the constitution of california says the united states constitution is the supreme law of the land. it says standing armies should be prohibited. this violates article one, section 8 of the u.s. constitution which says that congress can only designate gait funds for up to two years for any standing army. the police are acting in contradiction to the law. ironically what is called law enforcement is in complete violation of the law, and the militia, which is when properly formed, the entire body of the body trained to arms is the only legitimate and lawful law enforcement body of the united states. the police are engaged in treason by protecting and abating the american people. sfpd were protected barak and anyone who knows about geopolitics know that israel and the united states carried out the 9/11 attacks against the american people. off thank you. your time is up. next speaker. hey, clyde. welcome back. >> thank you, thomas jefferson. okay. i have been assigned by mayor breed to be the poop patrol. it's a tough job. it's unpaid. okay, mayor breed. i voted for you and campaigned fo

that discriminate against women solely on account of their gender and sex violates the united states constitutionasking for special favors for women. what she is asking for is simply equal protection and equal treatment and fairness for women under the law. >> do you feel at all that strangulation that she referred to when she said, "take your feet off our necks"? >> absolutely. and what she is saying is to the other justices -- and she is also suggested to congress and to the people -- that laws which restrict women, for example, in the abortion case, she decided from texas, laws which restrict abortion services to women, unduly burden a woman's right to choose abortion, and, yes, that is something that is meaning the government is putting its foot on our neck, on our shoulders, holding us down, subordinating us, denying us fairness and equal rights under the law. so i don't think anyone could have said it better than she did. >> i know that you've got as many, many, people do, this concern regarding potential overturning of roe versus wade. >> yes. >> help us understand why that is so personal

have absolutely no evidence for that and that is simply the complete opposite of what the united states constitution and our judicial system was set up to to create. so i don't think anybody is assuming that anybody's guilty but that doesn't mean that we don't have a responsibility to take victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment very seriously and i think that's what we're doing right now particularly as it applies to the misuse of power by people and in particular men in power in our institutions in this country so i think right now it's perfectly plausible and important to hear out these women a lot of people believe some very important things in danger of being overturned and i think there's a some very serious implications there is not and i understand the road again general but i hear your. disagreements and the fear that roe v wade is going to be overturned but again these are more media allegations these are more allegations from from liberal stating that if trump has his people and if conservatives come in that then roe v wade will be overturned in all of this that's simply not due p

the principle, i emphasize, is no one is above the law in the united states constitution, in the united states government. there is a question -- and that's federalist 69, of course, but it's also woven into the text of the constitution. there's a question about timing for members of military, for example. that's why we defer -- have deferral for them. it was not a constitutional position. so i really want to emphasize that. congress studies things all the time to ensure the effective operation of the government. on your point, i do think -- and to the point about your trip, some of the great moments have been those of judicial independence and moments of -- the president seizes steel mills, well intentioned because it's well intentioned to serve the war effort, but the court says it's not consistent with law and therefore unlawful and the court rules against president truman. we talked a lot about the united states versus richard nixon case, a unanimous decision in 1974 by chief justice berger, who had been appointed. the clinton versus jones case itself was a moment where the presiden

the principle, i emphasize, is no one is above the law in the united states constitution, in the united states government. there is a question -- and that's federalist 69, of course, but it's also woven into the text of the constitution. there's a question about timing for members of military, for example. that's why we defer -- have deferral for them. it was not a constitutional position. so i really want to emphasize that. congress studies things all the time to ensure the effective operation of the government. on your point, i do think -- and to the point about your trip, some of the great moments have been those of judicial independence and moments of -- the president seizes steel mills, well intentioned because it's well intentioned to serve the war effort, but the court says it's not consistent with law and therefore unlawful and the court rules against president truman. we talked a lot about the united states versus richard nixon case, a unanimous decision in 1974 by chief justice berger, who had been appointed. the clinton versus jones case itself was a moment where the presiden

