Free exercise and establishment clauses, tenth circuit from 2002, 2009, published broadly, bonafide are quite significant. A number of topics that i want to touch on during the course of this hour, we are not going to get everything id like to talk about but we would get to some of them, the first one is impeachment, we hear impeachment being discussed left and right in the country, in the media, by politicians, here is the impeachment clause of the constitution and here is what it says, the president , the Vice President , all offices in the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, here it said with Popular Culture that that pretty much means its a political decision, the house of representatives has the votes, thats pretty much good enough, is that how it works . I dont think so, mark, so phrase high crime misdemeanor is specifically chosen to be a very high bar and the reason for that is that our framers wanted the check and balances against congress which they thought, you know, perhaps inaccurately was going to be by far the most powerful and most Dangerous Branch of government and they did not want donning be able to toss the president out on the basis of any low standard at all and they deliberately chose the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors which had a history in the common law because it referred to to misdeeds of a public nature of a very serious abusive power and i just wanted to mention, you read the impeachment clause to us but you didnt mention the fact that when the congress, when the senators are judging an impeachment, they are actually on oath which tells us that this is not just a political boat, that they are engaged in a serious legal matter in which they are actually swearing to do justice at the time and chief justice of the United States to make sure the entire affair is being done as a court of law and not just as a matter of politics. So if it is pursued as a matter of low politics, would it be your point then that thats not what the constitution provides . Thats right. That, in fact, its illegitimate use of the impeachment power . Thats right. That isnt to say that it can be overturned because the senate is the sole judge of impeachment, theres no higher court to which it can be appealed but the senators are on oath to comply with the constitution. And the words as you point out, they had meaning, common law, they debated it fairly extensively at the Constitutional Convention and things they dismissed, right, in orderr to make sure that barr ws relatively high. So george mason proposed that the president be impeachable madison objected to that that would be at the pleasure of the senate, they could get rid of it and its pretty clear that madison believed that he needed to be isolated from impeachment for anything that isnt really truly high crime or misdemeanor. Related to this, present day we have a slew of subpoenas being issued by slew of eommittees in the house of representatives, one party lost the b house, the opposition pary took the house. The subpoenas cover the president s taxes, thee president s bank records, the president S Communications with his accountant, the president s financial records, members of his family, his businesses, associates and so forth. Is this something new . To hear much of the discussion you would think the inquiries go back to the beginning but they dont, they do have the right to ask, request regarding the state of there union which president s bak to georgeio washington have complied with but only after first decline to go provide information where they thought it would be contrary to Public Interest to provide it. Subpoenas and investigatory powers are not there. That was voted down by the Constitution Convention and it is true that from very close to the beginning i think 1827 may have been the first year that this happened, congress has subpoenaed private individuals to come and provide information when it is necessary for the legislative duties of Congress Fairly narrowly understood. This did not extend to executive branch officials, i believe the first time that congress ever attempted to enforce a subpoena against the executive branch where the president had invoked executive privilege it was under Richard Nixon and first time an executive branch official was held in contempt of congress in connection with the subpoena, where the president had invoked executive privilege was 1982 and gorsuch, the mother of Supreme Court justice neil gorsuch, thats only happened a few times, never been approved by the Supreme Court, this is really a matter of political dispute between the two branches. So half a dozen committees literally hundreds of subpoenas now, allegations that if the president doesnt comply with the subpoenas hes obstructing congress and theyre even arguing obstructing justice, the president is taking them to court to litigate this issue, how can it be obstruction if hes litigating the issue on separation of powers grounds and also on whether or not the house of representatives has the original authority to demand these kinds of records from the president or for that matter from any citizen given the point you just raised, that is there needs to be some legislative purpose . Well, i think we have to understand that words like obstruction are thrown around, they are political rhetoric rather than serious legal arguments and the only way the house of representatives or its committees can actually enforce subpoenas is by going to court, this is only been done 3 times in american history, its never gotten passed the District Court decision, its not entirely clear the courts even have jurisdiction but this is what the house will need to do if it wants to enforce the subpoenas but those are civil civil cases asking for declaratory judgment orin injunction requirg the executive branch to provide the particular materials and if such case is brought and the court holds, executive branch teds to provide materials im pretty confident theyll be provided. What kind of