Decisions. Number 759, bernies miranda, Petitioner Versus arizona. Number 218, roe v. Wade. The most famous decisions are once that the court took were quite unpopular. Lets go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people, who helped stick together because they believe in the rule of law. Good evening. Welcome to cspan in the National Constitution centers landmark cases. Our 12 part series looks at some of the Supreme Courts most interesting and impactful historical decisions over the course of our countrys history. We are going to be talking about a case you might not know much about, but by the and you understand why it is on our last. Its called the slaughterhouse cases, it was the first time that the Supreme Court reviewed the newly enacted 14th amendment to the constitution. Let me introduce you to our two guests, here to tell you about the history and importance of these cases. Paul clement s
And sewer pipes overhead and there were suers in the ground and sometimes were wood, rats ran freely and so did roaches. Bakers worked exceedingly long hours and exceedingly difficult work. It wasnt as difficult as a lot of work during that time, its true, but the title of my first chapter, by the way is not my grandma used to bake. They were handling 100 to 200 pounds of sacks of flour and its hard work and it was dirty and filthy and difficult work for long hours. But it wasnt just that it was difficult conditions for the bakers. There was also the Public Health was endangered by the conditions that these people were working in because the bread wasnt very sanitary. What was also happening in the country that people were beginning to look with Public Health and public safety. Well, i think this is a really good time after that clip to talk about the bake shop act and what the legislature of new york did to address the conditions that you so there were so well described in the video.
How to get businesses back up and running once stayathome orders are eventually lifted. What they are using to help the local economy. Well, good morning. And welcome to mornings on 2, the 9 00. We are looking at a live picture. Dark clouds in the background there. As a matter of fact, frank and claudine, who are filling in for mike and gasia, good morning to you. The weather good morning. It has made it so you want to go outside but you still have to do practice social distancing. How do you do that claudine. Tr less popular, i think. I went on a walk. [ captioners transitioning ] it has changed big time here unless you are really far inland or to the north. We have a lot of low clouds and thats the may grade. Water temperatures 5255. All you need is a system coming down the coast. That will continue tonight. Tomorrow maybe coazzle. Remember those 80s they are on hiatus. Santa cruz 75 and the gilroys 84. Temperatures coming way down in morning drizzle cooler with the mix of fog toward
Draw near and give their attention so the court is now sitting. Be seated, please. Case number 195331 committee on the judiciary of the United States house of representatives versus Donald F Mcgahn 2nd appellate. Good morning, your honor. May it please the court. The House Judiciary Committee seeks to assert an implied cause of action to enforce the subpoena to compel mr. Mcgahn to testify regarding his duties as white House Counsel over the objection of the president of the United States. This interbridge dispute over institutional prerogatives bears no resemblance to be against nonfederal officials, congress enforce subpoenas against federal executive officials asserting executive prerogative objections and what gives the senate statute. How does that help us think about the constitutional issue and stability issue. I think it does in two ways, your honor, first, we have a straightup subject matter jurisdiction argument because of the senate statute. But the second point, if you rule
May it please the court. The House Judiciary Committee seeks to assert an implied cause of action to enforce the subpoena to compel mr. Mcgahn to testify regarding his duties as white House Counsel over the objection of the president of the United States. This interbridge dispute over institutional prerogatives bears no resemblance to be controversies under article 3 and moreover, while congress has purported to authorize senate commutes to enforce certain subpoenas against nonfederal officials, congress itself has expressly carved out the authority of the senate to enforce subpoenas against federal executive officials asserting executive prerogative objections and what gives the senate statute. How does that help us think about the constitutional issue and stability issue. I think it does in two ways, your honor, first, we have a straightup subject matter jurisdiction argument because of the senate statute. But the second point, if you rule that theres no authority, this court can avo