Conversation 094-003

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's pretty good, but I just...

Well, you know what he said.

You know what he said to you?

He said, you know, I'm a friend of mine.

I'm really supportive of you.

Have you ever wanted to get any, any, any variety of opinions?

I thought that there were ways that I could see, and there was, but I'm not going to get any truth from you.

I don't like to talk to you.

Well, I would like to be the listener in this case.

I may ask a question or two.

I've read some of the papers that are included in the treatment.

You know, this is the first year of law school.

I've learned a lot of context.

I'm very serious.

We've been bussing all along.

The airport, as you say, has been our best driver on this project, so I think it's going to be a good ceremony here.

I think you go through different parts of the track, and I think it's good to be with you.

As you know, we have been looking at four different interrelated things.

The constitutional amendments are more or less related.

that would make the measure, rearrange the measure.

No question of intervention.

I don't think in our discussion that we have a difference or a difference.

That's not good.

We've had a certain discussion before.

There are many particular issues that we've had with anybody.

There's a lot of shit on that side.

If we have anything to offer here, we must go on further in that area.

On the other hand, there has been a lot of work done on the moratorium staffing and the work on those things.

There has been a bunch of questions, so I would suggest that we come straight on those.

And since they are our care-related, it might be well to go through each one.

Thank you, George.

aspects of our statutory approach, and that was to direct the Department to explore quality of education opportunities.

You see it in this chart.

Programmatic component meetings are required to get into .

There's basically no issue that we think that there's any great difficulty in that component.

The box and the rolls that you see in the photograph of this chart do represent policy issues which would be believed to be jurisprudence.

But the problematic component, the purchase there is an approach

to the recasting of the pending Emergency School Assistance Act in order to concentrate about half of the money on a compensatory education for your students in these same districts that are either voluntarily or by force.

Of course, you recall that the act itself has now

the purpose of giving interpretive help to school assistants that are already segregated.

But we will do dear essentially this too.

To target about half of that money, I added two funds that communities are already receiving under Title I of the Operating Secretary Education Act.

They would have roughly 300 schools, that is schools with 50% or more insurance income from families with incomes below the poverty line.

This $300 of all of that would be enough, in the light of studies that have been made of the defense, to have a real impact in schools that get the quality courses and programs.

At the same time, to the desegregation process,

without alliance plans and orders, is there would be permission for a child who transfers from an inner city school to a school in the outskirts of the district.

as a matter of voluntary transfer where his race is in the minority school to which he transfers to take the $300 living.

And he wanted to enable the school probably to continue to receive support for the education of his children.

We think that this can be done.

leaving Title I as an incentive to the administration, the emergency school, I guess, for the use of Title I money in poor schools in this way.

And we think that it would help in the overall thrust of the interrelated proposals that we're recommending.

to have this component underscored, and it does the objective of equality, responding to the concerns of many black people with the improvement of their schools, thus, in effect, reducing the pressures that derive from the feeling that their children have to be moved into white schools because white schools are the only ones that have education.

Moving on from that element, we come then to provisions that have to do with remedies for the denial of equal opportunity and provisions for the limitation of bus sales.

There are two versions of this statute, 41 and the covering memorandum deals with the issues that are identified under the where it says remedies 12.

Well, I'm just going to back up.

The remedies alludes to the point that

The statute would be restricted to the remedies that the courts have evolved for coming to discriminate.

Of course, bussing is in that sense a remedy, a tool for eliminating the vestiges of the dual school system.

The one statute

deals only with those remedies and with their limitations in case of bustings.

The other statue is different.

Starting with probably half

discrimination in terms of more or less declaratory of existing law in ways that don't reach the issue.

But the argument and figure of this is that it would express in the statute as a whole consideration that that's made exclusive, as it stated, of rights in desegregation areas.

It would add confusion to an already complex area.

The second line of the jury had prohibited courts from entering the de facto area.

What is proposed here in Professor Fork is that the statute of the court limit the tenancy of the courts increasing the value of casting what has herefore been regarded as de facto segregation as within

The Constitution is in some way or other related either to an act in an area outside his case, like housing, or a figure under the statute which, in effect, say that the court shall not be jury action.

There are types of acts.

or a failure to act, or problems with taxes not directly related to schools.

It was quite the intuitive case for it, isn't it?

It would reassure a lot of people that more narrowly consigned than they cared about getting to college.

The other is that it really deals with the question of whether or not there was discrimination at all.

rather than with the problem that brought us here, which is busing and foot busing.

Another question that's very surprising to me.

