thank you. could legal questions about how to resolve trump s travel ban end up before the u.s. supreme court? galoloria marshall, a constitutional law professor, joins me this morning, good morning. good morning. the trump camp says it s eminently constitutional because the president has wide authority to determine who gets to come into the united states. it s true, the president has this authority, this is from the alien and sedition act, going way back in history. but due process concerns are all over this executive order. in the order itself, and i ve read it, it says that they don t want and should not have people in the country who don t support the constitution. that is in it. i don t know if people have actually read this executive order. there is a lot in it, things about biometrics and everything else. a lot of americans would say of course they shouldn t be
on really the luck of the draw, the historical times, the 5-4 vote. for all time set in place cultural, social, economic, whatever policy for the nation. a nation of $310 million people without any recourse what so ever. one person. it is absurd. that s not what the constitution intended. there is nobody at the convention that argued for that. if that had been the case, there would have been no constitution. the states would never have conferred that kind of power. you even said the framers thought that would be the weakest branch. they thought that would be the weakest branch. no question about it. i m not saying eliminate the judiciary or the supreme court. i m saying in some of the far-reaching societal cases, well, let society have a say. 3/5 of the states or 3/5 of congress having the majority. then you have two amendments to limit federal spending and taxing. right. we won t survive as a republic if we keep spending and you outline all this in great
if you support federalism, now is the time to do it. if you think states should have more authority, now is the time to do it. this is a juggernaut in the opposite direction. and the circle of liberty is getting smaller and smaller and states have no say in anything anymore. you said you took on this project, not because you think the constitution is outdated. you believe it is the opposite. the status have been so successful, you say, that they have disfigured and dismantled the constitution. now, you propose a series of amendments. you write them out. you call them the liberty amendments. let s go through the process of what this would mean and how it would give power back to the states. first of all, people would say, don t support the constitution. why do you want to say it? i love the constitution. i revere the constitution. it has been changed. i call this a post constitutional period. quickly an example. obamacare, obvious. congress passed a law. it didn t even have the powe
republic. we re on board from the constitution. for 100 years the progressive movement, i call them the state us, have been chiselling away and chiselling away at the constitutional construct. and it is time for conservatives and other americans to say they succeeded. this is why we have top down government. this is why the government is involved in everything from selecting our toilets and our light bulbs and our ables and our toasters. now they re in our health care. they re collecting all kinds of data on us. and i m saying, i think it is time if americans want to remain free, to start reaquanicquainti ourselves with the constitution and specifically article 5. the amendment process. the framers thought, some of them in particular, that we might reach this point with an oppressive centralized government. you look at the constitution. it is written to prevent this but they feared that politicians would lack virtue and we would
information? in 1974 we passed the privacy act. government agencies even for good purposes aren t supposed to share things. originally the social security number was what? a social security number. it wasn t supposed to be used for anything else. now we have a lot of agencies sharing data and it is very concerning to me. i m a strong believer, we want minimal government. we don t want government everywhere in our lives. we want to impact our lives. we just had mark levin on. we ve had 27 amendments to the constitution passed but none have passed the other way that article 5 calls for which is through state legislatures. what do you think of that idea in. i don t have a problem with it. there are some people concerned about having a constitutional convention, run away. this wouldn t be a convention. so what i argue to them is, i ve testified in favor of a balanced budget amendment in my state legislature. the state legislature can actually write the rules and say, you can only