tell me what that is. what is traditional americana? that would be the idea of limited government. that would be the idea that individual merit is rewarded. the idea of judeo-christian values. the constitution is not a living, breathing document. things that have united people. keith boykin s mouth has hit this desk. i don t understand when people say traditional america. let s take america back. it seems they re saying let s take it back from this black guy who is the president of the united states. when i hear people making the arguments about america is in decline. it is so historical, it makes me gasp. here we have a president who has been in office for just over three years. what has changed in three years? have we created socialism? has he taken away your guns? we had an incredible financial crisis that president obama inherited in 2008. he is trying to dig our way out of it. keep america safe. he is doing the best he can and people are portraying him like
the attorney general said he was concerned about what the nypd was doing which was clearly within the law and the department of justice has backed off on that, wisely. but you look at the context. and then the definitional aspect. the definition is the problem. i don t believe, and i agree the president can get away with this because, number one, you have a congress, you have an active media, that s why we are here tonight. but you have to ask yourself why this overly broad definition of national defense? why incorporate the stafford act, which talks about foreign and national interests and tsunamis and situations which the president would have control over under normal source but why do you have to expand it in the form of the executive order? that s the concern. executive orders have been challenged before in court. that s the thing here. i don t understand the national defense issue. that s the biggest thing. i think with the woodrow wilson, one thing the conservatives have a prob
the attorney general said he was concerned about what the nypd was doing which was clearly within the law and the department of justice has backed off on that, wisely. but you look at the context. and then the definitional aspect. the definition is the problem. i don t believe, and i agree the president can get away with this because, number one, you have a congress, you have an active media, that s why we are here tonight. but you have to ask yourself why this overly broad definition of national defense? why incorporate the stafford act, which talks about foreign and national interests and tsunamis and situations which the president would have control over under normal source but why do you have to expand it in the form of the executive order? that s the concern. executive orders have been challenged before in court. that s the thing here. i don t understand the national defense issue. that s the biggest thing. i think with the woodrow wilson, one thing the conservatives have a prob
sharia law. this is justice of the supreme court of united states? and ten commandments. these are documents that have stood the test of time for a reason. the bible, couple thousand years now you are talking about the constitution that only a few hundred years old. it s not like it s arcane. i mean, look. there is no reason to changing but what we re seeing, divergence of philosophy about the constitution. roosevelt tried to do things but it evolved over time. there is a divergence over the constitution. i m not surprised justice ginsberg. we know that judicial philosophy because of liberal and how they see the document. it evolves. sean: a living, breathing
there is no reason to changing but what we re seeing, divergence of philosophy about the constitution. roosevelt tried to do things but it evolved over time. there is a divergence over the constitution. i m not surprised justice ginsberg. we know that judicial philosophy because of liberal and how they see the document. it evolves. sean: a living, breathing document, but it s not. we can argue its constant work in progress and it should be. it allowed slavery. that wasn t in the constitution. they created the mechanism to change. give her a break. what he is saying that our