Important to our distinction between ordinary exercises of discretion. Law and larger ones that the president has been engaged in. We will eventually weigh in on that issue. My view will become insignificant. Host cases moving through now. What your out about the new challenges to the Affordable Care act which wouldve been talking about a lot this morning . What are going to be the things to watch in the coming year . Guest the Supreme Court had already granted review with a contraceptive mandate. The issue there is whether private forprofit operations whose owners have religious objection to providing access to contraceptives for insurance tons can be required purchase those plans for their employees. That issue is going to turn not on the constitution but on a federal statute called the religious freedom act that said congress cannot impose substantial burdens on a religious exercise of individuals unless theres a substantial justification for it. Whetherhe issues is these private conversation corporations are covered by the constitution or the religious restoration act with respect to religious conscience. Ofre is resonance of united what people are saying. The opponents and supporters of the mandate are saying, how can corporations have religious conscience if they support speech but conscience is something internal to their head . The court will decided that by the end of this year. The other issue that is still in the lower courts is a competent question about whether there can be subsidies for people who purchase insurance on the federal exchange and states over the states have not put out the exchanges. Gethe texas, if you want to , purchase insurance, you have to go to the federal exchange. That itute is written provides subsidies to people who. Uy them all state exchanges it is not clear it will provide subsidies to people who buy them on the federal exchanges. There is litigation about that going on in the lower court. On the latter when i would expect it eventually the federal changes will get the subsidies as well. Host victor is next on the line for democrats. Good morning. Caller good morning. Merry christmas. I have two questions. Is the the one that [indiscernible] me, it says that corporations being a person is an instrument by attorneys and makes them dots basically. Gods i do know that there has been a case or situation and the Supreme Court with a person with the oldest or the longest on the in the courts automatically placed [indiscernible] and opened up [indiscernible] guest on the first question is important to emphasize that asking the question, are corporations people or persons is probably not the right way to frame the question. I want to emphasize from a constitutional lore yours point of view. There are prosecutions for engaging. Constitutional lawyers point of view. Rightsve constitutional to a fair trial whether prosecuted for unlawful pollution. The real question is, do corporations have constitutional force in a specific setting . And the contraceptive mandate, the issue is does a corporation have a right of freedom of conscience . Was doesnthe issue have a right to free does it have a right to free speech . The answer will vary. Underlyingn what the constitutional issue is. I should say that i have a chapter on united in the book as well and i say the bro problem is not as the corporation are persons part, straightforward to explain why corporations actually do have rights of freedom of expression. Rather than the Supreme Court doctrine that makes it extremely hard to limit the expenditures by anybody. If youre concerned about campaigns, the finance issues, that is the place to focus not on corporations. The Court Doctrine saying that again, it is really hard to justify restrictions on campaign expenditures. On seniority issue, the chief justice as nominated for the particular position. Not to the seniormost member of the court. There are constitutional courts around the world that the chief justice is basically the most senior justice. Therestem is one in which is a difference between the age of the chief justice and the most senior justice on the court. Host you talk about how Justice Roberts was originally going to be nominated with the intent of moving into the chief justice spot. If you do talk about the history. Guest what happened was chief rehnquist was quite ill, had a certain kind of throat cancer. Knew he was going to leave the court relatively soon. Court. Ed to stay on the Justice Oconnor had a husband who was quite ill and she wanted to leave the court, so that she could be with him and take care of him. She went to chief Justice Rehnquist and asked none of wanted to be two vacancies at the same time. They try to tame and dash time of their departures time their departures. She asked if he planned to retire in in the coming year. He said, no, he planned to stay on. She announced her retirement. Justice roberts was the on the court of appeals and was nominated initially to fill Justice Oconnors position. Justiceat, chief rehnquist passed away from his illness. That left two vacancies. Been whenad always chief rehnquist left, roberts promotionme chief by or as it turned out directly. His nomination for her seat was withdrawn and resubmitted for the seat of the chief justice. Justice alito was nominated to fill the vacant oconnor seat. Host some discussion on twitter on the subject of the cameras in the court. Video coverage would expose the justices and their questions and competence to being judged of by the public and they do not want to that. We have time for one more question. Vida is waiting. You are on with mark tushnet author of the book in the balance. Guest yes, good morning. What a wonderful time for me to say the decision by john roberts absolutely floored me. I never thought he was fitted to be a Supreme Court justice at all. To think you can tax the American People and to let the like bk gp e on the kgb, i no longer have faith in the court. This the absolute worst thing that is ever occurred. I