Up next, live coverage as the d. C. Appeals Court Hearings argument via teleconference, will they should vote on the case of michael flynn, National Security advisor. 5143 in re michael flynn. And the honorable emma g sullivan. Good morning, well hear first from miss powell. Good morning, may it please the court. This is sydney powell for petitioner michael flynn. We are here now to stop further impermissible intrusion into the sole power of the executive branch under the take care clause to decide to dismiss a case and what circumstances warrant that dismissal. The government here provided an extensive and thoroughly documented motion to dismiss this prosecution weighing as it all of those factors that go into that, including the exculpatory evidence that came to light through an independent review by mr. Jenson who know the only had 10 Years Experience as an if ib fbi agent, but 10 years before mr. Barr asked him to review this case. It cannot go on any longer. This is the quintessen
Welcome cspan friends for day four of the National Constitution Supreme Court rec recap, its an extraordinary experiment in Public Education to convene scholars on all sides of the cases but the Supreme Court is broadcasting live for the first time in history and here at the beginning of the second week we just heard to remarkably rich cases and i am thrilled to join you again to understand the best arguments on both sides in the spirit of educating ourselves about the constitution. Im Jeffrey Rosen the president of the National Constitutionn center in philadelphia and we begin all over National Constitution Centers Programs by reciting inspiring constitution senator which prepares us for the learning ahead. N e National Constitution center is only constitution chartered by congress to disseminate information about the u. S. Constitution on a nonpartisan basis in order to increase awareness and understanding of constitution among the american people. That is what we will do today and t
Day four of the Supreme Court recap. It has been an extraordinary experiment in public education, to convene scholars on all sides of the cases that the Supreme Court is broadcasting live for the first time in its history. And at the beginning of the , we have hearde two formidable cases and i am thrilled to join you to understand the spirit of both sides. Im jeffrey rosen, president of the National Constitution center in philadelphia. We begin all of our National Constitution Center Programs by reciting the inspiring Constitutional Center creed, which prepares us for the learning ahead. The National Constitution center is the only institution in america chartered by congress to disseminate information about the u. S. Constitution on a nonpartisan basis in order to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution among the american people. That is what we are going to try to do today. Thank you for joining to increase your own understanding of the constitution. That ist case is
Now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable court. We will hear arguments in case 19 431 Little Sisters of the poor v. Pennsylvania in the consolidated case. General francisco. Mr. Chief justice, may it please the court. In 2011, the government required employers to provide Insurance Coverage for all fda approved contraception, including many religious employers who objected to the coverage, sparking years of litigation. Traditions the best of this countrys commitment to religious liberty, the government sought to resolve the issue by promulgating new rules, excepting those employers who objected to the mandate. Those exemptions are lawful for two reasons. First, they are authorized by whichn 13a4 of the aca, requires employers to provide the types of coverage that the health, resources, and services of administration provide for and support. So it authorizes the agencies to require most employers to provide contraceptive coverage while exempting the small number of empl
In 2011, the government required employers to provide Insurance Coverage for all fda approved contraception, including many religious employers who objected to the coverage, sparking years of litigation. Traditions the best of this countrys commitment to religious liberty, the government sought to resolve the issue by promulgating new rules, excepting those employers who objected to the mandate. Those exemptions are lawful for two reasons. First, they are authorized by whichn 13a4 of the aca, requires employers to provide the types of coverage that the health, resources, and services of administration provide for and support. So it authorizes the agencies to require most employers to provide contraceptive coverage while exempting the small number of employers who have sincere Conscientious Objections. But it does not create an all or nothing choice. Require coverage for everyone or no one. Otherwise, the Longstanding Church exemption, the effective exemption for selfinsured church plan