if that was the case, we wouldn't have also included treason in the united states constitution. we basically said if you take arms up against the government, we're going to knock your block off. and that's what the early presidents ended up doing in the rebellion and the whiskey rebellion. the second amendment is not designed to allow the citizenry to arm itself against the government and nullification is another example of states not understanding the true nature of that amendment. >> do you think we're moving into a phase, though, where we're actually going to be hearing from the other side of this argument, from the nra side of this argument, sort of fundamentalism in terms of what people ought to have access to? if their president now argues that the basis for the second amendment, the basis for all of their political stands is the idea of arming people to take up weapons against the government, don't you expect them to be arguing for legalized machine guns, for legalized plastic guns that can evade detection, which we know can now be 3-d printed even if it is crudely that t

the 5th amendment to the united states constitution guarantees it. as i have made my objection throughout this trial to make sure this kid gets a fair trial. it's not a big case is what they say. they are saying it. they have the gaul to say this is not a big case. there are few consequences. this boy will become a convicted fell on. that's the reality of it. that's what this case represents. thank you. >> >> i have been advised -- the superior court, we the jury find the defendant not guilty. this 2nd day of november 2011. count 1. >> my goal is to fill this wall up and once i fill this wall up, i won't know what else to do. i decided the wall -- i don't have any tattoos. i'm going to get the last name of every case i lost. hopefully i won't fill my back up. since this is going on the wall, i feel it has to go on my back. >> when you work as a public defender, you saved somebody and they are like what does that mean? i defend people who are charged with people committing crime. they say how can you defend people? i say it's about the sanctity of hum

and not to tell i think mccain is a very dangerous man and in fact in the united states constitution there's an article specifically that if one of the things that is considered treason is to promote or through to bring about war or. and what making is doing it he did the same thing for iraq he was part of the committee for the liberation of iraq and he made it was iraqi opposition and we saw the war there he was all for the libyan opposition that they should bear it recognized he recognizes the terrorists who are making and his he is the one there is an. opposition leader as somebody that we should be dealing with me meaning america making does not serve the interests of the american people or the world at large if anything i think he really should be locked up he is a danger to to everybody and doesn't his adventures i suppose in the way of speaking out on the ma in america's own diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict absolutely i don't believe america wants a peaceful resolution to the conflict america's started it and there's nothing to suggest that they

regret greatly that it's so minimized in the united states history text books, and it requires a good teacher, but it's the complete united states text, constitution, courts mob violence segregation, all are things that we do have done and continue to do so obviously it's a valuable story. >> michael: yeah, and we're going to continue hearing this story, and i'm going to let you minijean when we come back from the break, tell us a little bit about the part that you think is under taught, and how we can change that and how we can get people to continue learning. we'll take a quick break and then we'll have more with minniejean brown trickey after this. >> "viewpoint" digs deep into bs'ing them with some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know that i'm going to be the first one to call them out. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us. >> "viewpoint" digs deep into the issues of the day. >> has the time finally come for real immigration reform? >> with a distinctly satirical point of view.

including the rights and privileges under the first, fifth and sixth amendments to the united states constitutiondidn't sing for congress. it was a fast downhill for billy from there. he was forced to resign his final presidency months later. no single picture tells you more about the ugliest truth about my boston than this one. i'll never forget the black man's name, ted landsmark walking near city hall when he was attacked for nothing other than the color of his skin. the attacker was one of the endless stream of protesters against school bussing in boston in those days. this is the image that black america has about boston. my boston. to this day, 37 years later, when i meet people and say i'm from boston, i find ways to reassure them that i am not that guy. the guy with the flag. the school buses carrying black children into billy bulger's district were stoned. they threw eggs at ted kennedy in those days. boston was full of racist and hate. billy bulger's boston, my boston. his seat has been occupied by white guys from south boston and the political world thought it would always be even thou