returning to identity and identity around things which they know they value there in the united states constitution the flag is a symbol the bill of rights and so on because it appears these are all critical elements to modern u.s. identity which overlay the smaller if you like of countries of origin interests in the country but we see that in australia canada throughout europe we're seeing it now in the horn of africa and this really this rush back to nationalism and in ninety nine ninety ninety one when the cold war collapsed i said that the countries which go back to their national core first will be the ones which move fastest toward strategic dominance and the russians did that when they finally were able to overthrow the soviet union and the chinese themselves reinvented themselves or been actually so we're looking at this incredible movement and this the pace of this movement scares people it scares or people in cities particularly in another state it's certainly scares the elites ok i steve you know i you in a number of these a gay trumps a race is to hear that all the time in liberal media

commerce clause of the united states constitution gives the power to regulate commerce to our congress and that our congress has not delegated the power to regulate in the form of withdrawing from the world trade organization to the president and so that he does not have that power so if he could get it through congress what difference what what effect would american withdrawal from the w t o have on world trade. well presumably president trump would feel even more free which would be a lot more free than he currently feels to impose tariffs as he wishes without regards to the united states' commitments and as i suggest he's already done that to a large extent under the national security pretext of our statutes and also of an exception and a lot second the united states would not be participating in the beauty of dispute settlement and of courtly to the united states the united states would have no rights to make claims to other states to request those other states to comply with their obligations so let's see a return to what you might call the wild west of retaliation and counter-ret

have absolutely no evidence for that and that is simply the complete opposite of what the united states constitutionand our judicial system was set up to create and judge it has got a point isn't she nothing has been proven yet you know it goes against that presumption of innocence why do you think there's been such a backlash here. i think that really speaks to the importance of taking into consideration a culture that has been build and develop the united states and the way that it relates to power in this country so i don't think anybody is assuming that anybody's guilty but that doesn't mean that we don't have a responsibility to take victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment very seriously and i think that's what we're doing right now particularly as it applies to the misuse of power by people in impressive. there are men in power in our institutions in this country so i think right now it's perfectly plausible and important to hear out these women there are two so far and it seems as though more accusations may come along and enter into a process where we can hear those stories out and r

have absolutely no evidence for that and that is simply the complete opposite of what the united states constitution and our judicial system was set up to create so i don't think anybody is assuming that anybody's guilty but that doesn't mean that we don't have a responsibility to take victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment very seriously and i think that's what we're doing right now particularly as it applies to the misuse of power by people and in particular men in power in our institutions in this country so i think right now it's perfectly plausible and important to hear out these women a lot of people believe some very important things in danger of being overturned and i think there's a some very serious implications there is not and i understand the role again general but i hear your. disagreements in the fear that roe v wade is going to be overturned but again these are more media allegations these are more allegations from from liberal stating that if trump has his people and if conservatives come in that then roe v wade will be overturned in all of this that's simply not due proces

i would just suggest you have been accused of a crime and that a fair process under the united states constitution and our notion of fair play means that the people who make an accusation against you have to come forward with some evidence. isn't that part of a fair process. >> yes or. >> and part of that means if you make an allegation there needs to be corroboration, in other words you not guilty because comedy makes an accusation against you in this country. we are not a police state. we don't give the government that can empower, we insist that those charges be proven by competent evidence, and i know were not in a court, i've told my colleague if we were in court half of them would be in contempt of court. but, you have been accused of crime i believe fundamental notions of fair play and justice in our constitutional system requires that if somebody can make that accusation against you then they need to come forward with some corroboration, not just allegations in your right to be angry about the delays in your ability to comee here and protect your good name because in the interim it just ke

united states. there is a basic principle of our constitution and it was articulated by the founders. no one can select a judge in his own case. that's what the president is potentially doing here. selecting a justice on the supreme court who potentially will cast a decisive vote in his own case. that is a reason why this proceeding is so consequential. senator sasse urged us to do our job. i agree. part of our job is to review the record of the nominee as thoroughly and deliberately as possible, looking to all the relevant and probative evidence. we can't do that on this record. mr. chairman, you have said multiple times that your staff has already reviewed the 32,000 pages produced to this committee at 5:41 p.m. yesterday. both sides are using the same computer platform. the documents had to be loaded into this platform overnight and couldn't be conclude until 6:45 a.m. this morning. how is it possible that your staff concluded its review last night before the documents were even uploaded? that's the platform that both sides are using here. it's simply not possible, mr. chairman, th