precedent does this set for future president s . Seems to me that the House Democrats are being very shortsided, do they think that when they do this against President Trump the future republican congresses will not do it against future democratic president s, its very hard for me to believe that they think that this is the proper way to do business. Now, in terms of oversight activities which you mentioned subpoenas which we talked about, legislative purpose, what would the legislative purpose be of the president s tax returns . I think it differs, 81 subpoenas, some of them are much more closely related to legislative purpose than others, claim of president s personal tax returns and whether Internal Revenue service is properly auditing the president , not clear to me why that requires looking at tax returns from before he was president , thats an unusual case so that when a particular subpoena, i think its the only one thats pursuant to a specific statute thats been passed by congress authorizing a subpoena and that statute does not limit the inquiry to legislative purpose, it seems on its face to allow the chair of the ways and Means Committee to demand tax return of not just the president but of anyone, mark, if they want to see, ways and Means Committee want to see tax returns, according to the current chair he can do it, thats what the statute seems seems to say, this is, i think, a bit of a Civil Liberties disaster, its never done in this way, of course, they are using it just against trump but the statute is not complying with the president , its any taxpayer and i think its succeedingly unlikely that the court is going to order this when the congress has no apparent legislative need for it. You dont get the tax returns, they said because the statute doesnt trump the constitution, you dont have a legislative purpose, youre focused on one individual, one president , your point, they are going back to tax returns from before he was president of the United States and they say we have scores and scores of examples of your relate purpose which is to make them public and the department of justice says that is not a legislative purpose, so thats where this litigation was headed right now. Dont forget folks to check us out on levin tv most weeknights, levin tv, call t at 844levintv. And dont forget, the hottest book in america written for you, freedom of the press, get your copy too, we will be right back. Trelegy. The power of 123. Trelegy 123 trelegy. With trelegy and the power of 1 2 3, im breathing better. Trelegy works 3 ways to. Open airways,. Keep them open. And reduce inflammation. For 24 hours of better breathing. Trelegy wont replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. Trelegy is not for asthma. Tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high Blood Pressure before taking it. Do not take trelegy more than prescribed. Trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. Call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling. Problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. Think your copd medicine is doing enough . Maybe you should think again. Ask your doctor about oncedaily trelegy and the power of 1 2 3. Trelegy 123 save at trelegy. Com but i can tell you Liberty Mutual customized my trelegy 123 Car Insurance so i only pay for what i need. Oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Only pay for what you need. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Depend® fitflex underwear for all day fun. Features maximum absorbency, ultra soft fabric and new beautiful designs for your best comfort and protection guaranteed. Lifes better when youre in it. Be there with depend®. Bleech aww awww its the easiest because its the cheesiest. Kraft for the win win. Not this john smith. Or this john smith. Or any of the other hundreds of john smiths that are humana Medicare Advantage members. No, its this john smith. Who we paired with a humana team member to help address his own specific health needs. At humana, we take a personal approach to your health, to provide care thats just as unique as you are. No matter what your name is. We like drip coffee, layovers no matter what your name is. And waiting on hold. What we dont like is relying on fancy technology for help. Snail mail we were invited to a y2k party. Uh, didnt that happen, like, 20 years ago . Oh, look, karolyn, weve got a mathematician on our hands check it out now you can schedule a callback or reschedule an appointment, even on nights and weekends. Todays xfinity service. Simple. Easy. Awesome. Id rather not. Professor Michael Mcconnell with the tenth amendment of the constitution. The powers not delegated by the constitution, no nor prohibited to reserve to the states respectively or to the people, is that true . Its nominally true. What matters how broadly interpreted is the powers to federal government and when words were written the assumption was that the powers would be interpreted fairly strictly and so the amendment amounts is very little. The amendment amounts to very little, thats the result of what . Hejudicial decision in. Its a result of decisions by the representatives of the people in Congress Passing expansive laws that have been upheld by the Supreme Court,. Ets not blame the court, these are laws passed by congress. The court in part is to blame, right . The court gets to bill theig lok of bill of rights way of thinkinl government does not benefit from the tenth amendment. Theres the legislative branch, the executive branch or the judicial branch, they interpret it in a way that is very destructive of federalism. You have bureaucrats in the bowels of the Protection Agency that have more powers than states in some cases. Is that a post constitutional type of problem . Let me just say, people, left and right do not believe in federalism when push comes to shove. So, certainly the new deal with progressives, they paid no attention to federalism go but frankly conservatives dont care much about it either so take immigration and whether the sanctuary cities question, here you have left liberals who are rediscovering the virtues of federalism but the other side of the coin is conservatives are forgetting them. Immigration in the constitution is largely a federal activity, right . There are federal activities. We can have a whole hour of discussion of this. The constitution only gives Congress Power over naturalization. Immigration was actually left to the states for the first hundred years. Should be left to the states now . I think not. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to interpret powers over commerce and naturalization to include immigration, and i think it is something that logically should be dealt with at a national level, but i dont think that means the National Government is the only unit that has any authority to legislate. Do we have a constitution going . How you interpret the constitution . I know we have precedent, we have, you make the point, you say hey, look, it looks like the ends justify for the political spectrum. Federalism gets you where you want to go and you support that. If the National Government gets you where you want to go, i would dispute that somewhat, i think at least constitutional originalists are little bit more clear about what they believe regardless of the outcome and i think the left is which is. [inaudible] but, what do we have . Lets not exaggerate. We do still have a constitution. The skeleton of this government, the barebones of the government are elected congresses, elected president s, limited powers, division of power between the National Government and the states, due process of law, independent courts, we stick remarkably to the constitution. It is true there are a number of provisions in the constitution where i think, and perfect trim perhaps you think the courts have strayed and congress has straight, but that doesnt mean. [inaudible] the new deal is simply president roosevelts description of this program. He was elected president. We had a number of Supreme Court decisions that really had to turn the constitution on its head. Im not saying good or bad, whether it Social Security or a number of other decisions that were made throughout that time, the fact is, its not in the constitution, but there is an adjustment thats made over the course of time, correct. The word commerce is in the constitution and we know what that meant, it didnt mean an explosive bureaucracy, it meant congress. This is true, but as we become a more integrative National Economy, i think it is only logical that the ability to regulate that National Economy has grown in scope, but we could argue about any individual or provision. I do think. Those, there was a period of time in our history when the courts paid much less attention to what the constitution said then they should have and we have a lot of precedents that were set in those periods. I also believe in the last 20 or 30 years, we have begun moving back toward court that is more attentive to the constitution, and i dont just mean the conservative justices, i think even the liberal justices on the Supreme Court are much more attentive to text in the history and the actual legal justifications for what they do than their predecessors 50 or 60 years ago. Why do you think that is. I think there has been a big debate nationally among lawyers and law schools, to some extent, even out in the political campaigns over the nature of the judiciary, and i think that debate has been one on the merits by those who say that if we are going to be a Constitutional Republic that means we need to Pay Attention to the constitution and not just to treat it as whatever the Supreme Court wants it to mean. All right, well be right all right, well be right back. My experience with usaa has been excellent. They really appreciate the military family and it really shows. With all that usaa offers why go with anybody else . We know their rates are good, we know that theyre always going to take care of us. It was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. It was funny because when we would call another Insurance Company, hey would say oh we cant beat usaa were the webber family. Were the tenneys were the hayles, and were usaa members for life. Get your usaa Auto Insurance quote today. Is this ride safe . I assembled it myself last night. I think i did an ok job. Just ok . What if something bad happens . We just move to the next town. Just ok is not ok. Especially when it comes to your network. At t is americas best Wireless Network according to americas biggest test. Plus buy one of our most popular smartphones and get one free. More for your thing. Thats our thing. Depend® fitflex underwear for all day fun. Features maximum absorbency, ultra soft fabric and new beautiful designs for your best comfort and protection guaranteed. Lifes better when youre in it. Be there with depend®. Hi. Maria ramirez mom maria Maria Ramirez. Mcdonalds is committing 150 Million Dollars in tuition assistance, education, and career advising programs. Prof Maria Ramirez mom and dad Maria Ramirez to help more employees achieve their dreams. President trump arriving in south korea, the president willing to meet north Korean Leader kim jong un in dmz and shake his hand he would be able to step borderline to north korea, the regime has not agreed but called idea interesting, i will be here starting at midnight eastern. Federal judge in california blocking the administration from using 2. 