The Christmas season means to you. For me, it's hanging out with my family, eating a lot. I feel like that is my current definition of Sherehe, although there are other definitions. So you can let me know how you're feeling right this moment. At YPF on Facebook, Y254Channel on Twitter, hashtag of the day. It's obviously W or Y in the morning. If you're just joining us, we just had a very interesting interview with Ram Aguco. And you might want to check that out. I don't know if I'm going to tell you my friend, but they may not know about it. But that's neither here nor there. The topic of the day is life after Christmas. Life after Christmas. We'll be getting into that. But Kabla Twanze, maybe my panel should say hello. And a couple of other things. Hi! How are you? My name is Kabla Twanze. My name is Kabla Twanze. Let's start with you. What's your name? My name is Weetonze Jundi. I am a media student at the University of Nairobi. And I'm happy to be here. We're happy to have you. What's your social media handle? I am Weetonze. We are on Instagram and all other pages. Are you on TikTok? Do you do dances? No. Ah! I love TikTok a lot. You can dance, but I don't have any content. Who's your favorite TikTok if you want to add so far? Yeah! I love that girl. She's good. As you can see, hi, I'm your fan. Yes. There you go. How are you? I'm Charity Wangare. We are an actress, a business lady. Hello, Mom. I'm happy to be here. What are your media handles? Instagram, it's Wangare. Facebook, Kari Abbey. YouTube. I have a content called Wangare. It's called Modone and Kenyan Jewy. Yeah, TikTok. Abbey Kari 5. We TikTok there with my daughter. Actually, she's the daughter of Sanna Sannaapo. So that's us. What kind of challenges do you do? Wimbo. Most likely Wimbo. She's a pianist or what not. Whatever is trending, she does it. She loves it. She's the best. She has a good body. She looks like a model. She's a tall one. So she's just good. She must have to dance. I feel old, my dear. I'm very, very old right now. Well, but I'm zero. All right. That's it. We're challenged. It's okay. Okay, sit down and dance. But there are challenges. I want to get closer to you. Closer to me. Actually, I want to get closer to you. I want to get closer to you. I want to get closer to you. You can say something, then people can hear your voice. That's why I want to get closer. You can say, it's okay if you're not sure yet. Well, you see something like that. Then people wouldn't want to hear your voice doing whatever. You see we can also share on that. Ideas, guys. Ideas. Ideas. Don't hold me to it. But maybe it will be one of my New Year's Resolutions. But I've never had a New Year's Resolution. That was the cause I hope you have a solution Right now, I am planning on playing basketball Like this coming in I had stopped for a while You play on campus? That's exciting Like you go in there You represent your school? No, I have not joined the campus But that's what I am doing Who is 6 cooking beer? It's a big deal Wait What's one of your new experiences? I really hope I really want to grow deeper in knowing God I am a spiritual person, a religious person I just want to know God in a deeper meaning It's just so refreshing Working with God is nice Also putting my family together Maybe getting someone good Maybe travelling to another country There are so many things Maybe starting to make the contents in my YouTube channel By the way, YouTube is paying I need to think hard and deep about that So there are so many We just pray God that at a time like this And we hope for the best See now they have come up with such deep resolutions Me, I am just here chilling I will let you know mine Still ours I can go Alright, so the topic of the day is life after Christmas Actually, this is how it started I was interviewing an artist He is a musical artist His genre is what rap I think Why don't artists sing about Christmas As in what you are going to When you are going to go to Christmas You are going to rap You are going to sing I mean basically the things that we anticipate Okay, you can sing up in that food The things that are close to me We are all foodies Yes, we love food Then he is like No, Christmas is just one day In the whole month That's maybe then we would have done something I am like no But I thought the Christmas spirit Starts from November, Mahali As we continue Maybe in January We will stop our televisions for small small But generally December The whole of December is Christmas time It's not that one day So life after Christmas In the Manisha, January See January per se But it depends on who is How do you take it So mostly after the At a first At a first it is Christmas It's just a week after the Christmas So it's not that one day So it's not that one day It's just glass And then Yes, we will continue Right after the party That's us What does life after Christmas mean to you? Mostly in January January It's different from December So you have party the whole month And then generally all broke So I will mostly say January The life after Christmas Yeah, but not for say first First you are still celebrating Still like School Christmas Do you want to come Ah, the moment you lay your head When you go back to school Ah, Christmas In a bed So I thought When I go back to school I will be less stressed I will be less stressed I will be less stressed So I don't get confused So there is no more Christmas And holiday and Party and what not Basically it's When you go back to school There is no more Christmas There is no more holiday There is no more Christmas On the first week of December I want to prepare for Christmas But now the moment When I go back to school I will be less stressed I will be less stressed Hashtag is why in the morning Does that mean we should be a little bit more focused During the Christmas time I want to know how In December or January Do you want to know Do you want to know Do you want to know Do you want to know What do you think Do you think we spend way too much And then feel the consequences in January Yeah, at that moment Like I prefer mostly To party at the moment I must still live in the moment And how do you eat? That's what I say Because if you Party and then save some amount Of money for January It will still not be enough So far it's full of temptations A lot Tell me what you think Surely There is a TikTok video That went viral late this year I went to a shop I went to a shop Advising I paid 10,000 I had snacks And massages I used to wear them I wore them 8,000 8,000 16,000 Yeah But I'm still a good girl I used to I used to buy Snacks and whatnot Then I used to I used to go shopping I went to a shop That's the Kenyan way That's the Kenyan way Actually almost 95% would buy Yeah You have You have You have You have You have You have Okay Okay Okay Okay So for example And this is You see It makes their money maybe per day or man As hard as you have sold that is how much you earn So we're working with Salari at the end of the month So Salari So So We're just We're just We're just We're just We're just We're just In We're just In Yes The life is like this He is like this I have never seen a person like this before They have a big salary Even though they have a big salary I don't know what happens between them This is how life is You have a certain lifestyle Let's say for most of your life You have it, you have it I don't know I don't know What is that? Why are you eating? I don't know I don't know I don't know And you guys eat that Why? I don't know I don't know I don't know I don't know I don't know I don't know My nails I don't know I don't know I don't know I only take white bread From Italy I don't know But like we said Some businesses They say that humans are insatiable Like you cannot satisfy human beings You see Women are insatiable You are insatiable They are on the path They are on the path They are on the path Women are on the path They are on the path Life is tricks I don't know What are the money may be Even though it's not enough It's not enough I don't know Let's say we collect money But how is it that all these clubs are getting full? I know there are 5 of them in Nairobi What do you think is happening here? Some of them are just spending money together Some of them are just spending money from Monday to Monday How is this possible? I don't know There are so many boys Some of them are just spending money together It's not like they are in a relationship They are spending money together They are just spending money together They are just spending money together They are just spending money together my friend people got money They are through their purting they're aged The juicy transplant adjoins exist That's it We have a meeting at 7pm We will discuss the life challenges But there is a measure Do you see the life challenges? It's a measure How would you like to address these canals? I would like to know I will ask Because where? Where? I will tell you I will tell you What? I don't know I will tell you If you are just telling us We are talking about life after Christmas I will tell you I will tell you When you just hear From back to school They start asking you When your leave is finished They send you new emails I will send you new emails In my previous email You will come and see According to I will tell you We are reaching the end of Christmas Christmas and New Year It's the same It's the same It's the same What do you mean? There is no distinction between Merry Christmas It's the same It's religiously affiliated It's the same What are you talking about? I will tell you When you have a baby I will tell you I will tell you You know I will tell you I will tell you I will give you 24 You will know I will give you a lot of money I will tell you So, that day, actually, it was like Eve, the main day, like Christmas Eve and what not, we'd come home. So, basically, from 24th, up on the schedule, we'd come home and eat. When we were in Jamuhuri, people had to go to work. So, we had to go to work. So, we had to go to work on the next week, like from 20th, from the day 20th, from the day 20th. And we'd go to the house to study. We'd go to work on the next day. We'd go to the grade school, and work on the next day. We'd go to work on the next day at 15. And we'd go to the house to study. What do you think? We'd go to school. I'm not sure. If you go to school, you'd go to work on the next day. I'm not sure. You are this fan. Some people say that it's a dream come true. Some say it's a manual work. Actually, it's not like we're still having fun. Some people say it's a dream. At least, I know you enjoy being here with us. But now, some people say it's a dream come true. Some people say it's a dream come true. Some people say it's a dream come true. Some people say it's a dream come true. So, basically, we'd go to school. Alright, baby girl. Let me ask you. What is the difference when you're at school and enjoying? Okay, yes. Some people say it's a dream come true. Some people say it's a dream come true. Because you're of age. As long as you're not doing it excessively and kindly. And you're not doing it and then handling a vehicle or any other machinery after that disclaimer. Alright.  And now, the way we are as adults. How do you feel? I'm a girl who's a girl. Why? I don't know. Like, it was fun. We interacted with different people. As in, you didn't, like, when I was a child, when I was an adult, you care more about men. When they're out, as in, kind. But, it was more of, I don't know, just a small group of close people who are living together as a family. But, it's crazy. It's... I don't know if it's a dream come true with your family. So, this is the day after. So, it's... You have to be careful about that. You see, my mother was born in 2013 and then she was born in 2014. Take it. I was born on the 31st of June. Is that so? That's right. Exactly. You see, the trust we have is like that. She said that it's fun. She says that when she provides to the kids, my friend, she doesn't sleep, she is scared. it was fun. It was fun. I was very happy because I was alive. I felt that I was going to die. I was going to die because it's something you have. I was going to die. But it was a bad dream. I had to go to school. I was going to die. Life is nice. You are poor. You are provided with everything. You are pampered by your parents and your relatives and what not. Basically, but it's life. I realized that when I was younger, I used to just chill. I used to go to school. I used to go to school. I used to go home. I had a chef. I used to go to school. I used to go to school.  