The third slide under this fourth bottom, prohibiting certain detractor factors in addition to detouring segregation, would say that schooling is not discriminating, but that they may not.

hereafter select school sites or build schools or adopt transfer policies or instructional materials that in any way fail to deal to the problem of education.

Here the issue really is whether to get into this area.

It would have, in a sense, an affirmative

On the other hand, it would represent an effort by the federal schools to deal with this in an area which we haven't yet tried to enter.

Now, turning back to the other half of the page, we deal from there on with remedies.

And the first issue is whether to

including the fact that there is a flat propagation against the bus and the elementary pupils, or to three elementary and secondary pupils alike, by default a court can't meet the issue of a bus agent must clear the sense of hurdles, including the very close scrutiny and other ways of dealing with the problem, or both, I take it.

And then there's the suggestion that was at the top of the page that there would be an automatic time limit on the effect of an order to say that after a given period, intuition should be regarded as de facto.

You wouldn't be open at that point.

Would you like to add to something that is a little closer to that issue?

The way that the moratorium is legislated at all, there's some, I believe, under Chicago, I want to expand a little bit on the possibility that we meet at all.

And as soon as we might create some moratorium, on the other hand, I think that we can enhance the possibilities of the moratorium with some legislation in terms of constitutional and actual problems.

That piece of legislation deals in an overall way with

We talked earlier with you about the possibility of saying that, say, 2% of your budget spent on busing, or you can't have more than 20% of the amount of busing ordered or something of that kind.

We have been unable to develop rationales towards any particular figure.

say something that's just purely arbitrary and we don't have you don't see that uh in the list anymore

That's what is predicated on the moisture.

In that day, that is established that the younger the child, the greater the harm done by the poor person.

Well, he's not critical of the point, and it ain't very all right, but it's an understatement, obviously, in this person.

When I went through, it's a pretty summary over these days, these gentlemen who have had more directly to do with the grabbing of the .

All right.

Now, there is a constitutional problem.

I'm trying to draw the lawyers very far out.

Apparently, we've got a resolution.

We've got a resolution.

Yeah.

I don't know if you can come back in, but if you're going to come back, you just have to go back in and try to, you know, you've got to write this, you know, the principal architect of the auditorium, but the place that this was built.

All right.

We propose a moratorium to last July 1st, 1973, or until Congress has adopted such legislation as you have a result.

Review the moratorium as a device to buy time with Congress to review problems that are studied and to help them be satisfied with the long-range solution of it.

We have proposed to you two alternatives representing, as we've perceived,

The limits of choice.

One is a strict moratorium.

It's the basic drafts of the materials given to you.

It would provide that no water is to go into effect during the moratorium period.

If it would, then any child, not now the bus, would be bussed.

Or if it means any child needs to be bussed to school.

Of course, if it was your child who's going on from 6th grade to 7th, automatically it would be bussed to 11th

In essence, there's no new level during war time period.

Would they have no increased amount upon this new level?

to a bus or that would increase the average time distance that children would be bused in that district.

Clearly there are a variety of alternatives in between those two extremes that you might choose.

I think it is a consensus of all of us in Oregon, a moratorium problem, that a moratorium statute

I suppose our consensus is that the moral of the law has to be constitutional, so that the policy has to be made to what extent you want to minimize constitutional while at the same time minimizing the effectiveness of the moratorium legislation.

I would say,

Really, I think, on this day, viewed by the court as part of a serious, good-for-you effort to solve a problem.

But it sounds as if the bill is going to stop, I think, for a year, because we're in the track today.

But it's important to see it.

as a real attempt to find a long-range solution to defend beautiful institutions.

That's very important.

It should not be dependent on the wing of 400 different judges.

Then it's much more likely to be acceptable.

And to that extent, I think we're having a credible and substantive legislation

available and visible is important in the judgment.

Because there are many people, I suppose, whose first reaction would be that there is nothing constitutionally that Congress can do about this.

Therefore, it is a vague task for years to come while Congress plays it.

If you have a draft of a substance that all the people are going to say, well, yes, that looks like it ought to be constitutional, then they will understand the reason why Congress hasn't had time to consider whether it wants to adopt it.

And I suppose, I suppose, in terms of

They're trying to stop the Congress and the country and to the reasonable people on both sides.

A moratorium by itself seems like, oh, we just put it off, pass it as much.

And whereas the, and also it appears to basically, you know, retrogress the consensual, if you've done certain constitutional rights for a year, you're not going to handle those rights.