can't do this, his response was, the obama administration hads repeatedly violated the united states constitution1/2 years. that abuse cannot continue. the state of kansas is determined to restore the constitution and to protect the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms. there's so much going on there. it really seems to come back to president obama. >> somehow, you can't win at the supreme court. you know, what are you left with? you've got to nullify? but this nullification, if you go back and read all the original nullification documents from the civil war, it always begins -- the premise is that the the federal government is tir r tyrannical. that's how it always begins. have you ever been to kansas, steve? >> sure, i'm a big kansas football fan. when you're out there, the idea that you're living under big government tyranny is extremely commonplace. there's a billboard out by manhattan, you know what i'm talking about? and you see this -- you encounter this all the time. it's not just in kansas. this is all over the country. this is what the tea party movement is all about. you know, i

that's roughly what the 10th amendment to the united states constitution says. i've also reflected a little bit on what some wise people have said in history about the nature of power, government power. power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. our founders pointed out in the "federalist papers" and elsewhere that a concentration of powers in the hands of a few is the very definition of tyranny. and we've learned from hard experience over 0 the course of our nation's history that when government thinks it knows best, particularly here in washington in a country as big and diverse as ours is, that the natural tendency then in washington is to try to suppress the voices of those who see things differently, those who want to exercise their constitutional rights, particularly to free speech, freedom of association, and, yes, even freedom of the press. it's not true to say we haven't been warned about the dangers of concentration of power in the federal government and big government and that human frailties that follow, we have been warned time and time

that greater obligation is called the united states constitution. and it is called democracy.derful about the four whistle blowers that we profiled in war on whistle blowers, each one of them stood up and spoke out. no personal gain. no personal grievance. it was only about wrongdoing, fraud, breaking the laws, waste of money and literally, saving lives because frans was willing to speak up. >> and one of those whistle blowers you highlighted spoke up because humvees were being used overseas, our soldiers were being killed because they were being blown up by mines and ieds. when they could have used what's called m-wraps which would have provided more safety for the soldiers. the thing that struck me about that particular story was it seemed like the reason why it was hard for this particular whistle blower to come forward was because of the power of those who were profiting off the humvees. the military industrial complex. led me to ask the question, how often is it the military industrial complex that actually is suppressing whistle blowers and playing a role in some of thes

kade described and engaged in this kind of mass surveillance without running afoul of the united states constitution? >> um, thanks for the question. it's a good one. i just want to, yeah, take a step back and look at the fourth amendment. which i think is pretty good. it sets out the substance, unreasonable searches and seizures. it talks a little bit about what it covers, papers, effects, and it sets out some procedural aspects as well. so, you know, all things told, this was a pretty good principle to put in place, and i'll talk a little bit about the limitations, but i just want to acknowledge that it set up a pretty good somebody whereby this one -- system whereby this one principle could be reinterpreted in for the years o come. a couple of the limitations, though, i want to highlight are structurally the amendments weren't designed to protect us from corpses, perhaps because they didn't exist. and the structural limitation i could talk about personally for losing data to a corporation. so i just want to say in the summer of 2001 i had some computer problems. it was crashing, so i sent my mach

those ideas ever come before together at the same time in the same place except for in the united states constitution. that's unique. that makes us exceptional. now the president, when asked about this, said, oh, yes, america is exceptional. we believe we're exceptional, just like the brits think they're exceptional, like thiermans might think they're exceptional, entirely missing the point and lacking the understand -- understanding of the founding of this country. and i bring that up today, mr. speaker, to get the word out and make record in this house of representatives that's not at all what this country is about. again, it doesn't mean we're judge, it doesn't mean we think we are better, we are unique. we are the best experiment in self-governance the world has ever known. and the only thing that can mess that up, that can destroy that exceptionalism, is us. and that's what brings me to th. on a thursday night. it's important stuff. i'd like to focus on, in my time remaining, mr. speaker, this debt that i've mentioned a few times now. of all the issues that we face, of all the issues we can prop

