All of these are cases where the ruled differently, and you dissented in many of these cases. Tell me why you decided to writh the book and why you decided to propose these six constitutionai amendments. Ing with el,itu its sort. Proj guest well, its sort of att project that just kind of grew, to tell you the truth. The immediate cause was the killing of the school childrenii in connecticut. And the New York Times story about the fact that the anticommandeering rule places an obstacle in the way of the governments getting total to precede the purchase of guns. I had not actually realize before i read that New York Times story that rule does in fact increase the likelihood that a person wont be eligible who would be allowed to purchase guns who shouldnt. That did not cause that particular tragedy but it likely may have been a cause of the similar tragedy. Host this anticommandeering rule which is your First Amendment and i have dogeared all of them. With these hightech pieces of paper.
Will be allowed to purchase guns when he shouldnt have. And that did not, that is not a cause of that particular tragedy, but it likely may have been a cause of other, similar tragedies. Host well, this anticommandeering amendment which is your First Amendment, and ive dog eared all of them with these hightech pieces of paper, sounds technical, but its quite important. Im going to read the amendment that you propose and you can help explain it. You say adding just the four words and other Public Officials after the word judges and the supremacy clause would allow congress to impose mandatory duties on Public Officials in every state. What does that mean, and what is the problem that youre seeking to remedy . Guest well, i think that the supremacy clause proposerly construed properly construed would already have allowed the government to impose mandatory duties on state officials. At least, for example, i would have thought they could have requested a local policeman to help to search p
That is the killing of the schoolchildren in connecticut and the New York Times story about the fact that the anticommandeering rule places an obstacle in the way the governments are setting the total information on the background checks to see the purchase and i have not realized and read that in the industry that world is in fact increase the likelihood to be eligible would be allowed to purchase when he shouldnt have. It is a normal cause of that particular tragedy that likely it may have been a cause of other similar tragedies. This anticommandeering rule that is the First Amendment, and i dogeared all of them sounds technical but its quite important in a way t and im god the amendment of the proposed. Adding just before the other Public Officials after the word judges and the supremacy clause would allow the congress to impose mandatory duties of the Public Officials and a free state. I think this privacy clause properly construed weve already allowed the government. I would have
Secret meeting, and it was quite extraordinary, and it formed a lifetime bond for the two of them. So once again, sally sort of pushed the envelope a little bit and figured i can bend the rules as long as no one gets hurt. In fact, no one knew this story fully until ive told anytime the book. So state department only now is finding out about it. [laughter] other questions . No questions. Everyone wants to get their books signed. Okay, well, thats great. Thank you all for coming. [applause] the books are up behind the cash register. You can come back here and get them signed. [inaudible conversations] youre watching booktv on cspan2. Heres our prime time lineup for tonight. Up next, books on the Supreme Court. Then at 7 30, a panel from the leavitt forum on thomas left forum on thomas partnerships common sense. On after words, jason reilly talks about his book, please stop helping us, with april ryan of the american urban radio network. At 10 is p. M. Eastern, kai bird, and we wrap up t
Be, this project will be blocked because it interferes with my view, or things like that. Sometimes people would show up and they would say this is destructive of the culture of the neighborhood, for a variety of reasons. And you have to, i believe, review the input but also believe its not necessarily last source of wisdom. So you need it and thats one of the reasons the Environmental Review is a great because its so destructive because it gets facts on the table, allows the debate to happen. But the community shouldnt make the final decision because then the common good gets killed. Someone has to be looking at both the views of interest and, good to make the final decision. Youre talking about someone who represents the community would still have the guts, is that what youre talking about . In the case of new york city, lets say the mayor, so not just the community. If you have team unitybased decisionmaking solely, many of the articles of confederation and nothing ever happens. I t