5 billion in military funding to build segments of longproposed border wall in california, arizona and new mexico, President Trump says he plans to repeal, im jon scott, now back to life, liberty and levin. Mark professor mcconnell, Progressive Movement is not all that concerned about the constitution. When you read Woodrow Wilson or john dewey or all these other fellows at the end of the 1800s, early 1900s and they viewed the courts, in particular, as a change agent and they would be dismissive of the declaration and the constitution and they wrote about it this constitution comes from wilson talks about, as you know, you can have separations exists in the federalism stuff is quite an interesting but now were an Industrial Power and a superpower in the different body parts have to work together. Its like a living organism. They dont seem to be all that worked up about the constitution in terms of complying with it. The progressives were openly contemptuous of the constitution. Woodrow wilson was a critic of the constitution. We do not hear that very much today. Modernday progressives are not the same as Woodrow Wilson. In some ways better or worse but i think the respect for the constitution as a text that needs to be authoritative is alive and well among modern progressives and, in some ways, donald trump has made it ever so much more so because when theres a president that they dislike and distrust where do they go . They immediately go to screen to the constitution and i dont mean screen and an insulting way but we all should scurry to the constitution for protection when our government is going awry so i think on the left that there is more interest in the actual content of the text and history of the constitution that there has been at any other time in my professional life. Mark what about the attack on the Electoral College . That seems to be rather progressive and i dont think theres a candidate on the left that says but that goes to the heart of our republican system which is the National Popular vote which specifically they rejected a National Popular vote. That changed the entire makeup of the government, it doesnt . Its an important feature that our constitution would survive a constitutional amendment to move toward a popular vote. What i dont hear the left saying we should ignore the Electoral College but what i hear is a interesting work around that they are proposing for a compact among the states where a state constituting a majority of Electoral College with promise and advanced to cast their electoral votes in accordance with the winner of the National Vote but that is not to ignore the Electoral College but thats to work around it. Mark i am not saying their lawless and i dont know how you would ignore the Electoral College is a practical method but could not the argument be made let me try this, could the argument be made that theyve knocked down most of the obstacles that were problematic . As you said earlier theres no dispute anymore over the new deal and no dispute on immigration and its a political dispute where the power is but theres no dispute about most of these things anymore so just a matter of exploiting. Well, we have disputes over Different Things at different eras and we have plenty of important constitutional disputes. Today it is true that when something has been thoroughly hashed out and the American People seem edified by the resolution that tends to be regarded as solid. Mark i think theyve done a hell of a good job of turning the constitution inside out and it scares me because i hear the arguments come out about taxes and arguments now about all kinds of proposals that im sure the framers of the constitution would have found absolutely appalling. And yet, i find, very little argument from the public debate, in the media, about is that constitutional or is there an obstacle to that . There are political arguments and economic arguments but im not finding constitutional arguments. I think this is true. On the other hand i think among our political classes we dont see very serious arguments at all but it all seems to be posturing and i dont mean all but theres much more posturing than there is substance whether constitutional argument or otherwise. One place you have not mentioned and i know from the book you care about where i think theres a very dangerous lack of regard for the constitution is freedom of speech where dangerously large minorities of young people are now saying they do not believe in freedom of speech for people within with whom they fiercely disagree, various egalitarian ideologies trump freedom of speech especially on campus and i think that is one of the more frightening things going on. Today, its interesting because this is happening at a time when the courts are as protective of freedom of speech as they have ever been and maybe even more than they ever have been in so theres a huge disjunct between the protection for freedom of speech that is to be found in the courts versus the lack of regard for the values of freedom of speech that found on College Campuses and a lot of other places in america. Mark how is freedom of the press doing in your opinion . I think its a legal matter and its extremely strong. I think the press is an institution is, in very bad shape, i think it has economic problems with the advent of the internet but i also think that the political anytime an institution becomes heavily overwhelmingly of one political side or the other it ceases to do his job properly. Im in academia and certainly universities are this way. They suffer from this but the process as well and when universities and the press is overwhelmingly of one political ideology they forget their job is truth telling and begin to think their job is i dont know, resistance or whatever the catchphrases of the day but we what we really need is the press that fearlessly goes after the truth whether its left or right and does not see itself as having a mission of supporting one political side of the argument. Mark well be right back. Uhoh, looks like someones still nervous about buying a new house. Is it that obvious . Yes it is. You know, maybe youd worry less if you got geico to help with your homeowners insurance. I didnt know geico could helps with homeowners insurance. Yep, theyve been doing it for years. What are you doing . Big steve . Thanks, man. There he is. Get to know geico and see how much you could save on homeowners and renters insurance. Every day, visionaries are creating the future. So, every day, we put our latest technology and unrivaled network to work. The United StatesPostal