united states citizen. the court found he was not a united states citizen. i think most people would truly scratch their head. it necessitated after the civil war having the 13th amendment to the constitution, making it clear that having been born in the united states, he was a united states citizen. but, the other issue was that they took a compromise legislation passed by the congress and signed into law by the president, the missouri compromise, and ruled it unconstitutional. how that changed the course of history and led to the civil war is an interesting historic discussion. but the underlying decision about that was, in my opinion, very wrongheaded. that is an example of where the court, i think, stepped in where it should not have and exceeded its authority under the law. host: can you take a line from that to some of the review of legislation that the court has taken upon itself today? and see the antecedents of that? rep. goodlatte: i think you can look at several decisions. certainly, the marbury decision, and look at recent decisions that would, i think, not be found to be the correct position. i personally believe that the decision in roe versus wade is not founded in constitut

state constitutional amendments expressly outlawing same-sex marriage. this brings me to the supreme court's fourth decision in our story, windsor versus the united states. in a bitterly divided by four decision from the supreme court invalidates doma on june 262013 -- june 26, 2013. as in romer and lord, kennedy again authored the opinion of the court. he was joined by justice ginsburg, breyer, sotomayor, taken. chief justice roberts and justice scalia, thomas and alito dissented. the opinion for the court justice can explain that the issue presented was not whether states were constitutionally obligated to recognize same-sex marriage. rather, the issue is whether the federal government could constitutionally discriminate against couples who have been legally married in a state or because those individuals happen to be of the same sex. and approaching the question justice kennedy emphasized that a state's decision to give same-sex couples the right to marry conferred upon them the dignity and a status of immense import. doma's principle of fact, can be maintained, with identified a subset of state sanctioned marriages to make them unequal. kennedy argue

but donald trump may have a huge problem with the united states constitution.awyers telling us muslim immigrants cannot be denied or preferred on the religion which would be in direct contrast to the trump ban. tom llamas, abc news, new york. >> tom, thank you. >> it really was a breathtaking statement by donald trump. wasn't it? >> i think you would think it caught people off guard but it didn't really. right? we kind of know he's out there. >> i was reflecting on it tonight. and i've watched this now several times, this speech that we can see here. i actually think we'll come to view this as a moment in history because what happens next is so interesting. so do his supporters now, does his support stay the same? does it go down? does it go up? if it goes up, what does that say? it's i think the next few days are fascinating. it is the most i guess the most dramatic and to use that word again breathtaking statement by a serious contend for office of my lifetime, i think. by the way, i have a twitter handle @richardpbacon. trump, let me know.ter of donald has t

the 13th amendment passes the united states house of representatives. however, the constitutionres that three quarters of the states officially endorse a proposed amendment before it becomes officially part of the constitution. in springfield, illinois, it was a matter of local pride. immediately the amendment passed on the 31st day of january. a senator telegraphed the governor of illinois urging him to ensure that president lincoln's home state would be the first to ratify the historic proposal. the next day at noon the governor forwarded the news to the state legislature along with the directive that the 13th amendment is just, it is humane, and it should be approved now. by 4:30 on the afternoon of february 1st, both state chambers in illinois had ratified the 13th amendment by large majorities. >> president lincoln was elected on november 6th, 1860. seven southern states seceded from the union prior to lincoln's inauguration. four states eventually seceded following the inauguration. northern whites strongly supported the complete abolition of slavery. southern whites were

but tonight, donald trump may have a huge problem with the united states constitution. lawyers telling us that muslim immigrants could not be denied or preferred because of their religion, that would go completely against the trump ban. david? >> tom llamas, thank you. and you saw his republican opponents responding. the white house also quickly weighing in tonight. let's bring in abc's chief global affairs correspondent martha raddatz. and this is an unprecedented call. how would a ban work? >> reporter: it certainly is, david. just think about what donald trump is saying right now. there are as many as 7 million muslims in this country. come in? what about athletes? would trump ban teams from coming from muslim countries? student visas? the white house has already responded, saying it's totally contrary to our value as americans. we have in our bill of rights respect for the freedom of religion. and, the counsel on american/muslim relations, the largest advocacy organization tonight is condemning trump's comments and, of course, this comes at a time when law enforceme