united states. i know it is part of the constitution. we can't do anything about it.ut, my god, can they look into that? one more question for you, representative. benghazi, now that the fact that came out, should there be an apology made to susan rice and why wasn't general petraeus called to testify? i will hang up and listen to you. guest: i don't know whether there are plans to call general petraeus. that investigation is being primarily led by the oversight and government reform committee. but we also have an interest in that issue in the house judiciary committee because of the fact that the federal bureau of investigation, part of the justice department, is responsible for the investigation into what happened in benghazi and for the work to track down the terrorists who perpetrated these four murders. it is a terrible situation. there are still many questions to be asked and it is very apparent people in the administration were involved in making decisions about how they character arise -- characterize these events after they took place. also very strong concer

excerpts from the joint committee's report, article 1, section 8, article 1, section 9 of the united states constitution which says no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of an appropriation made by law. and then two other things. one is the purported authority that the secretary's spokesman is citing for her actions in raising money. i haven't seen the authority for raising money from people she regulates, but 42 u.s.c. section 300-u-1-a talks about grants and contracts for research programs and says the secretary is authorized to conduct and support by grant or contract, parentheses, and encourage others to support, research and health information and health promotion, preventive health services and education in the appropriate use of health care applications for grants and contracts under this section shall be subject to appropriate peer review. close quote. man, this small section relates to contracts for represent and information programs in the form of grants or contracts. the parenthetical language "encourage others to support" has to be read as encouraging others to support

organizations by using it for them is to find was not at that time seen as a violation of the united states constitution, any statutory law and so one of the things aggregated those guidelines is to say even though we had the legal authority to do this, we are not going to be. that was an important part of the way he changed the exercise authority as attorney general. john, did you run up in the world of post-9/11 against the guidelines were circumstances they pose difficulties dealing with realities? >> first of all, there were a lot of additional guidelines, so let's make that clear. the guidelines are promulgated over a series of views from republican and democratic frustrations and obviously some of them work i've been such became troublesome and it's arguable that they inherited her ability to defend and one in particular a set of guidelines that prohibited the exchange of information between the intelligence side since the guidelines for gathering information were different for things that can be used for intelligence services for admissibility of evidence in court. it was thought that it was impr

united states. i know it is part of the constitution. we can't do anything about it. but, my god, can they look into that? one more question for you, representative. benghazi, now that the fact that came out, should there be an apology made to susan rice and why wasn't general petraeus called to testify? i will hang up and listen to you. guest: i don't know whether there are plans to call general petraeus. that investigation is being primarily led by the oversight and government reform committee. but we also have an interest in that issue in the house judiciary committee because of the fact that the federal bureau of investigation, part of the justice department, is responsible for the investigation into what happened in benghazi and for the work to track down the terrorists who perpetrated these four murders. it is a terrible situation. there are still many questions to be asked and it is very apparent people in the administration were involved in making decisions about how they character arise -- characterize these events after they took place. also very strong conc

united states. i know it is part of the constitution. we can't do anything about it., my god, can they look into that? one more question for you, representative. that the fact that came out, should there be riceology made to susan and why wasn't general petraeus called to testify? i will hang up and listen to you. guest: i don't know whether there are plans to call general petraeus. that investigation is being primarily led by the oversight and government reform committee. interest inhave an that issue in the house judiciary committee because of the fact that the federal bureau of investigation, part of the justice department, is responsible for the investigation into what happened in benghazi and for the work to track down the terrorists who perpetrated these four murders. it is a terrible situation. there are still many questions to be asked and it is very apparent people in the administration were involved in making decisions about how they character arise -- characterize these events after they took place. also very strong concerns about why the request for more s

you have a violation of the constitution of the united states. the first amendment has been violated. this idea of spoking into everybody's private business in the case of the press who is the only way that we can get our information between the public and the federal government or anybody else, it's outrageous. this is the chief of the united states and the attorney general should go to jail for this. he shouldn't get out of office. he should go g to jail. >> they are using the espionage act. >> that's one of the more stringent rules in america against james rosen. >> to spy and not just american citizens, but journalists, they are exercising freedom of the press. never in the history of journalists have gone to jail for trying to talk to a source to get information. the fact that they use this as a shield and a sword to protect themselves and they wire tabbed the phone records and got everything, where do they get away with it and why do they still have that. >> you wrote something last week. talk about how whistle blowers need to be protected.

