section 3 includes the presidency must include that the drafters decided to bury the prominent office in a term including low ranking military officers. the constitution s text and structure make clear that the president is not an officer of the united states. joining us to discuss, legal analyst elie honig and tim, a former senior investigative counsel with the house january 6th committee. you have disagreed on this between the two of you over the course not on everything. don t give me that face. some things. disputing elements of this or at least the path forward on this up to this point. based on how you have kind of thought through this over the course of the last several months, when you saw the appeal last night and what was actually in it, do you think it s an effective one? i think what s effective about the appeal is that there are a lot of potential off-ramps for the supreme court. i think that s what benefits the
democracy. that s really when the deadline is, that s where, you know, the ground meets the rubber, so to speak. i don t see at this point, if it were only one state, only colorado, there might be a procedural way for the supreme court to kind of get out of deciding this kind of issue. but the supreme court doesn t like deciding big constitutional issues if they can avoid it. now there are two states, the general election is coming, i am with barb, i believe the supreme court is going to have to wrangle with these very, very technical issues looking back to the intent of the drafters of the 14th amendment and decide once and for all what the limits of that are. i think it is important for us on programs like this and in our work to make clear to the american people this is part of the procedure, this, too, is how democracy works. this isn t somebody railroading a system in maine, this is a secretary of state following the law as she sees it. voters lodged a complaint, she made a decisi
drafters wrote and intended. our nation hangs in the balance in these two sharply different interpretations of the very same text. perhaps the most pertinent example today is the second amendment. which reads, in its entirety, quote, a well regulated militia, being necessary to stick to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. colloquial known as the right to bear arms, contemporary debate focuses on whether the second amendment protects the right of private individuals to own guns. so much has changed since 1791, not least of, which is the nation s military structure, and capability. for one, several internal longer expected to use their household weapons for military duty. militias are actually illegal in the united states. the national guard has taken their place. but originalist s argue, for the second amendment to stay exactly as it is. everyone else argues for an amendment that reflects modern america, modern weaponry, a
of new regulation. gives director of omb, a biden appointee discretion to opt out of the pay-go provision. young, the director of the omb, expressed she would do that at a white house briefing. we need to repair this thing. i think the drafters had good intentions in mind. brian: you are a lawyer, work fair, that is true, right? work fair for people that qualify for food stamps? yes, brian, there are work requirements built in. limit, save, grow act passed by the house impose roshg requirements on foot stamps and tanf and medicaid. drop down the medicaid from this bill and weaken to the point
and it sets a 250 dollar limit on gifts that you can except from any single source and what they re talking about really, they re talking about, you go to somebody s house they offer you, you know, they treat everybody to a steak dinner with a fine wine is something that, that you know, you re not going to have t disclose that on an official form but when i say the exception sometimes follows the rule when you have here sort of travel and leisure type trip being paid for, i really don t think when you re talking abou $100 or 250 dollar limits that these exorbitant types o travel is really what was in the minds of the drafters of those laws or the ones who gav exceptions for hospitality they weren t really thinking about those kinds of trips carol, thank you, as always we appreciate your time. caroline is a former superio court judge in san diego county, california and is an msnbc legal analyst. all, right after the break,