saw earlier something on their that somebody sent in on twitter. Or one of those. Was Justice Roberts threatened . I have wondered that exact same thing. We have lost faith. Anyone could make that type of decision and think it is ok. Millions of people are against it. We wanted it repealed. That comes from a person who comes left or right. Right now, i am leaning up. I do not know which way. Think the only thing we can say in response to that , thevation is that constitutional issues which is all i am concerned about about whether congress can impose a tax this year is like 95 on people who do not purchase issue surance, that that constitution issue is relatively straightforward. Judgmentters from that , they did not express a view on the constitutional question. What they said was that it was unreasonable to interpret the statute to impose a tax rather than be a regulatory mandate which is punished by failure to mandate is a punished by a financial exaction. Chief Justice Roberts had a view about interpreting statutes to make, constitutional. Said, you can. He said it not the most natural reason statute. If you look at it carefully and , it has a lot of the characteristics of things we call it taxes. The statute does impose a tax and once you are over that hurdle from a constitutional lawyer point of view, imposing a is of not doing something fine. There are taxes there used to be, there was a court case about of peoplethe statues who do not register as gamblers or register as people who sell unlawful drugs. They do not register. And the Supreme Court said that is fine. Course, there is substantial disagreement with the Affordable Care act. We will see how it is working out as a matter of politics which is basically the way i system ought to work anyway. Host if you want to read more on his views, you could pick up the book that is in the balance. On the next washington journal, henry smith discusses the top stories of 2013. You will also talk about his recent book, who stole the american dream. And we will welcome your comments on what the top news story of the year was. Span. 7 a. M. Eastern, on c today, an encore presentation of q a. With the author who discussed his book, gift of the heart. Here is more. Asthe day that we arrived the new Surgical Team to take colleagues who , we saw the their first real casualty that i remember vividly. Who was it . Not the name. A young marine who had been injured by an ied, improvised explosive device. Man taking a quick step back, i was not kidding when i said that brooklyn was a formative place to grow up in, but it was also a formative place to train for medicine, trauma. I thought that i had seen the worst possible. Gunshot wounds, stabbed moons, explosive injuries, Motor Vehicle accidents, anything. I felt very comfortable with my level of experience with trauma based on my experience. What i saw that day the first day that we were there, it is so hard to describe, even though i had been at walter reed for years before deploying and seeing individuals with extremity injuries, prosthetics, some of them still undergoing the additional surgeries they needed, i had not seen it wroth, in realtime, right after it occurred. That is what i saw upon arriving. There was no delay. Colleagues went to other areas where there were casualties for weeks or even months after. It the first day. That was a portion of the encore presentation of q a. You can see it today at 7 p. M. Eastern, on cspan. Says what he thinks, no matter what it is. I think you have to be political in a certain way. Honest. To be but still, you have to cater to people. You have to know what they want and need in order to have them vote for you. Is not being dishonest, it is just finding out what they want and letting them know how you will help them with it. First ladies, influence and image, season two. On wednesday, highlights from our second season. Weeknights, 9 p. M. Eastern on c span. A look at Digital Privacy and open Source Intelligence with remarks from a analysts,ecurity authors, and privacy analysts who spoke earlier this year at the annual chicago ideas forum for one hour and 40 minutes. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome our host this afternoon, ms. Rebecca mackinnon. Good afternoon. Thank you for coming. [applause] many people may not realize this, but 95 of people who are out there on the internet using their smartphones and so on can be identified and profiled by just for interactions through their mobile devices. If you post a tweet, check your bank account, send an email, or check your facebook newsfeed, boom. Some ad network is profiled you. The problem is that a lot of the companies collecting this data can not live up to their security claims. This data is vulnerable to hacking. Security experts will tell you that any device connected to the internet can be hacked. That is not just your computers, or your smartphones, or your tablets. Increasingly it becomes our cars that are connected to the internet, your Home Security system, your medical devices, power plants, all of this is vulnerable to hacking. Hacking is not just for criminals. Governments all employee hackers. They dig up information on people outside of their country and people inside their country. As we have found from Edward Snowden who released a large trove of documents, our government, the nsa, exploits quite a lot of hacking techniques to acquire information. In a lot of cases, they do not even have to hack you. If the company is in the jurisdiction of the government and they have the Legal Authority to act, they just demand it from the company. There we are. I am rebecca mackinnon. I am also the author of consent of the networked. I am joined here today by five brilliant individuals. All of us will be telling you some things that are a little bit scary. The point is that knowledge is power. If we want to change the way things are today, if we want to build a world that we want to live in, you have to start by understanding how this digital