Service makes more ecommerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. Because the future only happens with people who really know how to deliver it. Because the future only happens with people a migfrom aimovig. To be there for the good. And not so good. For the mundane. The aweinspiring. The heartracing. The heartbreaking. Thats what life is all about. Showing up. Unless migraine steals your chance to say. I am here. We aim to change that. With aimovig. A preventive treatment for migraine in adults. One dose, once a month. Aimovig is proven to reduce the number of monthly migraine days. For some, that number can be cut in half or more. Dont take aimovig if youre allergic to it. Allergic reactions like rash or swelling can happen hours to days after use. Common side effects include injection site reactions and constipation. It doesnt matter what each day brings. So long as you can say. I am here. Aim to be there more. Talk to your doctor about aimovig. Mark professor mcconnell, First Amendment, it says a lot of things about the First Amendment but congressional make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free ask exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I want to focus on the establishment of religion which is the sister to free exercise of religion. Separation of church and stat state we hear this phrase all the time but is it in the constitution . Where does that come from . The word separation of church and state are not in the constitution but as a shorthand version of what the establishment clause means and does have a deep history because there were in the 18th century prominent writers who ultimately advocated for a union between church and state is a famous essay by one of the bishops in the church of england by that very title and our framers did not believe in a union between church and state. They wanted them separate and the main thing to understand about the church of england and the established church is that this was the government control over religion and what our founders were most opposed to was having the government to be able to control religion. This did not mean that the framers believed the American People should be any less religious than they choose to be and did not mean the culture and there was anything wrong with having religious elements in the culture but it meant we were not have a system in which government was able to tell us what to believe or control churches and decide what their doctrines were and who their personal would be and so forth. For example, we had a recent case in the u. S. Up in Court Unanimous Decision in a case called [inaudible] in which the civil rights laws of employment dissemination laws were used to tell a religious organization that they cannot fire a particular person who is in a position of the minister and the Supreme Court, held quite correctly, that its an establishment of religion for the government to decide who will be a minister in a church. Of course, church here means not just Christian Churches but means synagogues and mosques and temples in any religious organization the government simply has to keep out of the business of telling them what to believe, who their leadership will be and essentially what they will do. Mark what about School Prayer and manger scenes . We see these battles going on my father used to say to me we are jewish and we used to go to school and we would pledge allegiance and say christian prayer and do not bother me in the least. The one told me i had to become christian. Or i had to change my face. For a long part of our history that was the case so its unconstitutional or not and when did this happen . I think the School Prayer decisions are, in fact, correct. It is true that there was a School Prayer in the Public Schools going way back but not to the founding, by the way, because of the founding we do not have Public Schools and Public Schools, as we now know them, are a phenomenon of the 1830s and thereafter. From the beginning prayers and bible readings in the Public Schools were controversial all along. Just as an example in philadelphia in the 1830s the school board decided voluntarily to allow catholic students to read the bible from their own translations rather than the king james cancellation and when that happened the protestants of philadelphia rioted and it was an anticatholic riot, very ugly thing. It was set off by this problem the Supreme Court did not address this issue until the 1960s but i think it is quite reasonable interpretation of the establishment clause to say that the government should not take upon itself the duty of teaching our children what prayers to say and how to say them. From a religious point of view this is quite important because from if the government will do this is not going to do a very good job. What is it that the government does a good job of and the prayer that was written against the tally in the case and thus up in court was written by a committee and when i teach this case i like to tell my students that the prayer i read them the prayer and its like to whom it may concern is completely bland and contentless prayer and for our government to be taking a serious thing like a prayer and making it into this bland thin thing does not do anybody any good. Mark dont forget to join me almost every weeknight on live in tv. Sign up at place tv. Com mark or give us a call at three and one and join our wonderful conservative community. By the way, did i mention . Four times the New York Times number one bestseller. I know its killing it. Get your copy, on freedom of the press. Fact is, every Insurance Company hopes you drive safely. But allstate actually helps you drive safely. With drivewise. It lets you know when you go too fast. And brake too hard. With feedback to help you drive safer. Giving you the power to actually lower your cost. Unfortunately, it cant do anything about that. Now that you know the truth. Are you in good hands . Calyoure gonna love this. Rs. New coppertone sport clear. Not