it says, i quote, the pours not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited to the state is reserved to the state respectively or the people. so then you have to go back and say, well, is there power that the congress has that has been delegated within the institution article i section viii said the congress shall have the power to regulate among the several states and with the indian tribes. the tenth amendment of the institution doesn't protect the state of california or wisconsin from this. it is delegated to the congress by the institution. the tenth amendment covers that are not dell delegated. it's delegated. or if you went and read the next line of article i section viii to establish a uniform rule ofna doesn't want to allow filipino or germans immigrant to the state we could. we don't have a national policy open commerce or immigration. this is what the constitution does. the constitution was written by the states collectively. for this very purpose. i would encourage you to sport the amendment. it's the right thing to do. i yield back. >> i believe i hav

you have a violation of the constitution of the united states.he first amendment is violated and the idea of poking into everybody's private business in the case of the press which is the only way to get our information public between the public and the federal government or anybody else is outrageous. the chief and attorney general of the united states should go to jail for this. he shouldn't just get out of office but go to jail. >> they are using the espionage which is a law in america against skwlams rosen. nto spy on american is thes and journalist that are exercising the freedom of the press. never in the history of history journalist have not gone to jail for talking to a source. the fact that they are using it as a shield and word and say we can go after this man to the point where they wiretapped the phone records of james rosen's parents and why does eric holder still have a job? >> christen, talk about how whistle blowers need to be protected. they expose the waste and fraud and abuse and public needs to know about, right? >> what is h

number three, we believe american government should follow the constitution of the united states. that is what the tea party believes. the hearing from the tea party express. is she here? jordan from the american center -- >> thank you. i want to say it thank you to congresswoman bachmann and members of the congress were standing with people like tom. got approved a little bit after the election. another is still waiting. 16 clients out of the 27 we have representative -- represented are here with us today. 17 clients ready to sue the irs and bring legal action. if they are approved by friday, we set it to a new deadline for approval for our 10 remaining clients. even if that deadline is met for them, we have common others who .re not able they lost memberships and donations. they missed the election cycle. they were not able to bring speakers in. .he irs, this is far from over 28 withdrew. zero were denied, but 28 withdrew. they were tired of fighting with the irs. the organization was destroyed through this process. many are willing to start fighting again. this is far from over

the united states constitution does not and historically has not spoken to that because we know education however what a court has to do is balance the violent and vicious propensities of a student versus the need for that student to get an education and not harm other people. how this plays out, of course, as we know, a judge felt it appropriate to ban this student from the whole county. and then, of course, a judge stepped in and said, no, you can't do that, but it would be appropriate, i guess, to ban her from the school. i guess the ultimate objective that students are educated, they're educated in an environment where they can learn, that they're not subject to other people's vicious propensities and they can continue to grow and develop into a wonderful as i'm sure aria will do. >> my final question to you, beyond all the legal talk, you talk about how, you know, you're going to be home schooled, but this young woman, who you say attacked you what do you think should happen to her? >> i believe everyone should get their learning education, but i think that it goes to a certain conte

the united states naval academy and being duly sworn as a second lieutenant in the marine corps on this 24th day of may, 2013. 2013. i do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states of america against all enemies foreign and domestic and bear true faith and allegiance to the same and i take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which i am about to enter, so help me god. >> i do! >> congratulations, marines. [applause] >> the chief of naval operations, united states navy will administer the oath of office to those being commissioned in the united states navy. i present 764 midshipmen to the commission into our united states navy. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, captain clark. you're flying now. that is not in osprey. thank you for being here. mr. president, admiral miller, dean phillips. it is an honor for me to be bringing in the future here today. i would like to congratulate the new second lieutenants. for those about to become ensigns, i want to ask you to remember what we talked about a few weeks ago. look, i like odd-nu

