think you're right. we do have a fourth branch of government that has developed. i think max vaber said it over 100 years ago, the bureaucracy would essentially take us over. it is a very, i think, dangerous situation that we have, and it is something that the congress needs to jealously guard because we absolutely have got to write the laws more clearly and to stop that practice by the executive branch. >> i

achieved, and then we will continue to mobilize them to get bills passed to defeat bad bills and to unelect people who have been obstructionists and turned their backs on the needs of americans across this country every single day. >> thank you. thank you. i thank the people who have put this together. we're going to bring some workers voices to continue this conversation. wipt to thank you all -- i want to thank you all to continue this fight. there will be a quick change and we will continue this conversation. >> good morning, everybody. this is real to me. i'm an immigrant myself and all my life i have been working on immigrant workers rights. and there are very few shoes that really come close to this issue's importance for myself. that's because i believe making progress is the future of our country. our country was built by immigrants, continues to be built by immigrants that basically have changed -- the faces may have changed, the accents may have changed, but we continue to be a nation that was built by immigrants. in this second panel we're going to try to do two important things.

intent requirements and reduce the number of times criminal lawmaking authority would be delegated to unelected regulators. these comments are limited to the issues on this invited to address. the problems of overscriminalization are pervasive and the measures necessary to reform go much further than reorganization or committee oversight. further discussion of course is contained in my written testimony. i thank you for your bi-partisan commitment to the task of ensuring our nation's criminal laws are not themselves a threat to liberty and continue to support and assist you however we can. thanks very much, mr. benjamin. the chair is going to reserve his questioning to the end of the questions assuming we still have time before the bell rings and the chair at this time recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus. >> i thank the chair. i was looking at mr. benjamin's testimony, both of your testimony, but i think we are to the point of where we are ready to act hopefully. we know the problem. has been reinforced several times. we have gotten the message and the key is what do we do? on pag

financial stability is now defined by the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.i don't know if increased increased concentration in our larger financial institutions whether one can say we have achieved financial stability. but what i do know is that comes at incredible cost thanks to dodd-frank. it's harder for a low and moderate-income americans to buy a home. again thanks to dodd-frank there are fewer community banks serving the needs of small businesses and families. thanks to dodd-frank main street businesses and farmers face higher costs in producing their products which is impacting every single american at their kitchen table. thanks to dodd-frank's vocal rule our capital markets are less liquid than before and more expensive for companies to raise working capital which harms american saving for retirement. thanks to dodd-frank services that bank customers take for granted like pre-checking are being curtailed or eliminated. it is one of the reasons that the house financial services committee has moved numerous regulatory relief bills the number of which

unfortunately the unelected federal leaps that the e.p.a. with their one-size-fits-all rules are threatening to shut down the plants that use this waste coal and stopping the progress on cleaning up places like what you see right here. this will cost middle class jobs. it will raise energy prices for many americans and put an end to the positive work that these plants do to clean up our environment. . i introduced h.r. 3138, satisfying environmental needs and -- the sense act. it recognizes the benefits they provide. the sense act offers a reasonable balance that keeps plants open, saves local middle class jobs, and helps to continue cleaning up the environment. i would urge my colleagues to take a look at this legislation and help us get it through.

financial stability is now defined by the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. i don't know if the larger financial institutions whether one it say we have achieved financial stability. but it comes at an incredible cost. it is harder for low and moderate income americans to buy a home. thanks to dodd-frank there are fewer community banks serving the needs of small businesses and family. thanks to dodd-frank mainstreet businesses and farmers faced higher cost in managing their risk and producing their products which is impacting every single american at their kitchen table. thanks to dodd-frank's vocal rule the capital markets are less liquid than they were before making it hard for companies to raise capital and harms individual's saving for retirement and children's education. services like free czech -- checking -- are being curtailed or eliminated. it is one of the reasons the house financial means committee has moved regulatory bills. a number have passed with bipartisan support. none of which have been taken up by the senate. by the time it is over, the ho

state government understand and are more attentive to the needs of the american people than unelected federal bureaucrats in washington. that's why this past june i was joined by 59 of our colleagues in sending a letter to chairman wheeler stating our concerns and requesting a response to a list of questions. questions that we're still waiting to hear from him to respond to. the u.s. senate also sent a letter to the f.c.c. on this issue and they are likewise waiting for a response. it seems the f.c.c. is content to tell our states how they will manage their sovereign economic affair bus they won't answer to the congress who is responsible for exercises -- exercising oversight of the agency, inserting the f.c.c. into our state's economic and fiscal affairs sets a dangerous precedent and violates state sovereignty in a manner that warrants deeper examination this congress cannot sit idly by and let an independent agency trample on our states' rights. this is an issue that should be left to our states and if it comes to a point where we need a national standard, then that debate should b

my to create public support for the governments eu reform if they were to reveal the unelected commission'se of its proposal of eu law and issue regulations which are binding in all eu countries? or could it be, my lord, the government shares the bbc's fear that if the british people understood just how irrelevant this apartment has become and how rotten and antidemocratic the eu really is, then leaving it by become irresistible. >> lord pearson with the last word for not least on our relations with the eu. a subject that is not going to go wait in the run up to the next election. that's it for now. but you do and when parliament returns at the start of september for a daily round up of life. until then from me, alicia mccarthy, goodbye. ♪ ♪ >> [inaudible conversations] >> coming up on c-span2 at about 11:10 a.m. we'll have live coverage of the president's town hall meeting with a group of young african leaders. their meeting in washington, d.c. as they learn about entrepreneurship, civic leadership and public engagement. again, live coverage at about 11:10 a.m., just a few minutes away. >>