Adulting is a trap.  I used to chill. Relax. I used to go to school. Another thing. Usually, I used to go to school because I haven't done it in a really long time. I haven't done it in a really long time. During this Christmas time. So we just had a viral video. Morning Giggles. There's a guy who was saying He is from Nairobi. He is a farmer. He is a farmer. He has a company called 2000s. He is a farmer. He is almost the whole village. He has been doing streaming. Streaming my daughter. Hey! He is a farmer. He is a C.C. What do we do to change it? I used to go home. So you used to go to school? I used to go to school. I was in Nairobi when I was young. In Shambalamang. Nairobi. That's why I started doing C.Fault A.T. C.Fault A.T. By default. You know what I mean by default? I think I've been doing that. I want to go home because I'm not that good at it. You have to come back and to that school. Maybe you didn't like it. So that only thing we can do. We'll save more. And we usually go shopping at 5 to 10. Actually I had been shopping at 10. I went shopping at 7. I was like that in the evening again. Do you know any place you go to in a week? Do you know any place you go to in a week? Like, in the shop? The place where I live is in Ubeba and it's around 3000 So, in Ubeba you go to the base and you have rice, food, what not You can eat at least 10 litres and after you finish your food you can eat, eat, what do you say? You can eat, eat, what do you say? Like you eat what you say you can eat, eat, what do you say? When I was a child, I went out to have lunch. I even went to school in January. I went to my in-disney. It was in my home place. I was talking to my daughter. I went to my mother. I was in the long run. I was in my home, I went to my mother. I had a child, two and three. is Now I'm a Zoya Tufia, and when it's... Who is the Cabela Scarry? So, how do you do? So, I'm not sure, but make sure you don't lose your food. Like, it's a quarter. It's not a quarter, it's just a little bit. I'm not Christmas Eve, I'm not Christmas Eve. It's a Christmas season. I don't know if you share like I do. Do you share like that? When you go to the market, you pick what you want. What do you do? So, what do you do when you're in a critical situation? When you're in a critical situation, when you're in a critical situation, when you're in a critical situation, when you're in a critical situation, then you're in trouble. Oh, yes. It's not really tricky. But it's life. I don't know if it's in the future. I was taught that if pictures are in the future, if there are pictures of next week, if there are pictures of next week, I'm not in a good mood. I'm not in the mood to see my hands. It's a major as well. Just to conclude that bad or two at a time. Because me, I'm not like 2K, but it's a bit like 2K. Because I'm not like that. Because I tend to go one day, the next day I read and I tell them I'm not even 2K. It's like, 2 cash. It's like 2 times so many people, It's like taking something from out of the window where no one is even going to eat, We will also eat. So, those are the reasons why we are eating from outside. But it's not what we will be buying from outside and just because they are going to take us out to shop, we will buy it from outside. So, when you are having lunch, you just take it, and then we will do as much as you say. That's what I thought That's what I thought I agree We are in agreement This is something I don't relate to But I do content So I said You know Christmas like this festive season I don't want to go I don't want to go to a place like this That means I don't want my children I don't want to go I don't want them to like me I don't agree Do you have a plan to perform? What are your steps? Disrespectful I don't want to listen to music I don't want to go to a police station I said I'll ask my neighbour She said I want to walk with Denzel Yes So, yeah, I love to ask you all to go and ask your children, maybe your cousins, when you're in Ushago, how much for your aunties? Ask them, is this stuff black? As in slippers? Yes Yes What do you want to ask your children? What do you want to ask your staff? What do you want to ask? So, what do you want to ask your children? Last month, do you want to brief? Do you want to brief, by the way? What do you want to ask? Because I want to ask you all to go and ask your staff, like a half, a few people, I want to ask you all to go and ask your staff, like a few people, Ah, like a few people, I want to ask you all to go and ask your staff. See, water, imagine what you want to ask your children. In every ocean, it's very true. Ask the children what you want to ask their children, What you want to ask your children? Ask them, what do you want to ask them? What is your smile, like the picture? Like the picture So what do you want to say to him? There's no need for you to ask your mother to leave the show, she always helps you to be a part of it, she's single. You see! She wears her T-shirt and stores it.  How are you? By the way, some of these stuff are difficult to find. Some of them are in hotels. Some of them are in hotels. So, if you go to a hotel, you'll find out that you're in a hotel. How are you? So, I'll give you a brief. I'll give you a brief on how you can make your life difficult. I'll tell you about it later. Okay. What do you behave when you're in a hotel?  I go out to eat and drink. That's what I behave when I'm in a hotel. And what not. I behave when I'm with my staff, when I'm with my new staff. That's what I imagine. So, what do you behave when you're in a hotel? When you're in a hotel, you have to remove your shoes. You have to remove your shoes. You have to remove them. So, basically, I take off my shoes. I take off my shirt. I take off my shoes. I have my friends from church. So, I have my friends from the church. Some of them came to see me last time. They came to see me last time. I was in prison. I took off my shoes. I was in jail. We have Lucy, my friend from Githerai. I have Kenan Jerry, my friends from... My daughter. My two daughters, my sisters, my brothers, my friends, anybody when I'm in jail now to support my junior life. You guys, I love you so much. You're adorable. I love you. Yeah.


It's Friday, so you know what that means. Time once again for Tuesdays with Cory. Tuesdays with Cory. Cory Brettschneider is a constitutional law professor at Brown. He has a law degree from Stanford, a PhD in political science from Princeton, a master's in philosophy from Cambridge. His book is called When the State Speaks. He's been published in the New York Times and countless law journals. He co-wrote the amicus brief that was referred to by the Fourth Circuit Court last week when it struck down Trump's travel ban. But I think if you ask Cory what he's most proud of, it's that I, David Feldman, gave him my private phone number. The brass ring of academia, David Feldman's landline. Welcome back to the show. And please, you don't need to thank me, Cory. I don't think I have the private landline. I think I have Skype.  I think that's, I see. That's the incentive. That's the incentive. Ten shows. After ten shows, you get the landline. You get the prefix. You get the first three numbers. But the suffix you got to earn.  I'm just like everyone else. I put my sweater on one head at a time. Great. I'm happy to be here and I'm not feeling intimidated yet. Is that funny? I put my sweater on one head at a time. Good. I haven't heard that. Sometimes I come up with- I got a Mr. Rogers image, too. You know, he's partying it. The head part. It's a strange image. All right. This is what we're going to talk about today. We are going to talk about federal funding for sanctuary cities. We're going to talk about Kathy Griffin getting fired by CNN and whether or not freedom of speech, the First Amendment protects her right to say things and not get fired by her corporate paymasters. We're going to talk about Jeremy Joseph Christian, who was accused of stabbing to death two men on a train, how he screamed freedom of speech, freedom of speech during his arraignment. We're going to talk about the mayor of Portland wanting to cancel a march against Sharia. We're going to talk about maybe briefly Sharia law. We're going to talk about Attorney General Jeff Sessions releasing his new budget and how it reveals that he's not interested in prosecuting illegal use of force by police. Then we're going to talk about Charlie Chaplin and the travel ban and how it relates to Charlie Chaplin. Professor, the executive order Donald Trump signed, promising to deny federal funding to sanctuary cities. What is a sanctuary city? Can the president deny federal funding or is that the role of Congress? Where are we with that executive order? Thanks for the question. To begin with, your first question, sanctuary cities, David, aren't a technical term and cities don't often use that label to describe themselves. But there are some cities around the country and some localities that have declared that they are not going to cooperate with the federal government in all its demands when it comes to the president's goal of deporting undocumented people who are in the United States. For instance, some localities have said that they won't hold those who were detained, say, on a traffic ticket in order to give ICE enough time to come and deport them. Now, the president, through this executive order, with the support of his Attorney General, have declared that if you are not going to cooperate with the federal government and there are pretty broad plans to deport, to conduct a mass deportation as they put it, then the penalty will be revocation, and they are blunt about this, of a city's entire federal expenditure, the federal funds that go to a city. Now, two localities in California, I believe it's San Francisco and Santa Clara, have brought a lawsuit in the northern district of San Francisco and federal court saying that this is a violation of the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment says those powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. And the claim, the lawsuit, is that although you can threaten, sorry, you can revoke specific grants that are tailored to a particular purpose, this blunt force of basically denying the entirety of federal funds to a localities a violation of the 10th Amendment. That's the kind of argument that was pioneered by conservatives in the so-called Rehnquist Revolution or the New Federalist Court of Justice Rehnquist, but it's now being used by progressives, including in California, to fight back against Donald Trump's threat. Is this a separation of powers issue as well? Because it seems to me the Congress controls the purse strings. Don't they determine where the money goes? And I think the lawsuit from what I've seen doesn't focus on separation of powers. I mean, the basic idea is that there have been funds for a variety of purposes that are allocated to the executive branch, which then distributes them. So the way that Trump can get around congressional action in defense of his policy is to use an executive order about his discretionary funds, I guess, in a variety of areas. So that's at least the government's claim. And the focus of the suit is not separation of powers, but the right of the states to resist coercion from the federal government in certain areas. I remember reading about John Ehrlichman before he had a resign from the Nixon administration. He was the domestic advisor. And one of the things, I think it was he, he invented this thing called impounding funds, because they couldn't control Congress's spending so that the executive