i, christina olague -- do solemnly swear -- that i will support and defend -- the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california -- against all enemies, foreign and domestic -- that i will bear true faith and allegiance -- to the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california -- that i take this obligation freely -- without any mental reservation -- or purpose of evasion -- and that i will well and faithfully -- discharge the duties -- upon which i am is about to enter -- during such time as i hold the office of -- member of the board of supervisors -- and transportation authority -- for the city and county of san francisco -- congratulations. >> thank you. [cheers and applause] >> please welcome the newest member of our board of supervisors, supervisor for district 5, christina olague. [cheers and applause] >> wow. thank you all for coming out here. most of you i have known for a long time. and, you know, i feel really overwhelmed right now. i am a little nervous. i did prepare a speech, because i was afraid if i did not write t

it suggest that an initiative measure somehow rises above the 14th amendment to the constitution of the united states, and that's certainly what the wrightman case held and that's certainly what the roehmer case held. >> are you suggesting a gay marriage is required by the constitution of the united states? >> what is required by the constitution of the united states is the fundamental right of its citizens to marry. mr. cooper defined that as it as it has always been between a man and a woman, but the united states supreme court has never said that. what the united states supreme court has said in 14 cases involving the right to marriage in the context of abortion, in the context of prisoners, in the context of contraception, and in the context of divorce, that the right to marry is an aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity. >> what i'm trying to find out is, is your argument here in response to crawford that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage? do we have to reach that point? because what you're answering is that they're taking away a constitutional right, an

madam speaker, all we are as a nation comes from the very few words that make up this united states constitution. constitution on your bedside, bible on your bed cy -- bedside. those important works of american history by your bedside, madam speaker. we have a national identity and that national identity is defined by having one set of rules that apply to everybody. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i'm grateful to you for making this time available to me today. i encourage every american to look at these facts and judge for themselves what the next step is on our constitutional journey. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: i thank the gentleman from georgia. i now -- the chair now recognizes the gentleman -- under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett, for 30 minutes. mr. bartlett: thank you, madam speaker. i want to begin today with a chart that i usually use near the end of this presentation when i talk to an audience, and i think we don

i, edwin lee, do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states constitution of the state of california against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california. that i take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation, or purpose of evasion, and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties, upon which i am about to enter during such time as they hold office of mayor for the city and county of san francisco. congratulations, mr. mayor. [applause] >> now ladies and gentlemen, the 43rd mayor of the city and county of for samsung could sann lee. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. and thank you. thank you very much. please, thank you. thank you. good morning. weren't those lovely performances from our own symphony? let's give them a big hand. and [applause] 8 and to the incomparable, charlotte mirer shultz after whom this very staircase is dedicated. thank you for another wonderful cele

i, edwin lee, do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states nstitution of the state of california against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california. that i take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation, or purpose of evasion, and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties, upon which i am about to enter during such

>> with the united states constitution. >> as interpreted by the u.s. supreme court. >> yes, yes. yes, your honor. so the issue -- >> but they probably could have done that in 1870 or '80, or '90, right? >> very possibly, your honor, yes. very possibly. >> and how is this different? >> your honor, this is nothing like the, for example, the racial restrictions at issue in loving where there is simply no legitimate rational basis whatsoever on any purpose of marriage that one could possibly conceive to deny the right of a mixed race couple to marry. on every basis on which one can identify a purpose of marriage, a mixed race couple satisfied those purposes. so the question is -- >> are you -- you suggest that baker would mandate that the state has an absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relationship between its own citizens should be created, correct? >> not an absolute right, your honor. we agree that that right is limited by the -- whatever restrictions the united states constitution may place on it. >> okay, so then loving versus virginia falls right

