Secondarily On Grounds News Today

Trouble. aisha, what do you think? >> i think there are three points to make here. first of all, is if you are a strict constructionalist, which most conservatives are, this was a constructionalist decision. it was based on constitutional principles of pre-emption and the state stepping in an area that is not their jurisdiction legally. thats the first thing. the second thing is the reason the government sued on those grounds is thats all they needed to sue on. they didnt need to sue secondarily...

Bush because of obama? >> yes, because of -- >> because of one senator? >> larry: hold on, hold on, hold on! were losing the host. when you lose the host, were in trouble. aisha what do you think? >> first, if you are strict constructionalist, which most conservatives are, this was a constructionalist decision. a preemption. the state stepping in an area that is not their jurisdiction legally. thats the first thing. the secondary thing is the reason the government sued on those grounds, because ...