branch would just impound, right, the spending. Just refuse to spend, basically, right? Refusing to spend. And I believe that was deemed unconstitutional. What about ICE? ICE is part of the immigration department, I believe, and they're running around cities, especially Los Angeles, terrorizing children. They follow school kids home. Yeah, I've seen that story. What in the Constitution prevents a national police force? How big could the FBI, how big could the Secret Service get under Trump administration? And are there constitutional protections? Yeah, I mean, that's a good question. There is, unfortunately, the possibility that he could just build ICE and build the FBI into as large an organization as he wants. And that would give him the ability to potentially conduct even more of these removals. But I think the reality is that local police are closer to the ground. The federal government has to have some basis for detaining people. So you can't just go up to somebody on the street and ask for their papers without some kind of cause. So the localities do things like traffic stops. That's certainly within their portfolio. And that's why cooperation with the localities is so important to the Trump administration and carrying out these deportations. So really, these, in my opinion, local heroes who are standing up to the Attorney General and to the President and saying, we're not going to cooperate are really throwing a wrench into the plans of how to actually carry out these deportations because they're on the ground in a way that ICE is not. But I think the truth is to be blunt in answering your question, there could be a way he can enforce federal immigration law. There are constitutional limits on how you go about that. Certainly do process limits. But the more he expands ICE, the more he can do. But this is an important way to stop him and I think really throws a wrench into those plans, as I said. And it also partly is a way of slowing down these deportations. But it's also sending a message that says, we're not going to stand for this. We also have a constitutional role. It's within the right, certainly, of ICE to deport people who are in the country illegally. But there are a lot of constitutional issues about how the process is conducted. I mean, you have a due process right to not just be suspected of a crime if you've done nothing. And federal education can't just come up to you on the street and demand your papers. Define due process. The Fifth Amendment and the Fourth Amendment give various due process rights. The Fourth Amendment gives a right against search and seizure, for instance. And so what those rights entitle us to is to not just be locked up without a reason. The government needs a reason for doing so. And even for a search, there has to be a reasonable suspicion that you've done something wrong. You can't just be approached on the street. And what you certainly can't do, and the recent cases about Stop and Frist made this clear, is racially profile people in order to determine whether or not you're going to stop them. That's a separate clause, but also that protects us against racial profiling, basically. And I think there's a danger that ICE is doing all those things. Right. That was the Arizona ruling where they said you can't stop somebody because you think they might be an undocumented Mexican. But as I remember, it was nebulous. In the course of an arrest, you can check to see if the person is in this country legally. Well, but here's the question that's raised by this lawsuit. I mean, it brings huge issues. Say that a local police force decides that the federal government is being so aggressive and really using race or using national origin in a way it shouldn't, deporting people who have been in the country for 30 years without reason, failing to recognize the importance of keeping families together. If a locality, and I think this is what's happening in this lawsuit, decides, you know what, the federal government's policy is so troubling constitutionally, that we're just not going to aid them. So we're not going to tell them or we're not going to hold people in order to cooperate. That's the kind of thing that's raised by this suit. I think this case in particular is about holding people in detention in order to keep them for ICE. But I think I would like to see there's no reason why a locality has to share information with the federal government about an arrest, especially in the absence of the conviction. There's no law on the books that forces a local municipality to cooperate with the FBI or ICE. Put it this way, I think that constitutionally, and these are the issues that are now being litigated, so they're complicated and I don't want to claim it's an easy case. But in my opinion, if a locality decided that they did not want to share information about immigration status with ICE, that is their constitutional right to do so under the 10th Amendment. What about a consent decree? I know that the Los Angeles Police Department was operating under a consent decree because the cops couldn't stop beating up African Americans. That's interesting. What is a consent decree? It was, I believe, issued by the Justice Department. What is a consent decree? And doesn't that violate the 10th Amendment? That's a great question. One of the most... Then let's move on. As long as it was a great... That's not all I wanted to hear. You go deep in the weeds, which I love, and ask questions that are challenging. But this one is particularly good not to take away too much. But I often do say that when I am just pausing to think about that. Like when your wife says, do you love me? That's a great question. That's a great question. Really. Okay. We were going to focus. Let's stay focused. Okay. So a consent... It is a great question for real, and here's why. One of the huge objections to what I'm saying, and I think a lot of your listeners, and I think you in earlier conversation raised this, why is this progressive, self-described progressive constitutional scholar saying that we should look at the 10th Amendment, which is after all the way that civil rights laws were resisted under the banner of states' rights in the 1960s? And your question really gets to the heart of that. The 14th Amendment says that no person in any locality can be denied equal protection of the laws. And what that means is that there are just certain rights that, even though the 10th Amendment grants lots of powers to the states, that no state, no locality can deny. I mean, the phrase of the 14th Amendment is no state. So I do think that, yes, there are lots of 10th Amendment rights to resist policies of the federal government. But here's what they really cannot do. They cannot resist civil rights enforcement. And they cannot engage in discrimination, because that itself would be a constitutional violation. So the basic idea is, yes, defer to the states, they have lots of power, and they can resist the federal government. They can't be commandeered except when it comes to rights themselves guaranteed to every individual in the Constitution. And that is the obligation of the federal government to do that. And I don't know if this attorney general will carry out that obligation, but he is obligated to protect the civil rights of every person in this country, regardless of what locality they live in. On previous shows, we've talked about how important the 14th Amendment is, that it should be called something else. What is the 14th Amendment? And why should everybody take the time to read it? It's one of the three amendments, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that were passed after the Civil War to guarantee all people, including formerly enslaved persons, the guarantee of equal protection of the law, and the full rights of the Constitution, including, as I said before, due process. So the 13th abolished slavery, the 14th guarantees equal protection and due process, and the 15th guaranteed tempted to guarantee equal voting rights. There are two executive orders going through the courts. One is the travel ban, which you've been very active with, and we'll get to that in a second. And the other one is sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities is more than just a municipality's right to stand up to the federal government. It's really about who can be thrown out of America. The travel ban is who can visit, who can get in here, and the sanctuary city executive order is who can be thrown out of this country. Do tourists and undocumented workers have the same rights as American citizens? Does a tourist or an undocumented worker who may be in this country, quote, unquote, illegally, are they entitled to the same due process as I am?  I am, yeah. Okay. Please tell me that's a great question. They are you a citizen? I was a little taken back by it's like the kind of thing that in Trump's America, I hope that they don't start, the government doesn't start feeling entitled to ask everyone. The answer to that is that you have lots of rights, even if you're not a citizen. You obviously don't have all of them. So for instance, you don't have the right to vote by definition if you're not a citizen. But it's a mistake that I've heard repeated by tea party types a lot and others to suggest that the Constitution only protects citizens. The 14th amendment, for instance, talks about persons not citizens. And so due processes, I think clearly guaranteed to persons not citizens. And in a case, for instance, about the right of undocumented people in the United States, non-citizens to send their kids to public schools, the Supreme Court made it clear that that that was a basic right. And in general, there are lots of constitutional protections, including Fourth Amendment and due process rights. What is the Fourth Amendment again? The right against illegal searches and seizures. Now what there's not a right to is the right to remain in the country if you're here without proper documentation. And I think that that's a policy matter that should be resolved that we need to really do immigration reform. But yes, ultimately, ICE does have the legal right to remove people from the country. But along the way, I guess is what I'm saying. There are lots of rights, even of certainly non-citizens and even of undocumented people. Is it fair to say that the due process extended to undocumented workers is different than say the due process for American citizens? Correct. Yes, that's right. It's not the same level of protection.  That's an absolute right under our Constitution. You can't have it revoked as punishment. You can give it up and voluntarily renounce it. But you can't have it taken from you. Now obviously, if you're a non-citizen, you don't have that right. The same is true of forced deportation.  If you're undocumented and you're rounded up by ICE and you're separated from your children, you're taken to a different type of court.  You're being held in usually a private prison and you don't have access to a lawyer usually or a public defender. Well, a lot of the processes regarded as an administrative procedure under our immigration law. And so that's right, there are, as a matter of fact, just fewer protections. Now, I guess sometimes we're talking about what's actually happening and sometimes we're talking about aspirations. I think that the process that we use to remove people from this country lacks a lot of the constitutional and legal protections that it should have. So it shouldn't be a solely administrative procedure. And I think that there are a lot of cases that need to be brought about, as in the travel ban case, it's what's related, equal protection concerns. So if it turns out that ICE is targeting Mexicans, but not lots of other people who are in the country illegally, then that's a constitutional concern. If they're approaching people on the street and without any reasonable suspicion rounding them up, that's a due process concern. And so the ACLU and other organizations like it, I think, are doing lots to stop ICE from violating the Constitution. If you're an undocumented worker and somebody pounds on your door, you have a right to say, show me your warrant. You know, I have to look into that. According to the ACLU, I did look this up. That sounds right for me. Yeah.  