. >> support the constitution of the united states.. >> we forget this, but there was always a substantial number of americans who supported the vietnam war. >> you bunch of bums. >> where is your son? my son is a marine! >> it's hard to recapture how intense that period was, how morally conflictual it was and your relationship with your country, which was something we never questioned. >> the pressure on mr. johnson to choose sides has been growing. clinging to a middle line, he tried to give one ear to the war of hawks in america, one ear to the dove, but both ears to neither. >> we halted bombing in the north in hope that the government in hanoi would signal its willingness to talk instead of fight. but i regret to tell you that no signal came during those 37 days. >> johnson feels alternately outraged that he's being attacked in this way when he is doing the best he can. >> until the day they decide to end this aggression and to make an honorable peace, i can assure you that we speaking for the united states of america intend to ca

united states and we as citizens ought to remember our first principles. what i call our first principles. i don't think the declaration of independence and constitution of the united states are outloaded documents. declaration tells us -- [ applause ] the declaration tells us that rights come from god, not government. [ applause ] the constitution has a framework that's set up not as some kind of result of bureaucratic haggling, but as something is designed to protect, promote freedom. >> and the president is right. in many way, we are a shining city on a hill. but the hard truth is that not everyone is sharing in this city's slender and glory. a shining city is perhaps all the president sees from the port ko of the white house and the ver randa of thiz ranch, where everyone seems to be doing well. but there's another city. another part to the shining city. the part where some people can't pay their mortgages. and most young people can't afford one. where students can't afford the education they need and middle class parents watch the dreams they hold for their children evaporate. in this part of the city, there are more poor than ever. more families

president al gore said correctly that snowden disclosed evidence of crimes against the united states constitution. we have been fighting have made no headway by a appealing to the traditional centers of power only after he documents the crimes committed by the state a genuine public debate began. in the president where previously dismissed from state surveillance by insisting of judicial oversight three judges have ruled on mass surveillance saying it was unconstitutional and the third to back it. none of this would have happened without snowden. he had access to the full roster of everyone working at the nsa and could have made public the entire intelligence community to undercover assets worldwide. he could have revealed their freedom station and mission in shutdown intelligence system in one afternoon. but this was never his intention. he wanted only that until he documented to be carried out without our consent or knowledge. our politicians including clinton argued that snowden could have turned internal mechanisms to have grievances heard. but i can't tell you for personally experience that

observed in the same week the 800th anniversary of magna carta, the anniversary of the united states constitution, the 100 50th anniversary of the eastern district of new york and the tenth anniversary of brooklyn law school question markets because your law school is a a center of learning about the power of law. in fact that question reveals why we do so much of what were doing, trying to drive down the price and make legal education more accessible, improving the curriculum and doing everything we can to help launch our students and graduates to meaningful careers so they can fulfill the public and private roles that lawyers fill in the service of others. the power of law is certainly the continuing thread through all the presentations that you'll hear here today in a remarkable rate of authors and commentators. no doubt they will touch on many vivid reminders that we have of how law can make a difference. whether it's the 70th anniversary of the united nations that we observe this week as well in the incorporation of the freedom of speech, and worship or whether it's the seven decades since t

finding no such justification, he concluded that the statute could not be reconciled with the united states constitution. that however was a dissenting opinion. the court's invocation of moral and religious prescriptions against homosexuality played a central role under the reasoning in bowers. it's useful to have some understanding of that history. let's take a look at the ancient roots that justice white invoked. the pre-christian world generally thought of sex as a positive art of human nature. it did not see sex as bound up with questions of sin or religion. the ancient greeks focus not on sexual sins but on whether an individual's conduct was actually harmful to others. this extended to homosexuality. it was that adult men often had same-sex relationships with adolescent boys. this may seem strange to us but greek poetry and literature celebrated sexual relationships and identified them with love, integrity, and courage. although roman sexual life was different from that of the greeks, the romans celebrated sexual pleasure and neither roman religion or law condemned same-sex sex. the emergence of c

finding no such justification, the statute could not be reconciled with the united states constitution. that however was a dissenting opinion. the court's invocation of moral and religious prescriptions against homosexuality played a central role under the reasoning in bowers. it's useful to have some understanding of that history. let's take a look at the ancient roots that justice white invoked. the pre-christian world generally thought of sex as a .ositive art of human nature it did not see sex as bound up with questions of sin or religion. the ancient greeks focus not on sexual sins but on whether an individual's conduct was actually harmful to others. this extended to homosexuality. it was that adult men often had same-sex relationships with adolescent boys. this may seem strange to us but greek poetry and literature celebrated sexual relationships and identified them with love, integrity, and courage. life wasroman sexual different from that of the greeks, the romans celebrated sexual pleasure and neither roman religion or law condemned same-sex sex. the emergence of christianity

