Watch American History tv and be sure to watch museum week all next week at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv on cspan3. We continue our look at Election Integrity and security. In this portion, panelists discussed various ways to regulate and protect users online data for being targeted for political advertisements. Georgetowns Law Institute hosted this forum. Okay. So were reconvening for our fourth and final panel of the day. New challenges in election oversight and regulation. For those who didnt see me at the top of the day, i run our institute for Technology Law and policy here at the law school and were really thrilled to be hosting you all today. The conversation so far have surfaced many key areas of challenges. Somebody was saying that theyre feeling a little depressed and we need to try to get the energy up on the final panel of the day. Issues from fragmentation of political discourse and new pathways for misinformation, to voter suppression, to the technical challe
Microphone. Ill speak louder, your honor. After the supplemental briefing it is clear that all parties this has jurisdiction and thats because the federal government is continuing enforcing the Affordable Care act until a Court Finally orders it not to do so. He legal harm from the courts below order and the participation of the states and house of representatives ensures that there will be an adversarial issues in this case. Turning to the other issues in this case, the central feature your standing interveneors states, are you conceding the plaintiff states . No were not. You are in new orleans in the fifth telling us that the state of texas doesnt have standing to legitimate here, explain that. What is the distinction that licenses you to have a standing here. The judgment below would cost the defendant states hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds. The state plaintiffs rely on a series of standing that they have not proved up. They argue that the individual mandate, even
Yesterdays panel rolled that the health care individual mandate is unconstitutional. The here is the oral argument in its entirety. You may proceed. Thank your honor and may it please the court, i will be sharing my time with mr. Letter from the house of representatives and dividing rebuttal time. To start with the issues raised in the court in the supplemental briefing order, we think the states were clearly injured by the judgment below and are aiming to appeal it. Judge elrod you might want to move the microphone. Mr. Siegel after this up a, all parties agreed this court has appellate jurisdiction. That is because of the continuing enforcing of the Affordable Care act until the court orders not to do so. They now welcome it, and the participation of the states and house of representatives and ensure their will be an ensure there will be an adversarial presentation of the issues in this case. Turning to the other issues in this case, the central feature of this appeal is that when ju
From the house of representatives and dividing rebuttal time. To start with the issues raised in the court in the supplemental briefing order, we think the states were clearly injured by the judgment below and are aiming to appeal it. Judge elrod you might want to move the microphone. Mr. Siegel after this up a, all parties agreed this court has appellate jurisdiction. That is because of the continuing enforcing of the Affordable Care act until the court orders not to do so. They now welcome it, and the participation of the states and house of representatives and ensure their will be an ensure there will be an adversarial presentation of the issues in this case. Turning to the other issues in this case, the central feature of this appeal is that when judge engelhardt when you say your standing, the interbeen the intervening states, are you conceding the standing of the plaintiff states . Mr. Siegel no, your honor. Judge engelhardt so you are here in new orleans, telling us that the sta
Thank you, your, honor ill be sharing my time with mr. Whatever the house of representatives, except that mr. Letter will be going first. Start with the issues raised in the Court Supplemental briefing order, we think that the state defendants were clearly injured by the judgment below and therefore have a standing to appeal it. You might want to move the microphone so youre not. , this is better, your honor . Speak louder. Thank you. But after the supplemental briefing, it is also now clear that all parties agreed this court has appellate jurors diction under bens are. That is because the federal government is now committed to continue to enforcing the informal care act until the court enforcing the Affordable Care act until the court orders are not to do so. The first legal arm. The participation of the states and house of representatives ensures that there will be an adversarial presentation of the issues in this case. Turning to the other issues in this case, the central feature of