the united states naval academy and being duly sworn as a second lieutenant in the marine corps on this 24th day of may, 2013. 2013. i do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitutionthe united states of america against all enemies foreign and domestic and bear true faith and allegiance to the same and i take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which i am about to enter, so help me god. >> i do! >> congratulations, marines. [applause] >> the chief of naval operations, united states navy will administer the oath of office to those being commissioned in the united states navy. i present 764 midshipmen to the commission into our united states navy. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, captain clark. you're flying now. that is not an osprey. thank you for being here. mr. president, admiral miller, dean phillips. it is an honor for me to be bringing in the future here today. i would like to congratulate the new second lieutenants joining our fleet today. for those about to become ensigns, i want to ask you to remember what we talked about a few weeks ago.

conservative groups, but also groups that criticized the government or even taught the united states constitutionthe united states is a beacon of hope and freedom for the oppressed all across the world. but the coordinated suppression of president obama's political opponents undermines who we are and what we stand for. mr. speaker, who gave the orders to target americans who disagree with this administration? who gave the orders? mr. graves: the american people deserve to know and our republic depends on us finding out that answer. i represent a lot of georgians who are sick and tired of the i.r.s. targeting them. it is time for this house, the people's house, to instead now target the i.r.s. we must find the full truth and we cannot stop until we we have full accountability. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? without objection, jeat is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, it's the fashion among many of us to blame the press for our troubles and that's because the press reports our troubles. mr. h

to support and defend the constitution united states against all enemies foreign and domestic this war against libya was illegal it was unconstitutional the power to declare war is finished it in the first article the constitution in our elected representatives in the congress and we had leon panetta and hillary clinton saying that doesn't matter the president can do what every once in the name of national security when you start wars like this without the proper constitutional backpacking this is the kind of trouble you get into jay what do you think about that what is the learning curve here on the war on terror. that we're going to make mistakes and we will continue to make mistakes because there's no way we did not have perfect knowledge we did not have perfect and troll tragedies such as that at benghazi are going to happen it's part of the price of being involved in that part of the world it's a tough place we do but we don't have to say be right do you think that western power should determine the political outcomes there i mean we've had so many x. examples so far the don't wor

suggest that the fear mongering that is going on in all which has now been upheld by the united states constitutionthat will bring up to 30 million people what the united states of america to be able to have healthcare that will help us july and the community of nations in the world that declare that health care is a right of the citizens of the country's. >> thank you mr. chairman for your time with us this morning. and my colleague said there is fear mongering on the bill but i'd like to point out that i read an article begin today that the union backtracks on obamacare and the reform of the bill, so i don't think this is a right wing fear mongering we should have a union that is concerned about obamacare and once it is repealed or reformed i think that is where we have significant concerns that must be addressed. are you familiar with the actuary of medicare clacks stat i know who mr. foster is, yes. >> the testimony that you gave to the house of representatives budget committee year a sole or go. estimate generally but not specifically. they want of the cost down and number two, it won't let ev

committee, senatet number 1000 -- 100-216 said "the constitutional plan, referring to the united states constitutiones not prohibit the president from urging other countries to give money directly to the contras, the rebel group in nicaragua, but the constitution does prohibit receipt and collection of such funds by this government absent an appropriation. this prohibition may not be evaded by use of a nominally private entity if the entity is in reality an arm of the government and the government is able to direct how the money is spent. the report also said, quote, congress' exclusive control over expenditure of funds cannot be evaded through the use of gifts or donations to the executive branch. were it otherwise, a president whose appropriation requests were rejected by congress could raise money through private sources or other countries for armies, military actions, arms systems or even domestic programs. let me read this again. this is the joint committee, senator inouye, senator rudman, members of the house, bipartisan. were it otherwise, a president whose appropriations requests were reject