who are continuing to risk their lives to fight for what is promised in the united states constitution, by we the people of the united states. and i appreciate this opportunity presented this material today and i strongly encourage all of us to consider what the perspective of the students are today, the young people into the school who have the potential they have to make this a true democracy. thank you. [applause] >> and dr. rafe al-issawi. good afternoon. my book is called "down to the crossroads." let me begin near the beginning. on the late afternoon of jun june 61966. just south of fernando mississippi and james mann is walking down highway 51. james meredith is famous of course for integrating oldness for years earlier which sparked riots, the kennedy administration. but this walk four years later as well as the endeavor of a solitary man. so this didn't have a plan to trek from memphis to jackson, mississippi, which is outlined to goals. the first to go challenge that all pervasive fear that dominates the day-to-day life of a negro in the united states, special in the south an

but that man, jonathan allen, knows more about the united states constitution than donald trump does. >> it's amazing. maybe not surprising i don't know that man's citizenship, if you become a citizen in the united states, often times you know the constitution more than the people who began their life here in terms of naturalized citizens. i think donald trump is trying to make america 17th century europe again with religious tests and persecution. it's not going to fly. i thought speaker paul ryan today had a pretty strong rebuke donald trump. the white house was mad they didn't say donald trump couldn't be president. but paul ryan has a role in the republican national convention. it makes it harder for him to come out against the candidates. i thought what he said today talking about the muslim members of the united states congress was a pretty strong statement. >> let's listen to what hillary clinton said today. >> some of the candidates are saying that his latest comments have gone too far. but the truth is, many of them have also said extreme things about muslims. their language

there should be one simple test, which is the united states constitution. uniform take an oath to protect it. the immigrants who come in take an oath of allegiance to the united states constitution. as long as they do that, everything under that, that is permissible under the american constitution, they can do. >> there was a press conference just now from the fbi director in which he said that they wished people would be more forthcoming, if they had any information, if they had seen any signs or signals. do you think your community needs to perhaps be more in touch with law enforcement? >> i think many of them are, frankly. i looked at the extensive outreach program by the fbi that started way back in 2006, focused on somali americans in minnesota. did so well that it's expanded to the major cities. i talked to fbi personnel today before coming on your show, and they are showing resounding success on parents coming out and saying their daughters are about to get radicalized or get on a plane to go to syria. community leaders are coming out. and so many att

historical backdrop for race relations in the united states from the colonial. 1899.onial period to we will first look at a copy of the united states can't -- constitution. the u.s. constitution did not ,xplicitly mentioned slavery but there are at least three references to slavery in the document when it was ratified. the first is the 3/5 compromise. slaves were counted as you and the person for purposes of appropriating seats in the house of representatives. thereby increasing the power of the slave states and congress. the constitution also included a fugitive slave laws. he was used to ensure the return of runaway slaves. in addition, the u.s. constitution prohibited the import slaves after 1808. but the language did not refer to african. the inclusion of these clauses in the nation's founding document is a testament to economic and political influence. moving to related document, this is the contract dust between thomas jefferson and james madison were the sale of the slave john freeman area jefferson freed him from william baker in maryland and eight or. on the condition that he would be set free after 11 years of service. he returned unsold freem

makes everything i say hate speech, then they need no check the second amendment of the united states constitution. >> reporter: the anti muslim protest is one of several in the area. more than 40 cases of verbal or physical assaults against muslims since the paris attacks. iman here said he constantly warns his congregation against extreme asme. we spoke with him inside the mosque where he asks women to cover their hair. >> those are crimes that even we condemn. it is a stereotyping and generalising, places everyone under the same ban. that's the epitome of ignorance >> reporter: can you understand the fear that might be driving some of the attacks? not that if justifies it, but the fear of seeing people die around the world? >> fear is a very powerful emotion, so i can understand how that can cause people to think certain ways and to behaviour in other ways. >> reporter: the protesters say they're targeting this mosque because at least two men who prayed here were convicted in 2008 of funneling money to a terrorist group. that is closed, but the protesters say it is happening. ism we are clearly