I know they have to show you your ID. If you're an undocumented worker and you're injured on the job, do you have access to our courts? Can you sue the slaughterhouse where you work because they're violating labor rules or endangering you?  Can you, as an undocumented worker, sue Hormel? Yes. I mean, there's no requirement in our federal courts that you be a United States citizen in order to bring a lawsuit. So for instance, if you have a contract claim that was executed in the United States, even if you're not a citizen, you certainly have the right to do so. And a lot of labor claims are like that as well. So even people who have been removed, yes, I think to bring lawsuits. If you're a victim of wage, theft, you... I mean, one thing to say about all this is, but part of the problem is that, so yes, you have a right to bring these suits. But people are often afraid to do so because they lack the basic status of being here. And so the lack of security, I think, probably prevents a lot of these lawsuits that should be brought by people who are undocumented. So people like Wilbur Ross, the Commerce Secretary, they're very slippery when it comes to undocumented workers in what they call illegal immigration because they really do want undocumented workers working for them because they're so compliant, they're so frightened. Yeah. I mean, that's the problem with our immigration policy is that we continue to want cheap labor to do jobs that lots of people don't want to do, including picking and farm work. And yet we refuse to extend the rights that should come with the hard labor that these people are putting in. And so that's... I don't know that that's something that could be corrected by courts. It really is the Congress that would need to do something. And unfortunately, there was a time when that was a bipartisan commitment and I just think that's disappeared with the rise of nationalism and in some cases, white nationalism throughout the country. Right. You know, Sonny Bono had a brother named Quibono. And hello? Who benefits? Quibono, right? Doesn't that mean who benefits? I don't. It's a Latin expression. I think it's the use of law. But if you look at who benefits from undocumented workers, it's corporations and how we treat our undocumented workers is how we treat each other. We start torturing overseas and then we bring it here. How we treat the children of undocumented workers is how we eventually treat ourselves. Yeah. And you know, one worry about the... I mean, I love doing the constitutional discussion. You could get a lot of principles. You could get a lot out of that field. But one thing that's worrying about it is that sometimes there are boundaries to the ability to use the Constitution to protect rights. But human rights extend beyond the Constitution. And so that's just frightening when the administration starts to look for these things that they can do that clearly involve human rights violations. That even if they're not constitutional violations are moral wrongs. And so that's why it's so important. And I was just... That was prompted by your comment about torturing abroad. It might be right that you can't bring an Eighth Amendment claim against a president that conducts torture outside the boundaries against non-citizens. There's good argument for why that's not... What is the Eighth Amendment again? It prevents torture, basically, cruel and unusual punishments. And one kind of thing that's raised by your comments is, you know, could somebody outside the country bring an Eighth Amendment claim, bring an action against the federal government to prevent torture?  But it's still obviously a human rights violation. So I definitely wouldn't want to, in any of these discussions, suggest that just because the Constitution doesn't protect a right, that it's not an important human right. So people from Breitbart always talk about the natural laws, that there are laws that supersede the Constitution. Are you taking their argument? Are you saying there are natural laws handed down by God or handed down by the United Nations, the one-world government? What do you mean by natural laws? Well, I think I didn't use the phrase natural laws. I use the phrase human rights. And that might sound like natural laws, but they're importantly different. But first of caveat, if it's something that Breitbart said, or usually I'm pretty sure, you know, even without reading that website, I know enough to know that I, that's not for me. So I actually will admit, I've never read The Fountainhead, but I'm sure that I disagree with the author. So going back to the question, though, you know, there are rights that are guaranteed as moral principles throughout the world and that are not just natural or based in reason, they're based in human, are human rights documents that we are parties to. So there are a variety of conventions that extend human rights to all people in the world. And one of those covenants guarantees the rights of people not to be tortured, period. And so even if we're not violating a specific provision, so for instance, the Geneva Convention, some people say, prohibit torture against foreign armies. And one argument that was made is well, Al Qaeda is not a foreign government or foreign army, so torture is okay in that regard. But my point is these kind of broad protections, including the human right to not be tortured, extend to all regardless of which locality or what location you're in. So, you know, the Constitution protects rights, international treaties protect rights, but there also are broad human rights that are protected regardless of what government we're talking about or what location we find ourselves in the world. Great. We should move on because there are other issues that have come up this week. But very quickly, the Sanctuary City Executive Order, where are we on that now? The federal court in San Francisco has said that there is enough concern about the potential violation of the 10th Amendment that they've suspended basically the executive order. So no city can, well, this case is pending, can have its federal funds revoked, even if it's declared to be in violation of that executive order. And like the travel ban, we'll now go to this next step and the Ninth Circuit will hear the case eventually and we'll see if this trial level judge, this district court judge was right. I think he was. I think, you know, look, the thing that is stopping the assault on sanctuary cities, on Muslims through the travel ban, repeatedly have been the federal courts. They have been the heroes in this drama that we've been in over the last few months. And also the people bringing these suits, the ACLU, the local officials in Santa Clara and in San Francisco that brought this suit. So this is a great moment where the district court did the right thing and now we're going to wait to see if it's affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. And eventually it too, this case, might go to the Supreme Court. I think sessions probably will fight any ruling against them in the Ninth Circuit. We were talking about your appearance last week. Some friends and I were talking about you saying or teaching me or whatever, my teaching you, that getting rid of Trump is really a political act. That it's kind of nebulous, although some people disagree, but it's really a political act. The takeaway from last week's session was you have to stay on top of Trump, even if you're not getting rid of him, you're wearing him down. That the purpose of the courts is not just to prosecute and convict and throw the guy out, it's just to use the system to debilitate him. Absolutely. I mean, wow, I couldn't have said that better. That's all you need to say then. Move on. Yeah. I mean, I guess to add to that, the idea is to teach him. And how do you teach somebody like that? You don't just say things to him. He's not going to respond to that.  He wants to do this. No, actually you can't do that. He doesn't understand that the basic role of the office of the presidency is limited. He's not a dictator. He's certainly not a king. That was the idea of the presidency, is to grant some powers to the executive and to make the executive strong but limited. And one thing the executive can't do is violate the free exercise clause or in the case that we're talking in the travel ban case or the case that we're talking about or the establishment clause or in the case that we're talking about involving sanctuary cities, violate the 10th Amendment. Just not allowed to do that. And I don't think he, I'm sure he had never heard of the 10th Amendment before the last couple of months. And now he's learning about it. So that's a good thing. I'm just spitballing an idea about a muscular approach towards fighting Trump. The same way a cat plays with a mouse. Instead of getting rid of Trump, keep him, keep his presidency alive but bat it around for the next three and a half years in a way that says, no, no, you're, you're, look, this mouse is still alive. Look, look, he's still there. But look what we've done to him. This three and a half year process of humiliation and degradation might be more valuable than, hey, there's a smoking gun. Now he's got to go to, maybe we can embrace the idea that Trump always survives, but he always fails. And we're just going to humiliate him and teach him and the citizenry, of course, in the rule of law. Yeah, there was an article, I think it was in the New York Times. I don't want to take credit for this way of phrasing it because it was so good. And the idea was that he is about to, maybe already, but certainly should be put in a kind of receivership where he's there. But, you know, as in bankruptcy, you have a lot of limitations on what you can do. And I like that metaphor.  And by the way, you know, over the summer in, during the campaign in July, I wrote a piece called Trump versus the Constitution about this hostility. And I'm not surprised it's come out in the way that he's governed. And so this is just who he is. He doesn't get it. He doesn't care. And he's in his fundamental disposition hostile to the principles of the Constitution. So there's nothing to do if he's not impeached, but to keep him in a kind of receivership. And that's what these federal courts have been doing. But that said, you know, we have to wait and see what happens as we talked about in depth last week with the Russia story and others. So the possibility of impeachment, I think, also has to, has to be there.  Well, you know, there is no constitutional check on the ability to push the nuclear trigger. And climate change getting out of the Paris Accords. Let me ask you about that. My reading of the Constitution is that only the Senate can approve a treaty. But the Paris Climate Accords that Obama signed on to were not officially a treaty. They were an executive, something, something. Yeah. And you know, during the Obama administration, a lot of conservatives spoke out repeatedly about the worry that the president was doing too much through executive orders and that the constitutional obligation was to make treaties and agreements with other countries involving the Senate. And that executive orders generally weren't a good way to go. That legislation was the appropriate way to go. And, you know, he had reasons for doing what he did that he certainly didn't have a cooperative Congress through much of his time in office. But, you know, the result of that is that now that we've got this president who is in a deep way hostile to the Constitution, he can do reverse a lot of gains through executive order, so including looks like the Paris Agreement. You know, Kathy Griffin was the one who had to apologize this week. Not Donald Trump. Not Donald Trump. Kathy Griffin was fired by CNN this week after she released a photo of her holding the decapitated bloody head of Donald Trump. Probably something she shouldn't have done. But CNN fired her. Now, one of the things you always hear is, well, what about her First Amendment rights? Did CNN violate her First Amendment rights by firing her for something she said or did? And more importantly, did they violate her First Amendment rights for firing her for something she said or did that had nothing to do with CNN? I guess the short answer is no. The First Amendment requires state action. So the first puzzle that we'd have to figure out if she were to claim a free speech violation, a constitutional free speech violation, is what the government action was. And I don't think there was any here. So no, I don't think she's got a First Amendment claim.  