Thank you. I want to thank secretary carson alone with mr. Isaac Newton Farris jr. And guests for joining us today. It is a great honor. Earlier this week i had a privilege to join isaac and others to sign into law legislation redesignating the Martin Luther king jr. National Historic Site to the Martin Luther king jr. National historic park. The new law expands the area protected and Historic Sites for the future. Generations of americans are becoming so important, and this is a great honor for us and a great honor to dr. King. Today we gather in the white house to honor the memory of a Great American hero, the reverend dr. Martin luther king jr. On january 15, 1929, Martin Luther king jr. Was born in and atlanta. If he would go on to change the course of human history. He decided to follow the calling of his father and grandfather to become a christian pastor. He would later write it was quite easy for me to think of a god of love mainly because i grew up in a family where love was c
Mr. Pipes good morning, welcome to the Heritage Foundation and our douglas auditorium. We want to welcome those who join us on our heritage. Org website on all these occasions and remind our inhouse guests to be so kind to check your mobile devices to see if they are silent or turned off. And of course for those watching online, you are welcome to send comments or questions at any time. Email speaker heritage. Org. Following the initial presentation, my colleague jim phillips will lead. Veteran foreignpolicy foryst and has worked heritage since 1979, authored dozens of papers on is really an Foreign Policy issues and testified before congress on a wide variety of middle east issues. Hosting and introducing our special presenter is luke coffey who serves as director for the Allison Center of Foreign Policy. Before joining us at heritage, mr. Copy served in the united kingdoms ministry of defense to then secretary of state of defense liam fox. He was the ever nonu. K. First national to b
Changed residence unless they failed to respond to change notice. I know you have the exceptions clause. Would your case have been stronger without the enactment of section be . In other words, can you rely just on a and d. . If there were no b at all. Certainly, if there was no clause, thats one of the main prohibitions on which they are lying. But you have to interpret in light of the, d clearly indicates, so long as we send notice and so long as we went to federal elections, that is acceptable. So why bother . Because of the except clause. Because you have to interpret the provision in a way that reconciles with the use of failure to vote and only our position interprets b in a way that allows the back and use of nonvoting and d. The act itself is a safe harbor position. That triggers confirmation. That Safe Harbor Provision doesnt rely on at all on failure to vote. It relies on post office change of address form. So isnt that some clue that safe harbor that congress didnt want them
Decreasing the number of ineligible ones, and this congressional compromise is evident in the statutes conflicting mandates. Evident in the mandates. It requires states to undertake programs to remove ineligible individuals but place limits on those federally mandated removal programs, including the states not removing individuals who changed residence unless they failed to respond to change notice. I know you have the exceptions clause. Would your case have been stronger without the enactment of section be . In other words, can you rely just on a and d. . If there were no b at all. Certainly, if there was no clause, thats one of the main prohibitions on which they are lying. But you have to interpret in light of the, d clearly indicates, so long as we send notice and so long as we went to federal elections, that is acceptable. So why bother . Because of the except clause. Because you have to interpret the provision in a way that reconciles with the use of failure to vote and only our
Not removing individuals who changed residence unless they failed to respond to change notice. I know you have the exceptions clause. Would your case have been stronger without the enactment of section be . In other words, can you rely just on a and d. . If there were no b at all. Certainly, if there was no clause, thats one of the main prohibitions on which they are lying. But you have to interpret in light of the, d clearly indicates, so long as we send notice and so long as we went to federal elections, that is acceptable. So why bother . Because of the except clause. Because you have to interpret the provision in a way that reconciles with the use of failure to vote and only our position interprets b in a way that allows the back and use of nonvoting and d. The act itself is a safe harbor position. That triggers confirmation. That Safe Harbor Provision doesnt rely on at all on failure to vote. It relies on post office change of address form. So isnt that some clue that safe harbor