president. i like to put it this way, it s for the constitution. it s for article one powers, which is absolutely critical and many of the people who voted that way were appropriaors because if you crack this egg, you can t uncrack this egg. i think you take people like mike lee who stood with principles. where was ted cruz? for the six years i was there ted cruz railed against executive encroachment and critical of president obama. he didn t stand with the constitution today and i really applaud my colleagues that stood with the constitution, stood with the importance of article one. knowing them as you do, having worked with them there on the senate floor for so many years, did you have any surprises in the way republicans broke today? i thought jerry moran was interesting. he s a great guy. i worked with him quite a bit because he represents a rule state but i think he stood on
you can t uncrack this egg. i think you take people like mike lee who stood with principl principles. where was ted cruz? for the six years i was there ted cruz railed against executive encroachment and critical of president obama. he didn t stand with the constitution today and i really applaud my colleagues that stood with the constitution, stood with the importance of article one. knowing them as you do, having worked with them there on the senate floor for so many years, did you have any surprises in the way republicans broke today? i thought jerry moran was interesting. he s a great guy. i worked with him quite a bit because he represents a rule state but i think he stood on principle. lamar is an institutionalest and understands that. he s retiring. susan, no surprise. but i really think there were a number of people like moran who really in their gut believe this
of all, is a it s called the dillon s rule state. fancy way of saying low kalts don t have much power to do home rule. much of what we do has to be authorized by the legislature sitting in richmond which meets once a year for a couple of months. secondly, the lejs lay stur chose to pass a law prevent having low kaltsz from removing or disturbing war memorials. and they go through in the stat ut a whole bunch of different so they re preventing a locality from doing what it wants to do with a statue. that is one of the grounds that we were sued on and we are currently under a court injunction to prevent us from removing the statue. so i think that law simply should be changed because it will be in the interest of democracy. it will allow low kalts to do what they want to do with these statues that are within their borders. in hindsight, you were a voting member of your city