concept aside of what donald trump just proposed constitution applies to every citizen here in the united states and by the bill of rights it also protects even illegal immigrants. here donald trump's plan is actually about those not yet on our soil which the united states constitution does not affect. and secondly, immigration is a matter of foreign policy and national security. what that means is, that the supreme court an all the courts have long upheld it is immune from judicial review, meaning it is matter of administrative law so does not go through the courts. when we talk about the constitutionality of something, like us to be specific. here it actually does not apply. deirdre: fair points made. alex, do you see what emily is saying? that is to say the constitution protects religious freedom for citizens. it does not say anything about refugees, immigrants, people who are in the process of being naturalized? >> i disagree because it does affect individuals in the u.s. now, the first amendment of the u.s. constitution talks about freedom of religion. and that basically says if there is a

it was exactly 150 years ago this week that the amendment to the united states constitution was ratified officially abolishing slavery. ♪ ♪ >>> president obama attended a capitol hiller is money toe honor the anniversary. he talked about the work being done since then and offered some timely remarks. >> remember that our freedom is bound up with the freedom of others regardless of what they look like or where they come from or what their last name or what faith they practice. >> many saying that was a swipe at presidential candidate donald trump who this week called for blocking muslims from entering the united states in the aftermath of terror attacks at home and abroad. >>> first lady michelle obama and local marines sorted out some holiday gifts at anacostia today. it's part of the annual toys for tots program. the gifts were donated by president obama's staff in the executive office. it's not too late for you to help, toys for tots are still accepting new, unwrapped gifts. the greatest need is for older kids and teenagers. >>> sex, drugs and even weapons at work. these federal worker

it is the united states constitution which puts religion in a very, very special category. ntioned three times in the constitution, no religious test for office, and ofree exercise of religious, and no establishment, and of course, your guest is right, we were established in order to give religious freedom, and the statue of liberty means something, and so the idea that america would become a country that has a broad prohibition against all muslims, and even people who fight against isis would be so inkons sconsistent t the character of the country. >> and gentlemen, it is interesting the feedback this you get immediately that it is a democratic ploy, and the liberal, and he is getting more criticism of the liberals than the democrats that it is are preposterous. >> and stay with me. america has seen many of these an tie-platforms before, and will this be the next? music: "another sunny day" by belle and sebastian ♪ ♪ ♪ such a shame it's labeled a "getaway." life should always feel like this. hampton. we go together. always get the lowest price, only when you book direct at

take this back into their own hands according to article one section 10 clause 3 of the united states constitution minute turner hold on a second. state that again. which clause which part of the constitution? >> okay, i stumbled across this dealing with health care but in the compact clause of the united states constitution, article one text clause three talks about thises face cannot come together to do a compact without consider of the congress. there's no consent of the president necessary. and yet it says there's this little thing that says they have to have consent of the congress to come together unless we are the states are invaded or eminent danger. and then they don't have to get the consent of congress. so as far as i'm concerned, we are in eminent danger we're in clear and present danger, beyond eminent so states can legally constitutionally come together to defend the american people, the 30 governors they don't need to be bullied by the federal government but do it without consent of congress under article 1 section clause 3. >> wouldn't that be nice to be raised among republican can

president al gore said correctly is that snowden disclosed evidence of crimes against the united states constitution. we have have been fighting against mass surveillance, made no headway by appealing to the traditional centers of power. it was only after snowden leaked documents that disclosed crimes committed by the state, again -- geunine debate began, appointed a panel to review intelligence, three judges since the snowden revelations have ruled on mass surveillance with two saying spying was on constitutional. he could have been made public the entire intelligence community and undercover assets worldwide. he could have exposed the locations of station and mission. he could have shut down the intelligent system as he had said in an afternoon. but this was never his intention. he wanted only to hope the wholesale surveillance which until he documented it was being carried out without our consent or our knowledge. politicians including the democratic candidate hillary clinton argue that snowden put a turn in internal mechanisms to have his grieve answers -- grievances that this argument made duri

in thee is nothing united states constitution concerning birth, contraception, or abortion.h the agree appellate statements that the woman has a choice, but as we previously mentioned, we feel is the woman's prior to the time in which she becomes pregnant. goal is tose our understand the people involved in these cases, i have read a number of descriptions of how the case was presented. the justices were very frustrated by the end of the oral arguments because the attorneys did not give constitutional reasons for their arguments. clarke: because they took these cases to decide younger versus harris, the first arguments -- and again, listeners can hear them online and read the transcripts. it is best to listen to the arguments and read the transcripts at the same time so you don't miss anything -- the first arguments are mostly concerned with questions about jurisdiction and procedure, questions like who has standing, have moot, who should brought these cases, should they have gone to the court of appeals first? there are very few substantive questions or answers until the end