list of principles ♪ for keeping people free ♪ >> bret: still good 231 years ago today the united states constitutionptember 17th, 1787. happy constitution day. that's it for this "special report," fair, balanced and unafraid. here is martha. >> martha: i still refer to those songs in my head when i have to remember some parts of those. thank you, bret, good to see you as always. a story exclusive tonight. you are about to hear from two women who knew and dated judge kavanaugh 30 years ago they want to speak out and they want to be heard to you this evening. they dual that moments away. good evening, everybody. i'm martha maccallum. we now know tonight there will be a public hearing. judge kavanaugh and his accuser christine ford both say they are willing to testify before congress to tell their sides of the story. this is a road that we haven't been down in some time it will be starkly reminiscent of this famous hearing which pretty much stopped the whole country in its tracks

united states. there is a basic principle of our constitution, and it was a articulated by the founders. no one can select a judge in his own case. that is what the president is potentially doing here. selecting a justice on the supreme court who potentially will cast a decisive vote in his own case. that is a reason why this proceeding is so consequential. sen or the sasse urged to us do our job. i agree. and part of that is to review the record as deliberately as possible looking for the relevant and probative evidence. we can't do that on this record. mr. chairman, you said multiple times that your staff has reviewed the 42,000 pages of documents produced to the com t committee at 5:41 p.m. yesterday. both sides are using the same computer platform. to are review the documents from mr. burr, and the documents had to to be loaded into this platform overnight and could not be concluded until 6:45 a.m. this morning. how is it possible that your staff concluded its rereview last night before the documents were even uploaded? that is the platform that both sides are using here. simply not

it's a testament to the strength of the united states constitutional system but it was able to winter the test and continue to be strong -- inter-that test and continue to be strong. wilson from massachusetts. i have a question on number 11. gettysburg. [laughter] sorry, you were the one who brought it up. >> i did. itselferms of gettysburg being an important battle, no doubt. readingred to me in about the withdrawal from gettysburg and what leads into escape from the jaws of defeat -- what happens at williamsport brilliantly conducted in the middle of the night, fooling the union side, was pretty significant. he marched on from there. , heas another minor battle went on. think thatcant he was -- do you think that was in terms of the whole picture? >> the action of williamsport is a lost opportunity. gettysburg,back to gettysburg obviously change the momentum and causes tremendous casualties that lee can't replace. it's a confidence builder for the union army. we will see george meade stamm place and maybe that's not necessarily the best thing. some stability is. the union common sold

wake of the american revolution, a check on the executive was a major foundation of the united states constitution. for it was james madison who may not have had a musical named after him but was a top scholar of his time who wrote in federalist 47, the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. so what does that warning mean in real life terms today? hearings one example. it means whether people like kelly gregory, an air force veteran, mother, and business owner, who is here from tennessee, and who is living with stage four breast cancer, can afford medical treatment. at a time when the administration is arguing that protections to ensure people with pre-existing conditions can't be kicked off their health insurance are unconstitutional, we cannot and should not confirm a justice who believes the president's views alone carry the day. one opinion i plan to ask about, when judges appointed by presidents of both parties joined in upholding the consumer financial protection bureau, you, judge, dissent

the chain that ties the whole misery of american politics together and that jane is the united states constitutionersive acts were happening in real life, every day. german-americans organized for the purpose of destroying us marched under our very noses. >> i pledge undivided allegiance . allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. and the republic for which it stands. one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> in our press, we read the news from abroad. the nazis were spending millions, arming germany to the teeth. we read that tokyo was appropriating tremendous sums, converting japan into one fast munitions plant. -- one vast munitions plant. we watched these nations spend huge sums on armament and we wondered why. arrogantly, they told us why. they declared war on us before the shooting started. >> we have declared war against the democratic world. the germans are a noble and unique race to whom the earth was given by the grace of god. >> the world must come to look up to our emperor as the greatest ruler of all nations. >> when the people of these three nations