that i feel about this issue comes from the fact that, in 1961, the cuban constitution was identical to that of the united states. those words in that constitution did not protect us. words do not protect you. understanding and be leaving in the words do. -- and believing in the words do. we today have a serious problem in that regard. the "new york times" three weeks ago -- "time" magazine three weeks ago reported as a cover story how the constitution is under siege, and "newsweek" about two months ago had a cover story about the failure of americans to understand our government. some very scary statistics. two out of every three graduating high-school students today believe that the three branches of government are republican, democrat, and independent. that is an actual poll. 75% of all americans don't know that religious freedom is protected by the first amendment. 75%. more americans can name the judges on "american idol" than on the supreme court of the united states. what does this mean to us? how did we get here? well, first of all, unless the next generation understands the obligations imposed by the co

that was for the new constitution was to be ratified not by the state legislatures, but the people of america. thus our constitution begins with the words we the people of the united states. if you look at wall, you learn much more about madison's insights and think iing. what makes him great is he is not only a philosopher, but a politician. what that meant is madison knew his stuff and knew human nature. he spent the previous ten years in american politics, working at the virginia assembly and the federation of congress. he knew that people would never be better than they really are. other thoughts he brought to frame the new constitution is make people's ambition counter other ambition. therefore he proposed separation of powers. these ideas were in two research papers he wrote in this room. one titled vices of the political system of the united states. the others an examination. these were guiding the constitutional convention. when madison got there, he arrived early. the rest of the delegation soon arrive and he caucused with them and put together a plan of action.

for the rights that are protected by our united states constitution. this is an unamerican act by the president. anything that would violate within the united states constitution is unamerican. barack obama needs to rethink what he has just done to the people of america. we are rising off and we're not going to back off and say okay, it is all right that such a violation of conscience. such a violation of those things that our founders fought and died for, we're going sit back and let it happen to us. not this time. >> greta: and political ramifications to the election went back to election of 2008 which was interesting in terms of the swing states. florida, nevada, iowa, michigan all important states in the election, more than a quarter of the voters are catholic. it would be interesting to see to what extent. many of catholics use contraception but it will be interesting to see how much influence the catholic institution will have? >> it will be interesting to see what the outcome will be. nine months from now when the general election takes place, th

for the new constitution to be ratified not by the state legislatures, but to be ratified by the people of america. and thus our constitution begins with the words "we the people of the united states." if you look at this wall, you learn much more about madison's insights and thinking. one of the delegates at the constitutional convention said, what makes him great is he is not only a philosopher but a politician. what that meant is that madison knew his stuff, he also knew human nature. after all, he'd spent the previous ten years in american politics, working in the virginia general assembly, working in the confederation congress. he knew that people would never be better than they really are. so, other thoughts he brought to framing our new constitution is make people's ambition counter other ambition, therefore, he proposed separation of powers. these ideas he knit together in two research papers he wrote in this very room. one titled "the vices of the political system of the united states," the other an examination of ancient confederacies. and these were really his roadmaps that he used guiding the discussions of the constitutional convention. in fact, when madison go

i -- your name -- do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united stateshe constitution of the state of california against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that i will bear true faith and aleggience to the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california. that i take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which i'm about to enter during such time as i hold the office of -- for the city and county of san francisco. congratulaons, everybody. welcome in our new and reappointed commissioners. thank you. [applause] a hundred kids actively participating in our programming. it doesn't stop here, we're continuing the momentum and continuing to grow. and like those students, we want to make sure that college becomes the rule and not the exception. so i want to thank everyone here who is gathered here today. and because of all you in the room, you have contributed time, resources, advocacy, energy, to make this dream a reality. so tha