And some people do say this, that to really have free speech, it's not enough to protect it from government intervention or government abridgment that it has to be free speech has to be protected, you know, in workplace policies, for instance, throughout the workforce. And I guess, you know, the best argument for that is the one that you gave, which is when it comes to saying things that are really completely unrelated to the job, some people say there should be free speech protection. Otherwise, the workforce is really intruding into every aspect of our lives.  She does the New Year's special. So the fact that they'd be concerned that somebody like this had represented herself in a way that was inconsistent with the value of deliberation and reason, and really was outside the bounds, that doesn't, frankly, seem unreasonable to me. So think of Billy Bush, you know, said this stuff with our current president, and he was removed is my understanding from being on air. And, you know, did I think that was an awful decision in the Billy Bush case? I'm probably not. So I don't I'm worried that we, you know, I don't want to temper who are sorry, guide who we defend as a matter of free speech by whether we like their politics in a deep way. It seems to me that what she did is probably pretty equivalent to what Billy Bush did. Let me understand the constitutional guardrails with Kathy Griffin. Yeah, I saw her holding the severed head. And I thought she was guessing I'm Anthony Bourdain's new show that you cook something on CNN. So you're saying that the First Amendment only forbids the government from forbidding speech. Correct. I as a parent can tell my children not to curse. Yes. And they cannot scream First Amendment. That is correct. You can take their allowance away. You can tell them not to do it that you won't take them to an indoor water park. My daughter keeps asking to go to some indoor water park. That's how I mind that it's a governmental limit on what government can do. Pin that thought. Okay. You don't want to go to a water park, do you? Yeah. Right? No. Oh, I'm looking for arguments. There's a new first of all tell your daughter. Yeah. That it is an urban myth that they are able to put a chemical in pools to determine whether or not anybody's been urinating in that. Did you know that? They always say, oh, they have this new chemical. It'll turn the water blue if somebody is urinating. You've heard that, right? Yes. That follows you around. Everybody lives in fear of that. Doesn't exist. Doesn't exist. Don't you think you're obligated, David, to not tell people, though? Because if you advertise that, then you might see an increase. Well, yes, but it's also an argument to tell your kids there's no way to know how much urea is inside a water park. Okay, I'll try it. I'm sure it won't work. Nothing will deter her. She wants to go to Great Wolf Lodge. Now I remembered the name. So we're going to focus today. I know, but just hang on for one second. The way tell her the way to find out if somebody's urinating in the pool. The Canadians have discovered this is measure the amount of artificial sweetener in the pool. Artificial sweetener is not processed by the human body, and it only gets released through urine, and that's how you can measure the amount of urine in a water park by the amount of artificial sweetener.  We got this and I thought you had nothing to teach me. Now I see. I'm stank corrected.  No, just learning. Okay, taking it all in. All right, but I hope you've lost your train of thought. No, I'm good. No. The first amendment, the point was there's not, well, I can imagine what it was like to teach you in Columbia University. Go ahead. That kid.  I'm sure it's like Vandoren, and you like to see Vandoren saying, oh, Feldman kept trying to make this great point about literature. All he wanted to discuss was the urine in the pool. In Dwight Morrow High School, I was the class pundit, not the class clown, the class pundit. Nice. I don't doubt it. Go ahead. All right, the first amendment, go ahead. There's no way you can remember. She's got no case basically on First Amendment grounds. The one kind of odd thing is, I guess it does involve criticism of the president, so if she could show that the president was pressuring CNN, and we have no evidence of that, that's the one thing I could come up with that might make it a First Amendment case. And before we move on to other First Amendment issues, specifically Portland, the government does restrict speech in the workplace. Yes. Oh, it can restrict its own. There's a whole, I mean, part of, in the book, I talk about this case. When the state speaks. Yes, called Kistra. And in Canada, there was a case involving a teacher that was fired for a lesson that was racist. I think it was a math teacher, and it was some racist lesson. But not only was the teacher fired, the teacher was put in prison under their hate speech laws in Canada. In the United States, you certainly couldn't put somebody in prison for teaching a lesson that was like that, that was racist. But what you could do is certainly fire them. And the idea is that, look, the government, in its workplaces, has certain things it's trying to accomplish. So the state is trying to teach the idea of equal protection or the idea of respect regardless of race. And if a teacher is undermining that through their math lesson, they have the ability to fire them. What if it's a problem? But Canada, they go much further that you can go to jail and here rightly, I think you cannot. But that seems right to me that the government can promote its own message. But CNN is not the government. That's right. Yeah. But a similar logic. I mean, the reason why you can't bring a First Amendment case against CNN is because there's no government action and there's no First Amendment right in this country against private entities. If you post something on Facebook that embarrasses your future employer, they can fire you. They can go through your history. There was a comedy writer over at Saturday Night Live who tweeted something and I think it was about Baron Trump. And she got fired this year for tweeting something about Baron Trump. It had nothing to do with the show. Well, who was that? I don't remember her name. I do know that she was then hired by Seth MacFarlane. I believe Seth MacFarlane hired her after she got fired by NBC. But it wasn't an official NBC Twitter account. She said something about Baron Trump being a future serial killer. And it was deemed unacceptable by NBC and Saturday Night Live fired her. It's interesting, though, when Kathy Griffin got fired, one of the reasons was Trump tweeted that Baron saw that photo and started to scream that he thought it was true. So he uses Baron, but we're not allowed to. And if you have a kid who sees that photo and screams, was he screaming out of joy? That's the other the other issue. Let's go back to First Amendment issues. Jeremy Joseph Christian was arraigned right there. That joke. That's why we have the First Amendment. It protects you from Donald Trump coming after you for that joke. It's a good thing. I'm more concerned about somebody else coming after me for what I intimate in my jokes. But have you noticed I haven't brought it up? Very good. I have not mentioned, not once before I have not mentioned it once. Jeremy Joseph Christian was accused of stabbing a deaf two men on a train in Portland after Christian allegedly, allegedly cursed and screamed epithets that I think she was a Muslim woman or she was wearing a head scarf. He has a long history of using the First Amendment to go on alt right chat rooms and say horrible things about Muslims during his arraignment. He screamed free speech America free speech. And now the mayor of Portland is asking the courts to ban an alt right March. I think in June March against Sharia. I think it's been postponed. I think the March against Sharia is going to be held in Seattle. But freedom of speech issues. Are you allowed to be on a train and scream epithets at a Muslim woman without threatening her? No, absolutely not. I mean that's one of the saddest.  We should protect them I say but also the government has a role in criticizing them. But we want to be clear on the kind of hate speech that is protected. What's protected is saying something at a rally, writing a book. What is absolutely not protected under our First Amendment jurisprudence is a threat. And going up to somebody and assaulting them with words is not protected. And the court has made that clear about then its fighting words doctrine more recently in a case called Virginia versus Black where it distinguished between burning a cross on a field during a rally, during a clan rally, which is protected the court said because it's the expression of a general viewpoint. And what is not protected which is burning the cross on a lawn of an African American family and retaliation for a fight that had occurred earlier in the day. In that second case the court said look what's going on is the use of words in order to communicate a threat to a particular individual. And in no way does our First Amendment protect that. So in this case the idea that this was free speech that this guy was going up and really committing an assault against somebody was just sitting there on a train is absurd. I mean it is beyond unreasonable to claim that that is about free speech. And it's really as a free speech specialist, it's just one of the deepest insults when people try to claim the mantle of this fundamental right, this essential right to our Democratic Republic and to use it to justify a crime of assault. So no, there is nothing than what that guy is saying that is reasonable. Okay I'm Jeremy Joseph Christian's lawyer. Right. Let's just pretend he was sitting on a train opposite a woman in a headscarf without getting up from his seat, without standing over her. He starts screaming horrible things at her without getting up and threatening her. There was a, he's across, he's on the other side of the train. Is that protected by freedom of speech? If I start screaming but I don't physically threaten them.  Is that protected by freedom of the First Amendment? I mean the question of whether somebody's been threatened isn't whether you use the words like I'm going to come get you or I'm going to punch you. It's whether you're doing something that's a reasonable person would think is threatening. So in the cross burning case that I talked about, I'm sure that the lawyers argued that burning a cross on somebody's lawn is the generalized expression of the idea of white supremacy and that's protected. But what the court said is give me a break.  