cleanly and crisply, who knows what a semi-colon is for, and who is willing to protect the united states constitution and the bill of rights and understands that the bill of rights is not an a la carte menu. every one of them counts. let me try to explain further why i agree with so much of what senator sasse said. this is not a news flash, our country is divided. we've been divided before, we will be divided again. we will survive this, but i confess the division in our country today seems to me to be especially sharp, and that concerns me so much about the -- that division is the basis for it. it's not honest disagreement, so much of it is anger. there have been thousands, millions of pages written about the genesis of that anger. we all have opinions. you know what they say about opinions. here is mine, i think a big part of the anger in america today is because we have too many americans who aren't sharing in the great wealth of this country, not economically, not socially, not culturally and not spiritually. and those americans believe that the american dream has become the american game, and th

worth noting that in 2014, every democratic member of this committee voted to amend the united states constitution to repeal the free speech provisions of the first amendment and sadly every democrat in the senate agreed with that position. voting to give congress unprecedented power to regulate political speech. it was a sad day for this institution. years earlier, ted kennedy, the great liberal lion opposed a similar effort and said we haven't amended the bill of rights in over 2 hundr00 years w is not the time to start. not a single democrat had the courage to agree with ted kennedy and support free speech. indeed they voted party line to repeal the free speech provisions. that is radical and extreme and part of the reason the american people voted for a president who would put justices on the court who will protect our free speech. how about religious liberty? that's another fundamental protection that the democrats in the senate have gotten extreme and radical on. indeed our colleagues want justices who will rubber stamp efforts like the obama administration's efforts litigating against the l

members of congress have legal standing to enforce the chief anti-corruption provision in the united states constitution. we're saying to the president under the constitution you must come to congress for consent if you accept payments, benefits, gratuities from foreign governments, which he has done with um punty us. now we have a standing to proceed with the case. it's a real milestone. >> senator blumenthal, thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. >>> we have much more awe head on this breaking news and historic day on capitol hill. stay with us. historic day on capitol hill stay with us hey allergy muddlers. are you one sneeze away from being voted out of the carpool? try zyrtec®. it's starts working hard at hour one. and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. stick with zyrtec® and muddle no more®. your society was dearled by a woman, who governed thousands... commanded armies... yielded to no one. when i found you in my dna, i learned where my strength comes from. my name is courtney mckinney, and this is my ancestrydna story. now with 2 times more geographic detail than othe

are we the people, constitution of the united states of america. we will be failing if we do not aggressively pursue our responsibility to review the record of a nominee. so let us do that. let us ask the court for intervention to ensure that we have access to this record. that we've had over the past few days, new information regarding the nominee. new information from women who had -- have shared their experiences, difficult, difficult experiences and what would be the appropriate conduct here in the senate? it would be for the fbi to investigate. not a criminal investigation, but a background investigation. that was accorded to anita hill in 1991, a reopening of the background investigation to get the facts. how is it that a senate that could support, and a president who can support the proper role of the fbi in 1991 will not stand up today for fairness for women who are coming forward? why is it that the nominee steeped in the law who has said he wants a fair hearing, wants a fair hearing, why does the nominee not demand a fbi investigation so

no one is above the law in the united states constitution in the united states government. here is a question, and it is also woven right into the text of the constitution. there is a question about timing for members of the military, for example. that is why we have deferral for them. not a constitutional position. i really want to emphasize that, but that was not a position of what i thought was required by the constitution, rather something to be studied as congress studies things all the time to ensure the effective operation of the government. on your point about homdan, some of the greatest moments have been judicial independence, moments of political crisis, the case where we were at war with korea. he's the steel mills, well-intentioned. well intention to serve the war effort, but the courses it is unlawful. rules against president truman. we talked a lot about the united states versus richard nixon case, the unanimous decision, chief justice burger, who had been appointed. it was a moment where the president of the united states was ruled against by the supreme cour