deals with a wide array of issues, but one of the things i love most is it deals with the united states constitutionnd the amendments to the constitution. and any new amendments that are introduced are referred to the judiciary committee. but even in the other areas that we work, we are constantly trying to refer back to the constitution for guidance on what is appropriate legislation and what is not. when i became chairman of the committee, we also

there is nothing in the united states constitution concerning birth, contraception, or abortion. we do not disagree with the appellants. as we have previously mentioned, we feel that this choice is the woman's prior to the term that she becomes pregnant. because one of our goals is to understand the people involved in these cases, i have written a number of descriptions in the case. were veryes frustrated by the end of his argument because attorneys did not give them constitutional reasoning. can you add more to our understanding of what happened in the courtroom? clarke: they took these cases to decide younger. the first arguments, and listeners can read the transcripts and listen to the arguments. it is best to do those at the same time so you don't miss anything. the first arguments are mostly consumed with questions about jurisdiction and procedure. questions like, who is the standing? is it moot? who should have brought these cases? should they have gone to the court of appeals wears. there are very few substantive questions and even fewer substantive answers. i think at the

that's changing the united states constitution and saying one religion no longer has the freedom of religion. we can't address that grievance. donald trump might be able to, but you can't address it through real policy. >> but some of the other comments. can it be addressed in that way? is there a way -- let me backtrack that. does this actually change things now moving forward in the race? does it change the conversation for the rest of the candidates? >> i think in the future, sadly, it means that what donald trump has said, win or lose, becomes part of a narrative in the conversation where we've seen far-right parties in europe escalate and ascend, with this anti-immigrant rhetoric, i think donald trump has turned that from europe to america right now. will he win the nomination or not? but the gop has the look at themselves, do they want to be represented by a man who started out with a anti-latino comments, mocked a reporter, and now is demonizing muslims. do you want that to be the gop for 2016? it's your choice, republicans. >> david, there's the question of how this is being received

they are responsible for vindicating the rights of their citizens and united states constitution's separation of power. -- it isy we have two hard to find better speakers on this topic now, one who is the attorney general of the state of nevada, and another who served as the attorney general for out, before joining the 11th circuit. or has been serving on the 11th circuit 2004, but a -- he served as attorney general of alabama. when a, he was the youngest in the nation. he was elected and reelected, and in 2002 received the highest percentage of votes of any statewide candidate. he graduated from tulane law school. he clerked for a judge on the fifth circuit, had been in atvate practice, and taught law schools. we are joined by adam laxalt, who has been serving as the nevada attorney general. a former lieutenant in the u.s. navy can ease serve as judge advocate general and served in a where hiswn in iraq, team was in charge of keeping more than 20,000 detainees during the surge. his unit was awarded joint meritorious unit award. he has been in private law,ice, has taught advised john bolton a

but the courts have shown, foreigners, don't have united states constitutional rights. you right.here was a chinese exclusion act from 1842-1943 and a big immigration act in 1924 that limited immigration from all sorts of places very specifically from countries and regions. and even today we limit the number of immigrants who are allowed into the united states from various places. >> martha: i think everybody knows someone who has had trouble getting in or leave the country and stay away for several years. we are talking about a religion here which is a major difference. i wonder if donald trump approached this in a different way. people from certain countries are not allowed to come in. but he is talking about muslims rather than scitizens of a country. >> ron paul and ted cruz have a bill that would exclude or put a three year pause on countries that have a significant terrorist presence in the country. that is not a religious sort of thing. but on the issues of constitutional rights it is not constitutional to impose an american arrest on an american holding office. but it is n

if you read the united states constitution, it actually has -- it grants emergency powers in cases ofies. so the surest way to lose our civil rights is in the situation where we don't govern effectively, and the people call for those kinds of emergency measures. and buckley talks about that in particular. look, neither the left, nor the right has, i think, any exclusivity on trampling on rights. we're seeing it from both directions. good, solid governance is one of the things -- sensible governments that, for instance, doesn't look -- you know, it was very interesting. a writer for mother jones, of all people, kevin drum, made the point we should stop laughing at republican governors who say right now we have to reconsider the immigration issue because sensible americans look at what's happening in paris and say maybe we ought to at least ask, are we screening these people? maybe we ought to stop and check. maybe that's what makes sense. that's what sensible people think. so, you know, we could write endlessly about both sides of the equation in one form or another wanting to trample

