Now, Shepard Smith reporting live from the fox news desk. Hump day at last. First from the fox news deck, theres word a battle is waging high in trump tower as the president elects advisers fight to fill some of the new administrations top positions. Thats according to a senior trump economic adviser, plus, the website, politico, the New York Times and the Washington Post. The times report, im quoting here, firings and discord have put the trump transition into a state of disarray. But president elect trump is firing back in a big way. He tweeted today, the failing the New York Times story is so totally wrong on transition. It is going so smoothly. Also i have spoken to many foreign leaders. The times reports World Leaders have been blindly dialing into trump to talk to americas next commander in chief. President elect trump tweeted hes taken calls from the leaders of many countries including the united kingdom, china, saudi arabia, japan and, of course, russia. More on his talk with t
News this morning. Im allison kropff. And im ian reitz. This morning, were getting a lot of reaction from you about president elect Donald Trumps most recent twitter rant on flag burning. Its causing a lot of controversy, and raising several questions. 10news reporter emerald morrow is live in the newsroom. Emerald, is what he said even constitutional . No, its not at all. And hes taking a lot of heat for making such comments. Lets take a look at a little before eight tuesday morning, trump fired out a series of tweets. But this was the most controversial. He said nobody should be allowed to burn the american flag. If they do, there must be consequences. Perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail. As of this morning. This statement has been gotten more than a quartermillion interactions on twitter, and immediately people started firing back. Flagburning might not be the most patriotic thing to do, but suggesting that people should be american is simply unconstitutionalas the First Ame
Washington journal continues. Host joining us on the washington journal is dan stein , federation for American Immigration reform or fair. What is fair what positions do you take on immigration . Guest it is an organization that believeS Immigration should serve the national and American Interest and that immigration laws should be enforced and enforceable and we should set them at levels that the low enough level that it does not challenge domestic priorities or confound global objectives. Right now immigration is far too high, it is unsustainable and everybody can see impacts from all across the country. We want to bring it down to 300,000 a year or less and we would like to implement legal reforms to make sure every immigrant is legal. Host how many Illegal Immigrants can come in on a yearly basis currently . Guest a statutory basis would run 750 but is too high. There are administrative techniques in the last two years and we also saw studies the other day, the last two years were
[inaudible conversations] good afternoon. Welcome to the Cato Institute. Its likely to receive wide because it speaks to divisions about gun control, immigration, affirmative action and so much more. But about the far more fundamental division we see in our understanding of our basic law, the constitution and what it authorizes. If we want to better understand and appreciate those service divisions, thats where we have to turn because thats where theyre grounded. And just to be clear, in speaking about republican constitution and the democratic constitution, professor barnett is not making partisan points; rather, as the books subtitle suggests, hes alluding to two fundamentally different understandings of the constitutions first three words, we the people. Profoundly different conceptions that have deep roots in our constitutional history and farreaching implications for our political order. Once we understand those basic differences, well have a far better grasp of the more immediate
That email they send their loved one has the same constitutional protection as the love letters in the past but unfortunately the laws that govern when police have access to con dent have not been updated since 1986. In the interim there have been courts said police have to get a warrant before they can get emails and facebook messages. This puts that protection into the law. Consistent with the policy adopted by fbi. Its what google and other major providers already require but this putses that requirement into the law, eliminating any ambiguity about the protections that apply to peoples private, sensitive digital information. Host what is the legislative status of an update . Right now the house has passed 4190 so supported by republican. What does that bill do . That bill would put in place the warrant requirement, and basically say that anytime that police want to get your emails, other types Digital Content they have to come to providers with a warrant, and it passed with unanimo