thick, not hot, not messy, just clear, cool, protected. Coppertone sport clear. Proven to protect. Mark professor mcconnell, what of this religious issue, separation of church and state, and the point about what about that realism and the opportunity for local School Districts and states to make their own decision because there is a rubber there . Mark, this has been a big issue. At the beginning, there is no doubt the First Amendment, including freedom of religion, applied as a matter of federal constitutional law only to the United States government. In fact, they voted down madisons proposal to extend our religious freedom protections against state governments as well, even though he said that was the most important amendment of all the proposals for the bill of rights. They voted it down on federalism grounds and some weve been talking about but in the years before the civil war it turned out that states were using their authority to violate virtually every one of those important principles in the service of slavery so that abolitionists who wanted to make speeches against slavery were denied freedom of speech and newspapers that advocated for abolition could not be circulated and ministers who wanted to deliver sermons contrary to slavery were prevented from taking the pulpit and every single important bill of rights was violated in order to prop up this, essentially totalitarian system of slavery. When the civil war comes and we have the 14th amendment the 14th amendment does nationalize issues of fundamental human rights that had been left to the states by the initial. Mark and ratified by the state. Yes, ratified and there are lots of disputes about how this has done an eye, personally think the most persuasive interpretation is that it was the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment that does that and the privilege and immunities clause states, no state shall make or enforce any law which infringes or denies to any person the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. Now, theres lots of historical dispute but there were plenty of people at the time, including the senator who introduced the amendment on the floor of the senate who said what are these privileges and immunities because he proceeded to read from the bill of rights. There is solid historical support as well as the logic makes so much sense after the civil war that they were not going to allow the state to be able to do things that had propped up slavery in this way. I think that is what the 14th amendment which ultimately means. Mark well be right back. music plays throughout . What do we want for dinner . Burger i want a sugar cookie i want a bucket of chicken i want. Its the easiest, because its the cheesiest kraft. For the win win. Hi. Maria ramirez mom maria Maria Ramirez. Mcdonalds is committing 150 Million Dollars in tuition assistance, education, and career advising programs. Prof Maria Ramirez mom and dad Maria Ramirez to help more employees achieve their dreams. Mom and dad Maria Ramirez is this ride safe . I assembled it myself last night. I think i did an ok job. Just ok . What if something bad happens . We just move to the next town. Just ok is not ok. Especially when it comes to your network. At t is americas best Wireless Network according to americas biggest test. Plus buy one of our most popular smartphones and get one free. More for your thing. Thats our thing. I swibecause they let metual, customize my insurance. And as a fitness junkie, i customize everything, like my bike, and my calves. Liberty mutual customizes your Car Insurance, so you only pay for what you need. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. [ text notification now that you have] new dr. Scholls massaging gel advanced insoles with softer, bouncier gel waves, youll move over 10 more than before. Dr. Scholls. Born to move. Mark what was the [inaudible] decision . That was one of the first Supreme Court decisions to hold that, in this case, the establishment clause applies against the states and every everything was about in the particular township there was only two schools and a Public School and catholic school. The legislator and the school board voted to treat all the kids exactly the same way and got Free Transportation to school and a number of people, including a lot of anti catholic people, argued that this violated the separation of church and state because Catholic Schools cannot receive aid of any sort even on a neutral basis. They lost the opponents lost fivefour in a very strangely worded opinion but later this principle was adopted with a vengeance holding that for example, in the case that i was involved in in the Supreme Court one of my feet in the report the court held that underprivileged kids economically and educationally deprived kids could not even receive special tutoring in remedial math and english from Public School teachers on the premise of their Catholic Schools. Apparently, out of the worry that somehow these Public School teachers would be influenced by, i dont know, crucifixes on the wall or whatever it was that would influence them to infiltrate religion as part of remedial math. Im happy to say that case was formally overruled about 20 years later and now the Supreme Court takes the position that as long as the government is providing equal benefits to everyone, publics, private school, jewish school, whatever it happens to be, catholic school, if everyone is tweeted neutrally it does not violate the assessment cause. That seems to me to be a cracked homeschool. Mark its been fascinating, professor. I appreciate it. Law students at stanford are lucky. Dont forget, join us next time on life liberty and limited. [ ] jesse welcome to. Watters world. Im jesse watters. 20 democratic democrats duking it out in miami. Msnbc humiliated itself with multiple technical glitches. Here is what the president posted. We are less than 50 miles from where 17 people were killed in a we are going to take a quick break and get the technical situation. Whats