Rhetorical connection. Theres some, a deeper connection in some ways that i think is worth exploring. So i think thats part of the what i think is fueling this, its the next Civil Rights Movement. [ inaudible ] especially with little ma li. Can you wait for a mic please . I think were changing the whole idea. Racial profiling. Not race, but theyre so mixed now. I mean, the huge diversity of a latin latinos, and i love the millennials. Theyre whatever, everything. Peruvian, chinese, mormons, theyre my best friends. How do you racially profile in this incredibly, this is the question in affirmative action people are talking about now, too. Im not sure that dynamic of the 60s, i think in some ways were more like the 1920s now than we are the 1960s with huge income inequality, the fear of war, fear of foreign invasion. Tremendous difference in working conditions. And that was what drove a law that people wanted more border control, not less. I think were heading more for that in the public
Federal level in the United States. And thats what i really want to focus on. It creates then a cascade of problems that political and legal developments attempt to grapple with. They attempt to grapple with it without addressing that fundamental disconnect at the heart of the 1965 law and so you see a series of enactments at both the state and federal level that are, perhaps we could say, biting around the edges of the problem but not really getting to the root of it itself. So immediately after 1965, or very soon thereafter, you start to see some of the effects of the state level. In 1971 california passes an employer sanctions law. For the first time its able to sort of connect the idea of who should be working within california to the concept of illegality that the 1965 act helped set up. California is in a fairly 1971, yeah. California is in a recession at this point. This law, this employer sanctioned law that stops employers in california from or at least penalizes employers fro
In our first 45 minutes, we want to hear from you, not only about the polls, but the potential of ben carson becoming president ial nominee for president. Ben carson supporters, 202 7488000. Donald trump supporters, 202 7488001. If you support other gop. Andidates, 202 7458002 if you want to send us a tweet on this, you can do so at cspanwj. You can post on her facebook page, facebook. Com cspan. If you want to send us an email, it is journal cspan. Org. The first polls we will point you to, it shows that among those going to participate in caucus, benan carson moved into a dominant position in iowa. The new paul shows that the retired neurosurgeon the new retiredws that the neurosurgeon is backed by 28 of likely republicans, up by 10 . For dr. Kely to caucus carson are drawn by history and status as a nonpolitician. Site, go to the polling it shows a little bit of a breakdown of how republicans think about their first race and second choice for candidates. 28 show that dr. Ben carson
Demand to realize the problems to straighten it out. I also want to ask you about Social Security. Are you for lifting the limit on Social Security payout . Make the government put back into Social Security the money that they take it out . Anotheru for your time thing i like to stand for christianity in this world and i would like to see guineans putting bibles back in our schools. Condoms theyass on ought to be able to pass out bibles. And if you pass out the ladder you have blessed with the former. I appreciate your words what is a democrat. People, hardworking men and women find it harder and harder a low percentage of americans working today since 1977. We have wage stagnation. We need to fight to bring back the kind of Economic Growth that started the under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Since do is always stand with the working men and women and not what i call the Washington Cartel which is the special interests and lobbyists and career politicians in washington that both parties
Filibuster, he also favored restoring the lost constitution. The presumption of liberty. Our liberty should be presumed to be valid and government should only restrict our liberty if they have a good reason. They have a good reason they aould be able to present reason. They were unable to do that according to five justices with respect to the maximum hours lot. Susan so ends our program on lochner v. New york. This is the fourth in a series of 12. We will do this until the middle of november. If youre learning like we are and you are not a lawyer, we have a book available were selling at cost. Moore, tony written by tony morrow, the 12 cases we selected. If you go to our website, you can see how to order it so you cannot follow along. As we close, let me say thank you to Randy Barnett and paul kens for helping us understand this. Our landmark cases series continues next monday. Justice Oliver Wendell holmes wrote a unanimous opinion that the espionage act of 1917 is constitutional, eve