So the words that you use I think don't matter. You can engage in threatening behavior without using the words directly that I'm going to come get you. So yeah, I think even in the cases that you're describing that that sounds like threatening behavior certainly. Especially remember it's a closed in train car which is really potentially very dangerous and threatening situation can't just get up and leave. The mayor of Portland Ted Wheeler went to the courts to block a permit for a march against Sharia. He said it wasn't the right time. We have a freedom to assemble. Is that the First Amendment freedom to assemble? There is a freedom of assembly in the First Amendment and related to that certainly very closely is the freedom of speech. But you can't have a spontaneous rally. I can't decide. I can't do a flash mob thing on my podcast and say everybody show up outside Corey Brettschneider's house to protest water parks. The courts have said that localities municipalities governments can regulate the time place and manner of assembly and speech. You know for good reason that there's potentially danger in these things they have to be able to be prepared to have a police presence to protect people at the rally. But that's very different than what's potentially an issue in the Portland case which is discrimination in who gets the permit by opinion or viewpoint. That you can't do and the government is certainly prohibited from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. So the police are well within their rights to break up a spontaneous rally or a mob. In other words if you're gathering outside OJ's house right you know he's he's driving home AC Callens is driving him home and everybody's gathered around the Bretton Wood estate. The police have every right to say break it up go home. You need a permit. We'd have to look at the case but in general for mass rallies permitting is a constitutional requirement that a municipality can have. They can demand for a mass rally that a group has a permit and it can disperse they can disperse a crowd that refuses to go through that process. But the you know the process of permitting can't just be an excuse for keeping people from conducting protests and that the permit process itself and the denial of permits is something that the courts can review and will review looking at the First Amendment free speech and freedom of assembly protections. Now that's not to say that the police can always just disperse you so there's an interesting case about sidewalks and whether or not you can gather on the sidewalk outside an abortion clinic and whether or not you know some unpermitted protesting at these clinics are allowed. Now that's a kind of hard case because you could see on the one hand the argument for why you don't want to have people feel harassed and on the other side people are saying the protesters are saying this isn't about harassment it's about our general views about abortion and so you know cases like that the argument anyway of the protesters is when it comes to small crowds really isn't a need for a permit for picketing or for small protests. So you know the permit rationale is about stability and danger and I think in the absence of that it's not clear to me that you always need a permit for okay to have a First Amendment right.  I like that I like conversation.  No I'm not going to take up your time and my listener's time without proper preparation okay especially since yeah and I was winging it and you could tell if you go back and listen to our last session you want to talk about Charlie Chaplin exactly you recently wrote the travel ban appeals the recent travel ban appeals the acting solicitor general relied largely on a case called climb danced v mandel to the showrunner for Veep mandel to argue that those outside the country are not protected by the establishment clause so let me let me read that again you recently wrote in the recent travel ban appeals the acting solicitor general relied largely on a case called climb danced v mandel to argue that those outside the country are not protected by the establishment clause so I want to get to Charlie Chaplin in a second because he was banned from coming into the country he was never a united states citizen what is a solicitor general we've been through this who is solicitor general Jeffrey wall I think it's important for all of us to know who these players are yes what is the establishment clause the animus doctrine the rationality doctrine and can you the big question is you're not allowed to remove or ban somebody from this country based on their religion are you allowed to ban them or remove them based on their ideology which I believe is why Charlie Chaplin who is not an American citizen believe that's why he wasn't allowed back in the country in 1952 yeah I mean I should say I certainly think you can't ban somebody because of their religion and that's why the travel ban is unconstitutional and we've been talking about this for a long time and that was just my opinion I guess before but now that opinion has been affirmed by the fourth and ninth circuit court of appeals so we could lose that case still in the supreme court but I am pretty firm ground to think that they're going to agree with the fourth and ninth circuit court that you cannot ban somebody because of their religion and that's what the executive order does now here's a counter argument because the case isn't over and donald trump has a very good lawyer the the government and in this case the government is really trump because it's about the the federal government's executive order has a lawyer that argues on behalf of the president before the supreme court it's a special office called the office of the solicitor general its former solicitor generals are often I would say probably always major figures in the field of constitutional law so justice kagan was formally the solicitor general of the united states in the obama administration before she was appointed to the bench and what this solicitor general argued that's who the person is that you mentioned is uh what did you say he is he's the acting solicitor general now he's the act yes right yeah in other words he's a trained fespian he isn't acting sorry right I apologize yeah do I have to laugh at those jokes no no and by the way it's a part of the job description this is why you have no idea how much delight I take in making horrible jokes around go ahead go ahead I mean but I could have done that you're you won several Emmys yeah well okay so the solicitor general has a a very strong argument on his case I mean I don't it's a losing argument but it's a strong argument and that's that there's a case called Mandel which you mentioned and what Mandel was about was the facts were there was a Marxist professor I think who wanted to come into the country and non-citizen and was barred from doing so because of his Marxism because of the beliefs now common sense would say well wait a second the first amendment protects against discrimination based on viewpoint but what the government said defending this exclusion was that's not true for people outside the country when it comes to the power of the president he or she has increased powers in regard to those who are involved in immigration matters non-citizens wanting to come in and so the supreme court actually found that barring the professor because of the ideology because of the Marxism was constitutional because of these special powers of the president now in the extreme what some defenders of presidential power have argued is that the reason why Mandel came out the way it did by the professor could be barred is because the president has absolute or plenary power in matters of immigration now what that would mean what would be coming back to our case is that the president can exclude people based on whatever he or she wants so if the president wants to exclude people because of their race that's fine because of their national origin that's fine or because of religion that's fine now what the courts have clarified is even though Mandel came down the way it did because it was about ideology that's different from religion or race and discriminating based on somebody's ideology might be reasonable but what's not reasonable is basically hating somebody for their religion or their ethnicity a more precise way to put it is that you can't be prejudice in your executive orders or in your immigration decisions even though you might discriminate based on ideology and I think I've read of a climate change proponent a professor who was saying the climate change is real I think I read recently that he was supposed to speak somewhere in Texas and the immigration department kind of said get out of the country well under Mandel it looks like that's constitutional but maybe it's time to rethink Mandel too you know I think if we really are proponents of the idea that we should be able to hear all viewpoints that maybe that should mean that first amendment protections extend to matters of immigration too now I don't want to claim the courts have said that they have not they've said the opposite and I do think it for the purpose of argument it's important to see the common sense that says you know what ideology that's one kind of hard case but an easy case is don't engage in prejudice when you're picking who comes in who comes out because that demeans us as a American people and it also what I'm trying to say in this kind of complicated short piece on the take care blog is that the government always has to act rationally even when we're deferring to presidents and matters that they have lots of control in like immigration and what prejudice is is an irrational action and government action that's irrational never has a place in our constitutional order that's not just something that I'm saying it's I think part of the well not I think it is part of the holding in the kumi that animus fails even the lowest level of review and in a case about gay rights which we've mentioned called roemer the court says the same thing that hatred or animus or prejudice is never a rational basis or legitimate basis for government action under our constitution great kory bretchnider professor kory bretchnider is a constitutional law professor his book is when the state speaks and tell me about this website that you write on it's pretty great it's written for the layman I recommend it to all your readers who are interested in reading about the legal issues concerning trump it's called take care blog it's just a great collection of constitutional lawyers almost entirely writing about the constitutional violations of donald trump and his administration it's take care blog dot com and the articles are short which for me is great yeah and I should say too it's uh the publisher and owner is uh joshua matt who was our attorney in the travel ban case and drafted that brief maybe i'll write for good i truly love it actually no no i'm just saying no no no no no this was fantastic thank you thank you pleasure stay on the line for one second


So, now I will continue with inelastic neutrons scattering for stochastic dynamics with neutrons. Now here by stochastic dynamics what I mean here this is a ball bouncing from the ground is a periodic motion whereas you can see this if we consider this let us consider hydrogen atom it is diffusing let us say H2O in water this motion is stochastic we know that Brownian motion and that the difference between the two is that this is periodic motion this is a stochastic motion now for this I need to give you an idea about the energy scales let us do an energy hierarchy high to low we know let us say a hydrogen atom its ionization energy is 13.6 electron volt the first excitation energy is around 3.4 electron volt we were talking about vibrational modes let us say vibrational modes of hydrogen they will be around say 200 to 300 milli electron volts that means 0.2 to 0.3 electron volts these will have a strong overlap with the phonons the phonons phonons will have typical energies let us say 10 milli electron volts to 100 200 100 should be the parliament possibly 100 milli electron volt where most of the instruments in the world they will go up at best of 100 milli electron volts so this is there is some overlap but still lower energy then I will go up to about the diffusion this is stochastic motion which I am going to discuss in this part here we may be talking about energy transfer of 10 microelectron volt to let us say 1000 microelectron volts so this is the range of energy transfers that we need to go ahead with if you want to if you want to talk about or the understand diffusion in solids so with this let me go ahead and introduce you to diffusion in solids so first what so far what you have discussed is this please see I have talked about diffraction where you had a neutron hitting a monochromatic coming