as the first chief justice of the united states but the constitution and article three does not say that it just says there should be one supreme court and the judicial article does not even mention the chief justice or describe any functions we only learned there is a post because elsewhere in the constitution it says that chief justice shout preside over the senate trial of impeachment so it could have been otherwise. there were some -- six justices he could have named six and rotated, whenever. but being what it is from the very beginning got locked into that. with the federal courts of appeal the chief judge is the senior among those who have not yet reached the age of 65. >> i suggest that the office of the role is not as important then why could we not develop a system where the chief justice is in fact, the senior justice? been right there would be nothing unconstitutional about that if you are in the original list. or if you go by the intent of the framers obviously they seem to assume that somebody would be nominated and confirmed to a position of chief justice to hold that posi

at the state level but we're still going to be inundated by the unfettered monies that come as a result of citizens united. so for states to say wait, stop, hold off we want to have a constitutionale want to change citizens united, it's a disastrous decision. if states don't do it, congress is not going to act. yes, you're right. you know, i think that it's a cross partisan issue. as you well know it's not a democratic progressive republican or independent issue. it's something that crosses through our democracy. regardless of what the push back might be as we build grassroots support for our constitutional convention called by the states, we're going to have a lot of help. it's not going to happen without some guidance, without some legal guidance, without guidance about who would participate, who would be delegates. it's about a lost cause. it isn't a free for all. it's not the wild, wild west, so i'm looking forward to the process of building relationships with folks such as you or public citizen or other groups across the country other states across the country and well educating people that this is the best way for states to realize their goals of maintaining democracy and h

now just to refresh everyone's memory, the fifth amendment to the united states constitution means that you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself and possibly expose yourself by virtue of your own testimony to a criminal prosecution. that's what taking the fifth amendment is. while she is within her rights to take the fifth amendment, if she has a credible fear of prosecution for violating the criminal laws, this, i believe, elevates this scandal to a new level. finally, i would suggest to our friends at the white house that it is not irrelevant that a texas businesswoman named catherine englebreck was targeted not only by the i.r.s., but by the f.b.i., the a.t.f. and osha after she founded organizations in houston, texas, known as the king street patriots and true the vote. i think most americans would agree that all of this information is quite relevant, quite reprehensible and something that congress ought to on a bipartisan basis investigate. now i have to congratulate the chairman of the senate finance committee, max baucus, a democrat -- not a member of my political party --

. >> sure, they're upset by this because it goes to the heart of the united states constitution. the press, the bulwark of our democracy, what keeps us free, the ability to look at a government and say, you're doing something wrong and we found out about it and we outed it. but the obama administration, for its own purposes, is now saying, oh, yeah. the first amendment, yeah, it counts. we're for freedom of the press, jay carney -- >> brian: unfettered. >> i'm for federal shield law. we want to protect. they're saying all the right things, but did they do the right thing? the real issue is what prejudice would there have been to the federal government to tell the associated press and the reporters at their home and cell phones and 20 different lines that we're looking at two months' worth of records for time in the past. would there have been a prejudice in terms of the investigation? general holder says so. at the time that the plot was unveiled and the story was published, the white house said there was no threat to americans. now there is a threat to americans. so the first am

united states including the territorial seas." now, the trouble is clearly understanding what constitutes -- quote -- "the waters of the united states." for decades courts have considered the meaning of waters of the u.s. and yet uncertainty still remains. recently in 2006 -- about seven years ago in a rapanas decision -- the supreme court considered heath the army corps of engineers properly determined wet lands in michigan as being in -- quote -- "waters of the united states." now, although the court determined that the corps viewed its authority under the act too broadly, a majority of the justices still quo not come to a precise agreement into what waters of the u.s. means exactly. so they agreed about what it didn't mean in the context of that case, that the corps had gone too far afield, but they didn't clearly agree on exactly what it meant. more recently, justice alito in the sackette case, observed that the reach of the clean water act remains "notoriously unclear. "now, although justice alito and others have called on congress to examine the clean water act statutory language to make it precise, to clear up the confusion,