>> reporter: the issue is, does the federal government have the power under the united states constitution to force americans to buy health insurance? the individual mandate. is that a permissible federal power? now, if you look at the history of the constitution in this area, it seems very likely that the federal government does have this power. the commerce clause ace very broad power. even some very influential republican judges like lawrence silverman and jeffrey sutton, have says this law is constitutional. so i'd say the betting of people who follow this is that the court will actually uphold president obama's healthcare plan. but that's a big one. and that will be decided before the election. the affirmative action case is going to be decided after. >> and as you know, jeff, the arizona immigration law, sb 1070, set off a lot of controversy in this state and across the country. copycat laws the issue before the justices is what? >> reporter: the issue there is, is immigration a principally federal responsibility? is this an area where the states have a right to regulate? or has the

i, christina olague -- do solemnly swear -- that i will support and defend -- the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california -- against all enemies, foreign and domestic -- that i will bear true faith and allegiance -- to the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california -- that i take this obligation freely -- without any

i, and george gascon, do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states, and the constitution of the state of california against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states, and to the constitution of the stick california, and i take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which i am about to enter during such time as i hold the office of district attorney of the city and county of san francisco. congratulations. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> it is really a tremendous honor for me to be here today. first, i want to say a few words in spanish. [speaking spanish] to my sons, you are incredible. i am so proud of all of you. before i go on, i also want to say a few words to the people behind me. these people have made the difference for me. i am going to start with mayer brown, who became a friend a long time ago. has always been a supporter, someone that i trust his counsel, and

after taking an oath to support and defend the california and united states constitutions, the committee has acted in ways that knowingly and willfully violate the constitutional and civil rights of the citizens of san francisco. some may feel that i am being too harsh in this, but i think prior speakers and myself have to really look at the records, and for the first time, we are now on the public record so that the citizens of this city can actually see what this ethics commission has done up until now in the dark. and i will quote senator barry goldwater in his 1964 presidential acceptance speech of the republican nomination, where he said extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. you have not done your job as far as sunshine and the citizens of this city. you took an oath to support and defend the constitution, and yet when citizens come to you and say "we were denied an opportunity at a public meeting to meaningfully comment and participate," you ignore it. you side with the city 100% of the time. now, it is kind of hard to ar

voters because they voted in a unanimous opinion based on the iowa constitution and the united states constitution on any issue involving gay rights. an anonymous political action committee comes in and takes one sentence out of an opinion of these judges who have been on the bench for years and years and years and defeats them, removes them at the polls and actually suggests that this is -- this was in the words of the organizer -- that this is a wake-up call to the judiciary. actually, it should be a wake-up call to all americans that we have a serious problem. we should not allow anonymous pac's to come into states ended the judges based on one sentence is opinion. they are going to have one, let them registered and let them decide -- let the people decide whether or not those judges acted in a way that was consistent with the constitution. as a result of that, one of the things i have asked, and this will be one of the most interesting debates in the next three weeks in toronto, is the judicial recusal coming before congress. i think the republican party versus white, which is the case that sa

in violation of the due process clause of the united states constitution. the case was called robinson versus california. white wrote that the majority in the case was writing into the constitution its own abstract notions of how to best handle the narcotics problem, display placing the expert understanding of either the states or the constitution. the early dissent was an overture to his first famous opinion, another dissent, in a case now known to every american with access to a television set, miranda versus arizona. white viewed the majority opinion as inconsistent with text, precedent, and sound policy. his opinion closed on a raw note. widely quoted at the time. in some unknown number of cases, the court's rule will return a killer, rapist, or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime wherever it pleases him. as a consequence, there will not be a gain but a loss in human dignity. less than a decade later, white published his most searing opinion, a dissent in roe v. wade. the language of the opinion co

institution which has a tremendous democratic deficit it has no legitimacy unlike say the united states constitution where our states joined together to make a true national union that was done by the people themselves acting in the conventions were as in scale the european union has been this project ever since john boehner started back in the olden days of jamming having elites jam it down on the public and they're all the elites have been consistently terrified of allowing referendums how about our scottish national party friend if this scotland achieves independence will you allow the people of scotland to vote on whether to stay in the european union and ask our labor party friend why not let the people of scotland vote on that and why not let the people of the united kingdom as a whole vote on that why should laws be made in brussels that apply to people in the united kingdom or in scotland if it's independent when the people of scotland in the united kingdom have never consented to surrender their sovereignty to a bunch of bureaucrats.