to a sample and then we had a detector and this was actually we talked about sq and we here we were just bothered about in which angle the neutrons have gone and basically this was no energy analysis was done in case of phonons we had a monochromatic with the sample but we did energy analysis so here it was sq here it was sq omega but in both these cases they were coherent because in case of diffraction if you remember we talked about bi bj prime e to the power iq dot ri minus rj prime when we talked about the cut out intensity and in this case also we were talking about coherent motion of atoms and molecules in a crystalline soil so both these were coherent and we used b coherent to as to understand these structure or dynamics so we are we will use samples with large values of b coherent except for the fact that for density of state measurements I can use a sample with a large b square value because there was an incoherent approximation to coherent one-front structure but now when we go ahead and do stochastic motions then we will be talking about incoherent coherent cross-section because I will show you we will be talking about talking about self correlation of an atom with itself in time so now when we talked about vibrational energies as I showed you 200 to 300 millilektron volts then you there will be a so it will be a peak which you can see in Raman scattering or even in neutron scattering at an omega value corresponding to the energy of that particular vibrational mode periodic motion and then for harmonic oscillator this is the ideal and this is resolution product in case of stochastic motion it is the Doppler shift the way which I explained that the neutron comes and an atom is undergoing a random motion in a liquid or in a solid liquid a solid then this random motion this neutron hits it and goes back and this may be moving towards the neutron or away from the neutron or in some other direction and this Doppler shifts Doppler shifts shifts the energy Doppler shifts the neutron energy and neutron energy gets a broadening why so now the data will look somewhat like this so if I consider omega equal to 0 as a no energy transfer now this will get broadened the inelastic will come somewhere far away from the omega equal to 0 line so that's why it is called quasi elastic elastic neutron scattering or called q e n is here what I am looking at is the broadening of the elastic peak due to motion of the molecules the Doppler shift the atom and this will gives me information about the diffusion in the medium by medium I mean it can be a liquid or it can be a solid now let's first look at the double differential scattering cross section d2 sigma d omega d e that means neutrons per solid angle unit solid angle per unit energy interval there are two this is of course kf by k i is for normalizing the flux number of neutrons coming in by number of neutrons going out so this is the number of neutrons going out proportional to the velocity of at energy e f and there's a number of neutrons coming in with an energy e i the velocity given by the proportional to k i we have two parts one is coherent part another one is incoherent part this part gives me pair correlation correlations whether structure or dynamics it talks about two particles a particle at one point and the particle at another point if it is structure or a particle at time 0 at origin another particle at position or at time t so yes incoherent is the time and space account now when we talk about incoherent part then it is only the self correlation that means the particle at origin 0 at time t equal to 0 what is the probability it is at a position or at time to the same particle and here there are different particles when you talk about coherent that's why in phone or in structural work in structural work at temperature t equal to 0 the position of one particle in a crystallizing that is tells me the position of all other particles in case of phonons the position and velocity of a particle at one position tells me the position and velocity of all other particles they are related to phonons so this is the coherent part this is the incoherent part and S incoherent and S coherent they depend only on the sample and it's coherent and incoherent cross section as I discussed earlier that incoherent one is b square average minus b average square and coherent part is average value of b and similar average of b so this is the average part which comes here and the incoherent part comes here and in because of hydrogen sigma incoherent 80 burns nearly 80 burns it is much much greater than sigma so when we talk about self correlation functions and try to do an experiment unlike all other experiments which we discussed so far which were actually pure correlation function based hydrogen is desirable particle desirable atom because this has got a very large cross section between this now I discussed this earlier when I introduced the scattering law if you remember that in the intermediate scattering function I had an ensemble average not ensemble average is a statistical average between the initial state of energy lambda what I calculated was actually j particle at origin and j prime particle at time t so this is the correlation function in intermediate space because here these are constants q is the variable so this is iq t now Fourier transform over time takes me to scattering law this is what I measure in a neutron scattering experiment and the other way around if I take a Fourier transform over over momentum I go to g of RT which is a real space g of RT so if I go from here over time integral I go test q omega which we measure if I go Fourier transform over q as I wrote here I go to the correlation function in the real space and time now g of RT if I consider the same particle classically it means delta of r minus r0 plus r at time t for the same particle average over all the atoms and molecules in the system so this is basically this gives tells me that given a particle at origin at time t equal to 0 what is its probability being at arm at time t this is g of RT which we will get if we can get it from sq omega and now so this is what I mentioned it specifically that sq omega Fourier transform over time it is the double Fourier transform over time gives me space and time gives me sq omega and sq omega is single so this one Fourier transform over space g RT into the iq dot r d3 r this gives me iq t and one more Fourier transform takes me to sq omega just to remind you so if I have s of q omega or if I know by some model what is the g of RT I can estimate what will be the analytical form of s of q omega and this gives me s of q omega or s of q omega I can model into g of RT and get informations about the system specifically on the diffusion constant so for Fickian diffusion this solution is known gs means self correlation function that means this is easy to explain suppose a particle is at origin at time t equal to 0 there is a delta function delta 0 now as time goes the particle diffuses and there is a Gaussian distribution of it the particle with time and then the width of the Gaussian function is 4 dt that means as time increases this becomes broader and broader and ultimately t equal to infinity this width becomes uniform so this is the relationship that we went from Fickian diffusion now let me come to the Fourier transform because I need iqt and s of q omega please note that this expression e to the power minus r square 4 dt g of RT I can do a Fourier transform over space e to the power minus r square by 4 dt e to the power iq dot r d 3 i is r square dr d theta d phi r goes from 0 to infinity theta goes from 0 to pi and 0 to 2 pi over pi I leave this integration to you but at the end of it because you can write iq r iq dot r equal to iq r cos theta and then do it sin theta d theta 0 to pi I leave it to you to show that it is sin qr if I remember by q this will give and then you have to do a integration over r r square dr and ultimately the intermediate intermediate scattering law scattering function will be e to the power minus d q square t now the d q square t you need one more Fourier transform and you get s in coherent q omega this is a Lorentzian so the scattering law for the self correlation function starting from here shows a Lorentzian and whose full width at half maxima is dictated by d q square now if I can do this experiment that means measure s in coherent q omega at various q wells then you can see that the width of the Lorentzian will vary with d q square and from there I can try to get information on the diffusion constant very interesting and this Lorentzian its width is actually typically tens of microelectron volts to hundreds of microelectron volts so this is a very low energy transfer experiment in which if we measure the Lorentzian actually Lorentzian plus it is convoluted with a Gaussian resolution function will be a pseudo void function which we have to from which we have to find out the value of d q square and then that d q square further plotting at various values of q will give me the diffusion constant in the system if the temperature of the experiment is t then at the temperature t what is the value of the diffusion constant so now there are two issues one is that my s in coherent of course it has got a Lorentzian as I wrote here because of the time correlation or diffusion but there is another part where if I have a correlation if it is going to zero that is one kind of correlation but suppose an atom a hydrogen atom is inside a box of finite size then if I consider at time t equal to infinity this particle due to its stochastic motion will get uniformly distributed inside this box and so now this i q at infinity if I consider it does not go to zero but goes to a finite value now this finite value is because the particle is in a box or in a cage if I say I don't know the dimension of the cage but studying this we can see that since it is distributed inside the cage the correlation function doesn't go to zero and then I can write it as i incoherent q omega q infinity because at time t equal to infinity it gets distributed and there is a factor called elastic incoherent structure factor we know from our dealing so far whatever we discuss that that elastic factor is always coherent structure factor is always due to coherent but here a single particle but as it goes to t equal to infinity get distributed inside a box then this is like a form factor of an atom which we will be seeing in terms of an intensity a delta function is a delta delta function omega equal to zero as a function of q which is known as elastic incoherent structure factor this plus we have a Lorentzian with half width at half maxima I wrote d q square but if the temporal relationship is e to the power minus t by tau plus a constant so one is that the probability of of the same particle as t goes to infinity is a uniform value depending on the case size and there is a e to the power minus t by tau part now e to the power t by tau earlier I wrote e to the power minus d q square t the incoherent so t by tau d q square and t by tau the time scale of motion they are related and then I have an aq term which is eisf elastic incoherent structure factor because this is incoherent scattering safe correlation but the particle if it is in a cage then it has got a structure factor centered at zero energy transfer and a Lorentzian with a pre factor of course there are as I wrote here there is a this is there are what should I say this instrumental resolution factor which will be coming so this is the resolution factor this is the Lorentzian and this is the elastic incoherent structure factor and the Fourier transfer of this one will give me a Lorentzian whose width will give me 1 by tau or d q square both are correlated and also one elastic factor the elastic factor should have been ideally speaking a delta function but now because of resolution it is broadened and this experiment has a particular q value it is done at a certain angle the certain momentum vector transfer and the intensity of this peak because we know when it did form factor it goes like this