wake of the american revolution a check on the executive was a major foundation of the united states constitution go. james madison may not have a musical named after him but a top scholar who wrote in federalist 47 the accumulation of all powers legislative executive and judiciary in the same hand may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. so what does that warning mean in real life terms today? here is one example. whether people like kelly gregory and air force veteran, mother and business owner here from tennessee and living with stage iv breast cancer can afford medical treatment at a time the administration is arguing that protecting those of pre-existing conditions cannot be kicked off health insurance is unconstitutional you should not confirm a justice who believes that president views champion the day one opinion i plan to ask about when judges appointed by presidents of both parties joined to uphold the consumer financial protection bureau you dissented. it concluded the bureau and agency which has served us well to bring back over $12 billion to consumers for fraud from

brett kavanaugh is not protected by the united states constitution.e does not enjoy the presumption of innocence. kavanaugh is guilty because his opponents say he is guilty and that is her position. she's proud of it and she has become a folk hero on the left for saying that. watch or say it again from earlier today. >> can you clarify what you meant? do you believe judge kavanaugh deserves presumption of innocence, or not? >> we are not in a court of law, we are actually in a court of credibility at this point and without having the fbi report or some semblance of trying to get corroboration, we are left with the credibility of the two witnesses. >> tucker: oh, a court of credibility. she didn't explain what the court of credibility is, but you can be assured that you never want to be tried in one. if the bill of rights doesn't apply to brett kavanaugh, it probably doesn't apply to you either. it all depends on what mazie hirono thinks of your political views. keep in mind that once you've been accused in this new court of credibility you are respons

you talk about due process, you talk about the fifth amendment and 14th amendment to the united states constitution, has to do with deprivation of life, liberty or property. none of which are taken from judge kavanaugh. it is not a right to sit on the supreme court. when you talk due process, presumption of innocence, that's not the standard we're working from here. we don't know the standard we're wou working from. nobody set up the boundaries, it is up to each senator to decide on his or her own terms what they believe is the right thing to do, and whether or not they believe -- >> and ana, to underscore her point, this is a job interview. let's remember this. let's all put ourselves in position of being a ceo, if you were interviewing to have a male co-host and the show was made up of majority female viewers, these kinds of accusations come up publicl, you talk to the accuser, you talk to the accused, three other allegations come up, i don't think you would hire that person. this is the kind of question we have to ask ourselves. this is the highest honor and privilege to be on one of nine lifeti

regarding catholicism, when a judge is appointed, they say that they will be supporting the constitution of the united statese constitution of the -- constitutional catholicism. that is one. hearings,rday in the we heard senator grassley was the one that made the decisions to being what was going for the democrats to be able to say his public, and it was not senator grassley and senator feinstein, who it should have been, it was senator grassley that made all of the decisions. number three, the people who called regarding medicare, i don't think they realize the people who were on medicare pay $134 a month. it comes out of their social security money. and i cannot see a family of four paying $134 per each person. that could cost more than what insurance costs them today. and the fifth, the fourth statement is, i am a democrat. i don't agree with trump, but he is our president. this country needs to come together and work together, or we are going, well, we are not going to be where we are. host: ok. that was kathy in kentucky. you heard paul ryan talking about that new york times' op-ed. here is the minority

constitutional republic. my citing of justice kennedy for whom i worked. no one is bovr tabove the law i united states. ming from federalist 69. coming from right the structure of the constitution. we're all equal before the law. i've made clear my deep faith in the judiciary. the judiciary has been the final guarantor of the rule of law. as i said this my opening, the supreme court is the last line of defense for separation of powers and rights and liberties guaranteed by the constitution laws of the united states. >> that's why the unitary theory of the executive is so worrisome. what you have said is what i want to hear from a very important branch of our government. what you have said in relation to morrison suggests the president has the last word. >> i've not said that, senator. i'll reiterate something i said a minute ago coming from cooper versus aaron. when a court order requires a president to do something or prohibit a president from doing something under the constitution or laws of the united states, under our constitutional system, that is the final word. >> let me ask you one last time, th

legacy of adherence to the rule of law in the united states of america, no one is above the law in the united states. coming from the structure of the constitution the law in the united states of america. and i have made clear my deep faith in the judiciary. the judiciary has been the final guarantor of the rule of law. and as i said in my opening, the last line of defense for the separation and the rates of liberties guaranteed by the constitution of the united states. >> you see, that is why of the theory of the executive is so worrisome. what you have said, that is what i want to hear. very important branch of our government. what you have said in relation to morrison suggests the present has the last word. >> i have not said that, senator. and i will reiterate something that i have said, that i said a minute ago, coming from cooper versus aaron, when a court order requires a president to do something, or prohibits a president from doing something under the constitution or laws of the united states, under the constitutional system, that is the final word. >> let me ask you one last time, the question that you knew i would ask about your testi