fidelity to any foreign prince, state or sovereignty of whom or which i have heretofore been a subject or citizen. that i will support and defend constitution and the laws of the united america. against all enemies foreign and domestic. that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. that i will bear arms on behalf of the united states when required by the law, that i will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the united states when required by the law. that i will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law. and that i take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. let me be the first to congratulate all of you as new united states citizens. [ applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome director u.s. cis, leon rodriguez. >> please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance -- >> all rise! >> all rise. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> please be seated. >> please be seated. the civic renewa

need to worry about evangelical christians or people who believe in the authority of the united states constitution, then shouldn't the president, hillary clinton, john kerry, be worried that they're going to stirrup another crusade by besmirching and maligning christianity and christians as routinely as they do, saying, you know, these christian terrorists are so bad or pointing out, we've got bad christians, we've got the crusades. as big christianity is to commit violence as people who say they're islamic , then ts or jihaddists -- i'm just asking, mr. speaker -- wouldn't that indicate that the president, hillary clinton, going rry are actually to be responsible if a christian goes and dozen something violent? i mean, oose -- does something violent? i mean, using their own logic, if they're out there running wn christians as a threat to violence, while saying, you can't say anything negative a t radical islam, and christian does something wrong, well, if you're saying we stirrup radical islamic terrorists by talking about them, then wouldn't you be you, generic, indefinite you, be responsible fo

they aren't protected by the constitution of the united states. that's been modified that say at least have a rite of -- if it hadn't been turned down by the voters of the state of iowa and the referendum, it would have been overturned baker versus car. which said both houses of the legislature or in the case of nebraska a single house, it has to be basted purely on one person one vote. that's the way 50 state legislatures now are determined. >> chief justice describes the baker decision as the most significant of the cases during his tenure. which considering the cases during his tenure, why was it so important? >> it's been a long time since i read baker versus car. i'm not sure this will be pointed out by chief justice warren. this is the way i look at it. there's an obscure part of the constitution that says the federal government has to guarantee a republican form of government in each of the states. that's probably the only immediate control the federal government has over the states. republican form of government doesn't mean a republican p

the fourth amendment of the united states constitution, as we know, has never imposed a one wireman withoutny other exceptions. or without any other way. >> ma'am? >> congress and come i believe that the due process provided by the fcc or postal offers a significant amount, the same contemplated by the amendment and i believe that the courts would do that and be that as sufficient attraction. >> even if there is an immediate motion to caution the subpoena, isn't there the -- >> that is because our subpoenas are not self executing we need to compel the production. >> okay. except that were shocked and dismayed as the opposite. and the thing is that we are having to balance the fact that apparently the position of law enforcement is that they want to expand what is >> logically shouldn't this be a part of it? >> the one that touches on it is one that the court has appointed. >> correct, which has also been not favorably received recently. let me turn to you, because we have approached this whole issue of the point of the fourth amendment and the constitution and the right to privacy and the l

.) >> the constitution of the united states. >> (repeated.) >> and the constitution of the state of california. >> (repeated.) >> >> (repeated.) >> foreign and domestic. >> and that i will bear true faith and allegiance. (repeated.) >> to the constitution of the united states. >> (repeated.) >> and to the constitution of the state of california. dooildz. >> (repeated.) >> without any mental reservation. >> (repeated.) >> or purpose of evasion. >> that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties. >> (repeated.) >> and during such time as i hold office. code advisor committee of the san francisco ethics commission. >> (repeated.) okay that's it congratulations thank you (clapping.) >> thank you. >> on to agenda 5 discussion an is tracking system. >> now we're - >> good morning, commissioners director huey i'm henry with the department find technology project manager for the prelims at beginning. >> i'm john working on the limitations for dbi. >> we're represent the current status the third party assessment which we spoke about at last months meeting of revenue went on, on november 3rd at the

united states. he never calls for a permanent ban on all muslims migrating to the united states. there is no constitutionaltion here of carly fiorina. the president of the united states absolutely has this authority. banning it during the iran hostage crisis. republican primary voters agree. two thirds of the people in a bloomberg poll yesterday, the methodology of which i had time to study and i believe it is accurate, support that view. how they asked the question in the order they ask the question in did i cannot comment on it at this time. trish: you are talking about a religion. yesterday, the general was on the program. he thought that this was a sensible move. the right one by donald trump. the muslim religion. he has to confront the reality that we are dealing with. roger, is he really saying anything terribly different than anyone else is saying? essentially saying we need a moratorium? all of these programs on hold essentially until we can really bet people. is he saying the same thing that everyone else's? >> i think nbc is out faulty or. he said i want, i favor a total and complete ban on musli