form factor falls as a function of q the intensity of this delta function peak will depend on the q value and from there that means if I know this fall then I can talk about the cage in which the particle is moving and its dimensions so interestingly I can find out the diffusion constant from the width of the Lorentzian from the width of the Lorentzian but also from the intensity of the elastic peak which is elastic incoherent structure factor as I told you that there is an i incoherent q as t goes to infinity its Fourier transform gives me a delta omega part so it is energy equal to 0 and the q dependent elastic constant elastic part which gives me the geometry of the cage I will come back to it once again if I consider that the particle goes out to infinity for example a water molecule in a glass of water I can consider the glass of the dimension of the glass in our length scales infinity so the water molecule can go anywhere and then my probability of finding the particle with time t goes to 0 because it has gone to infinity and then in that case we will not have a delta function peak we will have so this part will not be there what we will have one second yes so when I have the probability going to 0 exponentially up to infinity if it goes in that case this part won't be there what we will get is only the Lorentzian only the Lorentzian of width 1 by tau or dq square and measurement at various angles at various q values will give me the width of the peak and from there we can find out the diffusion constant for the system so now that means my instrument resolution broadened S incoherent q omega has got an elastic part has got a Lorentzian part and broadened by the resolution so that means it is a convolution and we know that convolution if I write it as hx hx is given by resolution x minus x prime into data at x prime dx prime so every point of the actual true width is broadened by the resolution function and this will look like this and from this we have to deconvolve the resolution and then get the width from width you get the dq square so this is the elastic part and this is the quasi elastic part if it is a finite geometrical confinement for the particle then we will have an elastic part as I showed you elastic incoherent structure factor so please look at that term it is elastic incoherent structure factor this is because the same particle as we go to t infinity get distributed if it is a box then it's at a finite volume or if it is an unbound movement then it can go to infinity and when it is a bound movement then we get a elastic term now I will explain to you with respect to the instrument that we can use at Dhruva how the quasi elastic scattering is done so here this is quasi elastic neutral discriminated marks mode at Dhruva so first we have a double crystal monochromator this is very interesting because you have two monochromators and one is a focusing monochromator vertical event and then the advantage of this is that I can so this is one monochrome first let me just drop plain monochrome straight away so this gives me a lambda and this gives me lambda after reflection same monochromator in this geometry if I change this angle if I change this angle if I change this angle then this will go somewhere else so what we do actually when you change this angle this this monochromator can move back and forth so then I can change this angle I can go there and I can also move this one so by keeping I mean the angle is changing but but if I change this angle then this angle also changes and I can move this to catch this beam and this is rotated both of them are rotated and translated to keep the outgoing beam direction same for two wavelengths I hope I have been able to answer you make you understand that if you see the neutron from the reactor falls on the first monochromator it gets reflected from it goes to the second monochromator goes out along this line now if I rotate the first monochromator and the second monochromator and move them then I can keep this outgoing direction fixed but I can change the wavelength of the neutron going on after that the sample is put so here the monochromator you cannot see you can see the sample position and the analyzer now here the analyzer is an extended crystal and you can see from here that is the angle on the analyzers are different and because they are different the neutrons of different energies will be reflected by this part and this part of the analyzer so that means the detector which is a one-dimensional detector here this detector captures neutrons of different energy at two different ends and ultimately I get the distribution of energy reflected from the sample in one scan of the detector or maybe I can extend the scan by rotating the detector around the sum around the analyzer so that's why you can see the analyzer arm is there and this is the one-dimensional detector arm which is there and the detector can rotate around the analyzer to change the energy range so this in one setting we get a certain energy range and for this setting the average Q value is given so I can have of energy resolution of 200 microelectron volts and the typical Q range is 0.6 to 1.8 angstrom inverse and time scales are 0.1 nanosecond to 10 to the power minus 12 or picosecond so this is then energy resolution is around 200 microelectron volts and I can study diffusion or stochastic motions using this spectrometer let me tell once again the neutron comes on this monochromator and this is reflected by two monochromators and I can by rotating and shifting the monochromator on a rail I can keep the keep the direction of the outgoing beam fixed also the second monochromator is not flat but it is vertically focused vertically focused means the beams is being focused onto the horizontal plane so that doesn't make my angle resolution poorer but it gives me some gain in intensity so it is vertically focused and it is in the Bragg reflection geometry in parallel with the first monochromator and there as I told you this is they remain parallel now if I change the angle then I have to change the angle here and I also have to move it and that outgoing direction remains same in this setup this is a double crystal monochromator this is a drover I will discuss some of the results in the next lecture because now I will discuss movement of various organometallic molecules inside a zeolite cage it is of deep technological interest that how these particles they move in such cage materials and I will come to these results later and I will also show you in the same go this is the iris spectrometer at at RA rather for Dappelton laboratory Isis source this is palatial neutron source so I just show you the main part of the instrument of course there is a triester for the sample the neutron comes here here is the sample and the analyzers are there are two sets of analyzers one is a graphite analyzer bank other one is silica analyzer bank and then then the detector bank basically the analyzer banks are mica and graphite so they give two different energy ranges here and interesting the detector is at the lower radius so here if you consider vertically if this is the this is the analyzer the sample reflects and goes to the so this is the analyzer and this is the detector so it is vertically then neutron first goes to the analyzer and reflected back to the detector so this is almost back scattering geometry and in the back scattering geometry we know that the black peak gets the best resolution because in the angle it is called theta delta so when you go to large angle that means theta equal to 180 degree if I go then this gives me the best resolution in terms of energy or delta D by D or energy in this case delta D by D ultimately will translate into energy of the outgoing beam so there in our max mode detector we had one position sensitive detector around a graphite analyzer here you have detector banks a large number of detectors most probably more than 50 and this is the details of it is available at this site and I will discuss results from both of these and in this case in this instrument they also have kept a diffraction detector at the back scattering geometry so this can also give you long B information about the sample structural information whereas at the same time you can do the study of inelastic or quasi-elastic neutron scattering using this detector so I showed you two detectors I showed you two instruments and I will discuss results in the next lecture


You know what? That's my opportunity.


Hey there Psych2Goers and welcome back to another Psych2Go video! Before we start, we'd like to make a disclaimer not to use this video to self-diagnose or diagnose others. This video is for educational purposes only. If you suspect yourself or someone to be suffering from bipolar disorder, please seek professional help. With that being said, let's begin. In recent years, mental health has become something of a trend. While the older generations have never heard of social anxiety or PTSD, teenagers throw these terms around with little thought. As a result, there's still some type of stigma attached to the field of mental health. We've come a long way in medicine and are now more aware of our own mental well-being. However, most disorders are often overlooked and even downplayed. Bipolar disorders happen to be one of those disorders. You may have heard of bipolar disorder and have a vague idea of its symptoms due to the rather lackluster representation of it in various TV shows. Due to the poor representation in the media and elsewhere, bipolar disorder is somewhat misunderstood by the general public. As a result, not much is known about it. So what exactly is bipolar disorder? Also called manic depression, bipolar disorder is a condition that causes extreme lows and highs in terms of mood. These mood swings are referred to as depression and mania respectively. Periods of mania include feelings of excessive euphoria, restlessness and irritability, racing speech and thoughts, high amounts of energy, lack of concentration, increased sexual drive, aggressive or risky behavior, excessive spending, drug and or alcohol abuse. With bipolar disorder, periods of depression often last for an average of six months, although they may last longer. Periods of mania, however, tend to last for relatively shorter amounts of time, from two weeks to as long as five months. People with bipolar disorder may also experience delusions, such as hearing voices in their heads. The cause of bipolar disorder varies greatly from genetic to environmental. For almost half of patients dealing with bipolar disorder, the disease runs in the family. However, no single gene has been found responsible for being the cause. Chemical imbalance is also suggested as a cause, but many believe that stressful situations are the main trigger of bipolar disorder. The situations may include physical, sexual or emotional abuse, the death of a loved one, or the breakdown of a relationship. Medications such as antidepressants can also trigger mania. One in five patients suffering from bipolar disorder commits suicide, which is why it's so important to raise awareness, especially for the teenage population. Many may be living with bipolar disorder and not even know it. As a result, people resort to self-harm or drug abuse as an outlet for their pain. It's been suggested that some adolescents with manic depression may actually be experiencing the early onset of bipolar disorder, and 20% of individuals with major depression have gone on to develop bipolar disorder. Are you diagnosed with bipolar, or do you know anyone who's suffering from the disorder? We here at Psych2Go would like to know your thoughts and experiences. Feel free to leave a comment below. If you or someone you know is dealing with bipolar disorder, or they're showing symptoms, please seek professional help. Remember it's never too late to seek help. Did you find this video helpful? If so, don't forget to share the video with someone who would benefit from it. Like and subscribe to Psych2Go for more mental health videos. Thanks for watching. We'll see you soon.