his character but he is a good provider a good father to the children. and you live with that balance. live with that tension. there come as time, though, if the man starts to become physically abusive and even dangerous, the logic of the balance no longer works. he may still be a great provider, still be a great father to his children, but now things have changed to such a degree that the balance thing doesn t work anymore. that man just needs to get out ofs house. for me, the impeachment hearings were that moment, when it said to me, the balance argument doesn t work anymore. i love my brother, and sisters who take that point of view but am trying to say i don t think it holds water anymore and time for us to think about this whole situation. i m listening to you closely. there is a whole obviously, when you think of the impeachment itself and the constitutional part of this and talking to legal scholars about that, but also just the civility, decency, human being portion of this
implies that congress has directed the executive branch to establish this careful balance between the department of justice, homeland security and the state department. this careful balance was nothing in our legislation. we expect all laws to be enforced. they will are making this careful balance argument. they argue that if a state interferes with that delicate balance or that careful balance, then it throws it out of balance, therefore it should be preempted. there s another argument, i don t know if it is made in anybody s brief. if they argue the article in the constitution grants the government exclusive authority to establish immigration law because it says congress should have the power to establish and formed naturalization policy in the same sentence it says congress shall have the authority to establish uniform bankruptcy policy across the country. if they invalidate arizona s law on that argument it would put the bankruptcy laws in jeopardy in all of our states
to establish this careful balance between the department of justice, homeland security and the state department. this careful balance was nothing in our legislation. we expect all laws to be enforced. they will are making this careful balance argument. they argue that if a state interferes with that delicate balance or that careful balance, then it throws it out of balance, therefore it should be preempted. there s another argument, i don t know if it is made in anybody s brief. if they argue the article in the constitution grants the government exclusive authority to establish immigration law because it says congress should have the power to establish and formed naturalization policy in the same sentence it says congress shall have the authority to establish uniform bankruptcy policy across the country. if they invalidate arizona s law on that argument it would put the bankruptcy laws in jeopardy in all of our states as well. rich: another piece that i think is absurd.
directed the executive branch to establish this careful balance between the department of justice, homeland security and the state department. this careful balance was nothing in our legislation. we expect all laws to be enforced. they will are making this careful balance argument. they argue that if a state interferes with that delicate balance or that careful balance, then it throws it out of balance, therefore it should be preempted. there s another argument, i don t know if it is made in anybody s brief. if they argue the article in the constitution grants the government exclusive authority to establish immigration law because it says congress should have the power to establish and formed naturalization policy in the same sentence it says congress shall have the authority to establish uniform bankruptcy policy across the country. if they invalidate arizona s law on that argument it would put the bankruptcy laws in jeopardy in all of our states as well. rich: another piece that i