number three, we believe american government should follow the constitution of the united states. that is what the tea party believes. we will be hearing from the tea party express. is she here? jordan from the american center of law and justice. >> thank you. i want to say it thank you to congresswoman bachmann and members of the congress were standing with people like tom. got approved a little bit after the election. another is still waiting. 16 clients out of the 27 we have represented are here with us today. 17 clients ready to sue the irs and bring legal action. if they are approved by friday, we set it to a new deadline for approval for our 10 remaining clients. even if that deadline is met for them, we have common others who are not able. they lost memberships and donations. they missed the election cycle. they were not able to bring speakers in. the irs, this is far from over. 28 withdrew. zero were denied, but 28 withdrew. they were tired of fighting with the irs. the organization was destroyed through this process. many are willing to start fighting again. this is far f

this business of maternity hotels is doing it in a way that i feel it's exploiting the constitution of the united states. >> the protest, media attention and scores of complaints led the l.a. city council to take action. >> what we received is many more complaints from neighbors who have sort of been low key because they were afraid because there has been intimidation in the neighborhoods. all of a sudden we have had 72 compliance. complaints being someone saying, "hey, i think it's going on in my neighborhood," or they see a group walking in a park and they all happen to be pregnant. >> birth tourism violates the spirit, but not the letter of the law. owners were punished with relatively inconsequential zoning violations. however, with complaints growing local officials want to pass specific laws that give them and collect taxes. >> obviously the tax issue would be a huge hit to everyone, people in this part of town or in the area that may not reporting the cash payments that they get to perform. all kinds issues. that's a huge cost. neighbors started complaining about bloody sheets and afterbirth and

those things that he describes and in this mass surveillance without running afoul of the united states constitution? >> thanks for the question. it's a good one. i just want to take a step back and look at the fourth amendment, which i think is pretty good. it sets out the substance, unreasonable searches and seizures and talks a little bit about what it covers. it sets out some procedural aspects as well, so all things told this is a pretty good principle to put in place and i will talk a little bit about the limitations but i just want to acknowledge that it is set up a pretty good system whereby this one principle can be reinterpreted you know for the years to come. a couple of limitations though i want to highlight are structurally in the amendment the bill of rights. it was designed to detect us against -- perhaps because it didn't exist and the structural limitations i could talk about personally using data to a corporation. i just want to say in the summer of 2001 i had a computer problem. it was crashing so i sent my machine in to a computer manufacturer in taxes and then i went abroad. whi

attorney general in your opinion does the constitution allow the united states a drone to o use kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil if that individual doesn't pose an imminent threat. his response was, well, that wouldn't be appropriate. you my response was, attorney general a drone t you have misunderstood my question. i wasn't asking about propriety. you are the chief legal officer for the united states of america. does the department of justice have a position on whether the constitution allows the u.s. government to use a drone to citizen in those circumstances. said, it wouldn't be appropriate. three times we went become and forth. any minute he t me, i do notsay to understand this constitution to which you are referring. but during the 13-hour filibuster that day, as one came to fter another the floor of the senate, as 20 house members came to the floor senate, again just as with me, i do not nderstandguns, thousands upon thousands of men and women across this country got involved, spoke up, got online and twitter and stood for liber liberty. as a result, the next day the obama ad

in two different landmark decisions, the united states supreme court ruled that the constitution requires legal counsel for criminal defendants and held at arbitrarily excluding african-americans from jury pools was unconstitutional. it is never too late to call wrong by its name. as dr. martin luther king jr. wrote in his letter from birmingham jail, quote, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, end quote. i pray that the families of olin montgomery, ozzie poul, willie robinson, charlie, eugene and andy and roy may take comfort in alabama's full acknowledgment of the innocence of these wrongfully accused young men. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker, i stand before you today not only as a mib of congress but as a concerned business owner agered by the fact that obamacare may be putting my companies at financial risk. currently, those businesses