constitution and james madison mark hillier could be presented panel discussion that the united states constitution in a program entitled for us by us, america's trust and expectations of the constitution, moderator judy woodruff will lead a discussion of the results of a national survey come back to my james madison's montpelier, creed with a vote better understand understand how americans relate to our government and founding documents. on wednesday, september 26, mark lubavitch will be here to tell us about his latest book on latest book, big income in the nfl endangers times in the book signing will follow the program. you may think a sports book is strange fodder for the national archives, but we are getting ready for a big exhibit in tony toni tone all-american sports in the united states. so check our website or sign up at the table outside the theater because he'll also find information about other national archives programs and a dvd is. another way to get more involved in the national archives is to become a member of the national archives foundation at the foundation supports all of her

with some persons interpretation of, where is waldo be a windedwhen hearing - - of the united states constitutioncome threatening? >> and judge brett kavanaugh and just discourses, we have people who go by the constitution. [indiscernible] >>chris: i want to turn to the nation's farewell to john mccain that's been the big story this week and his daughter megan's tribute to him at the national cathedral yesterday which still has a lot of people talking. here's part of that. >> the america of john mccain has no need to be made great again because america was always great. [applause] the one marc thiessen, it's her dad but she obviously feels passionately about the fact she thinks that president trump didn't treat her dad well and he didn't. what did you think of her remarks? >> first of all, just watching her this week has been heartbreaking. her grief has been palpable and so was her anger yesterday. with good reason because donald trump treated her father disgracefully. if you want to put this in perspective, there has been 9174 senator since the founding of the republic. he is only the sicksix s

wake of the american revolution, a check on the executive was a major foundation of the united states constitution. for it was james pad son who may not have had a musical named after him, was a top scholar of his time, who wrote in federalist 47, it is a cumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judicia judiciary, in the same hand, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tourney. so what does that mean in real-life terms today? it means whether an air force veteran, mother and business owner who is here from tennessee and is living with stage 4 breast cancer can afford medical treatment. at a time when the administration is arguing that protections to ensure people with pre-existing conditions can't be kicked off their health insurance are unconstitutional, we cannot and should not confirm a justice who believes the president's views alone carry the day. one opinion i plan to ask about, when judges appointed by presidents of both parties joined in upholding the consumer financial protection bureau, you, judge, dissented. your dissent concluded that the bureau, an agency which s

started a decades-long career fighting for the rights guaranteed to all americans under the united states constitution. in his time as executive director at the aclu of florida, mr. simon oversaw landmark work defending the rights of lgbtq floridian, protecting immigrants, reforming our criminal justice system, froketting free speech, preserving women's health. and strengthening the right to vote. the rights that floridians enjoy would not be the same without the tireless work of this champion of liberty. i am proud to call howard simon my dear friend and i join my fellow floridians in thanking him for his thoughtful and compassionate work to safeguard our civil liberties and helping to make the united states a more perfect union for us all. thank you, i yield back the alance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. on october 2 the dade county farm bureau is proud to honor aul and swanee dem a ari, an agricultureure powerhouse couple hailing from

our constitution lays out a very clear framework to which the president of the united states nominates and the senate proceeds to review thef record f an individual in order to determine if that individual is of fit character to serve. this strategy came as our founders struggled with how to enable staff to fill key positions in the executive ranch in key positions in the judiciary. something that hamilton wrote about extensively in his federalist papers. number 76 was written in 1788 as a letter to the people of the state of new york and in it he addressed the separation of powers at length. said that the founders had considered giving the assembly, that is a large group, the ability to chose -- choose those who would fill posts as a check and balance to the president. but they considered the fact that senators would probably one senator in one state would want their friend in one position in another senator from another state would want a different position and that would not produce the best set of individuals to populate judges. so they came to rest on the idea of having one indivi