a document called the constitution of the united states.dea that this document is the operator's manual of our country. it has worked well in establishing and building the framework for a great country. the most prosperous, most transformational country in human history. from the standpoint of not just freedom, the advancements of humankind. at the time of the declaration of independence and the constitution, life expectancy was about 35 to 40 years of age. just what it was at the time of jesus christ. the human condition did not change dramatically. 41800 years. -- for 1800 years. and then america happened. right? we formed a government. we declared our independence and in that document, which is not the operator's manual, but the heart of america, the core of america is, i would make the argument that it is what makes america exceptional. we hold these truths to be self-evident. all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights>> life, liberty, and the and among them pursuit of happiness. >> there you

state could ie manslaughtemanci abolish slavery. the federal constitution in some ways is more flexible than the united states constitution because it was more easily amended. so you had the theoretical possibility of slavery being better protected in the union than the confederacy. but only theoretically. >> by the way, should anyone wish to test this theory, the original 13th amendment is alive and/ organic, unlike the equal rights amendment which had to be passed by a specific number of years. the 13th amendment, the shadow amendment is still out there if anyone wants to pass it and see what happens. it was actually passedstate. you'll never guess which one. we'll see if anybody knows out there. deference to senator corwin, who was the compromiser. >> i think one of the fascinating areas in terms of james buchanan is in terms of what he didn't do are the things he didn't do that could have made things far worse for lincoln coming in, including -- confederacy. just what was his motivation?pa he genuinely have a few remaining principles that he was not going to put lincoln in a worse position than he already was? >> well -- this on

presidency because he set for himself an amazing project which is to create an archive of the united states constitutional convention. as you look around, you see some of the work, some of the thought he put into that. he had taken very careful notes at the constitutional convention. he went back over those notes. he expanded them and wrote them out carefully. he added annotation. in one or two cases he also went to other delegates, wrote to other delegates or their families asking if they still had a copy of the speech that was given at the convention. by the end of his life, madison had put together a thorough record of the constitutional convention. it filled almost 1,000 pages. for him, this was an important part of the legacy of the founding of america. when he had been preparing for that convention he had carried out a great deal of research to find out how other attempts at self government, at confederations had been created and what was the intentions of those creators and he had come up blank. there were no records. so madison wrote a little introduction to this and he described his goal as provi

united states. >> the constitution of the united states requires a declaration of war. we have not had that. don't talk about the debate on the eve of the 20102 election. opposition was cowed. >> see you next week.

that's certainly -- >> are you suggesting then that day marriage is required by the constitution of the united states? >> what is required by the constitution of the united states is the fundamental right of its citizens to marry. mr. cooper defined that as it has always been between a man and woman. but the united states supreme court has never said that. but the united states supreme court has said in 14 cases involving the right to marriage in the context of abortion, and the context of prisoners, in the context of contraception, and that in the context of divorce the right to marry is an aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association and identity. in responding to crawford that there's a constitutional right to a marriage. do we have to reach that point because what you are answering is taking away a constitutional right, and if that's your answer i'd like to note that also. >> we are taking a way for a constitutional right given by the state of california recognized by the state of california that in and of itself makes though proposition unconstitutional under roemer, but i would also say

can't imagine there's not a institutional issue about what article 2, seconds 2, of the united states constitution means when it says the president can make appointments when the senate is in recess. so that issue is certainly prejts itself -- i don't think it presents itself today. it will present itself in court. i didn't intend to use this hearing as an opportunity to rehash this issue, but i do want to respond to the gentleman from ohio to indicate that i simply disagree with his premise that those of us who found fault, not with mr. cordray, but with the confirmation or the lack of confirmation in the president's appointment. mr. cordray, i did not hear but understand you responded to chairman johnson about community banking. i appreciate hearing that. i would indicate to you that in my short period of time as united states senator, trying to get a regulatory environment in which community banks can lend money to credit-worthy borrowers has been a cause of mine. it seems to me that the regulatory environment in which they operate is oppressive and uncertain. so, your suggestion about appointm