environment works, what the threats are. With that, i will begin my little story. January 1990. Was anybody using the internet in 1990 . Very good. In 1990, the berlin wall came down. These photographs are the ransacked offices of the stasi, the secret police. As east germany began to fall apart, protesters went into these offices and ransacked the files. Two years later, the unified democratic germany declassified all of the files. People could for the first time find out who had been spying on them for all of those years. People found out that neighbors, colleagues, sometimes lovers, symptoms spouses, sometimes parents or children were informing on them to the secret police. It was very traumatic. Fast forward to 2009. The unified democratic berlin. A german politician exercises his right under german law to request data from his phone provider Deutsche Telekom on all of his movements over a six month period. He takes is doing newspaper in a create an interactive graphic. You can still visit it online. It has an entire log of all of his movements throughout that entire sixmonth period. This is the stasis wet dream. It did not require neighbors and lovers to betray anybody. This kind of digital dossier people can spy on all of us through our devices and platforms and networks that we are relying on for pretty much everything in our lives. The only difference between a dictatorship and a democracy in this digital age is going to be, do we have control over how information is collected over us . Are we able to hold information collectors accountable . Do we understand who is collecting information and how it is being shared and with whom it is being shared . If theres accountability around that, and this is happening with some consent of the citizenry, then you have a chance of being a democracy. If not, you are going towards a dictatorship pretty fast. Moving on to San Francisco in 2006, a whistleblower named mark klein, who was a former employee of at t, disclosed that the National Security agency had built a secret room in that room building. A communications of millions of ordinary americans were routed through that building and were being siphoned off into the secret room as they pass through that building. A number of organizations try to see the government. Those lawsuits have yet to go anywhere. The point being that we started to begin to get a picture of the surveillance that was going on. How large that picture was and the extent of the surveillance, we are now coming to understand more fully, thanks to the leaked information by Edward Snowden. These nsa facilities are everywhere around the country. Theyre collecting data on a large percentage of americans. Now of course, the internet is revolutionary. Lets not deny that. The internet and mobile technology can be used by citizens to overthrow governments, to get Opposition Leader selected who would have no chance otherwise. This technology is very empowering. But at the same time, governments are doing everything they can to use their power over the commercial networks that are within their jurisdiction to fight back. These photos are from state Security Headquarters outside of cairo in 2011. After the mubarak government fell, an activist got into the headquarters. Some agents tried to shred documents, and people were posting them on twitter of course false however, there were rows and rows of files. People got in there and found their own files. There were reams and reams of e mail transcripts. There were cell phone transcripts. There were conversation logs that people have thought had been secure. There was information about data that they have been uploading and downloading from the internet. It was all captured over their Internet Service providers. Using technology, the Egyptian Government they purchased the technology from a company affiliated with boeing. What is the point here . He point is that increasingly the relationship between citizens and their government is mediated through the internet. Technologies are largely developed and operated by the private sector. You cannot assume that the internet is going to evolve in a way that actually empowers its citizens. If we want the internet to evolve in a way that is compatible with democracy, and compatible with human rights, compatible with the sort of society we want to live in, in which individual freedom is protected, we have to fight for it. Just like you have to fight for freedom because you do not engage in the way in which your physical society is being governed. Weber makes the most effort to shape that society will shape it to their greatest advantage. This is what we need to be working on. As i mentioned, the internet is challenging. In a a lot of very important ways, governments are trying to fight back. Interestingly, this is a map that was developed recently published recently by the Oxford Internet institute. They resized all of the countries on the planet based on their internet population. Then they colored each country according to which website is the most visited website in that country. All of the red, those are countries where google is the most popular. All of the blue, countries where facebook is the most popular. China is a big green because that is baidu, a big internet company. Except for china, cause extent, iran, and russia, all of the other countries, the most dominant web services are american. Knife you combine that information with what we are now learning about the nsa and the effect it has had and its relatively unfettered access to information on communications happening on these websites arguably there are some controls over how they can access and what they can do with the information of american citizens and u. S. Persons there is virtually no meaningful control over what they do and how they collect information of nonus persons. If you are not a u. S. Person, and you are looking at this map, and you are thinking about this map in the context of what we have learned from Edward Snowden, you might