Then that would be cut.

But we're thinking about this problem.

So here's, here's a moratorium and here's an approach to a legislative side.

And there is one subsidiary point that bears on this choice, and that is not only the question of what this recording has stated, but how the district courts and administrators are going to get the public to approve it.

And I don't know what the federal judge is planning to do.

Well, I think it is our name on the defense, that's the thing.

The aisle that is very directed toward an evil puppy is more likely to be respected than one that may be out in the car and stop everything in its tracks.

You just don't know what it is, but we can solve it.

Senator, let's look at it another way.

Do you, we have, we know that we'll probably have some challenges and so on, but we are trying to get money to proceed.

We're not trying to, in some ways, take what is obviously all the tolls of public reaction, et cetera, et cetera.

Overwhelmingly.

and simply demagoguing around.

Now, if you wanted to do that, you'd have a simple justice or any other constitutional amendment that would indicate, no, there is no chance to pass because of the fact that the Senate is fully protected on the legislation that didn't go as far as the Constitution.

And so, well, that's the position.

We cannot appeal here to the extremists that we try.

The extremists against us are probably 75% of the country, so it means nothing to enjoy.

But that doesn't make them right.

But the extremists on the other side are those that don't want anything done.

And they're living in a dream world, too, because something is going to be done.

And it will be done the wrong way.

The wrong way.

all of them personally against us.

You ask the public, they can't do it.

They've got to be for it, because that's the establishment line, the integration of the establishment line and so forth.

But on the other hand, I said, we've got this proposition, something's got to be done.

So you sit here and say, well, we'll just wait until the court's done, and then have this nation come down hard, in the wrong way, extreme way, to divide the country.

What we're saying here is we are offering what we're probably going to do.

We're not going to have a solution.

We're not going to have a solution here.

And certainly, we'll give you no advice.

One, and that's the Blacks, the Black leadership, I should say.

The Black leadership, and of course, the number of people who support that proposition.

The other side of the coin, we're not going to satisfy.

and probably a solid majority of the American people, wherever they are in class, plus and who is that leader against them, they won't be able to do this bad.

Why don't you have a simple proposal with Trump?

Do you understand what I'm saying?

So, we recognize that the Trumps are, that's why we need the lawyers to do this in the office.

They're still alive, they love this.

But what you're really trying to do, to be honest, is we are trying to find solutions.

And the solution is that we'll be

while they can never support it publicly.

And those, particularly those among the responsible black leaders, can say, you've got to give me what I'm asking.

But at least they're not trying to do something in terms of a black act that is rapidly progressing that completely denies the validity of Brown v. Board of Education, or all the progress that's been made.

I have no doubt that politically he's a loser on that side, and politically he's got a winner on the other side.

I think you need to know if I'm picking this up.

I think we're just looking at this.

So I think I'm sure that he's trying to find the right answer.

And I don't feel it's a crime.

Of course I have to approach it.

It's often slain.

It's often rejected.

I feel much more strongly with some people about this issue than those that I'm not as concerned with quality of education.

and certainly education is the result of

So that's why I think you're complicating .

You believe it could have been another reason.

Or if you go to the moratorium, you believe you could have a statute.

Or you think you did not.

You know, you say you may not need it for constitutional reasons, but you think that for other reasons it might be useful.

So now I have a question.

I think your constitutional case is faint.

If I had a full statute, it may be clear, of course.

The fear is merely one long-range solution.

You say you welcome the initiative of the Congress and the thinking of others, but this is not necessarily the end result.

The fear is one possible end result of good work.

The President might refer to my role as a statistician.

I would say, listening to the people talk about it, all of these people think that a good case can be made for the constitutionality of the foreign currency.

I would place them.

Some thinking that the chances are like four out of ten, and others that it might be like ten.

Mr. Wright has a way of how he would approach the question of constitutionality.

The way that that subject is approached,

the kind of message that you would send on the statute.

I don't think it would be worthwhile.

I'd love Mr. Wright to give his sort of supporting arguments and then have Mr.

Chambers go ahead and do his.

Mr. President, there was a change yesterday.

I noted that he was the trial lawyer.

This approach is factual.

I am the trial lawyer.

My approach is, of course, legal and political.

I think there are three arguments in supporting the constitutionality.

One is that, in a substantive way, under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, Congress has decided to enforce the right of equal protection.

that bustling is not a permissible remedy on a long-term basis, then A4CRI could do it for a short moratorium period.

Indeed, the argument that, though you're addressing the remedy really, it has such an effect that it takes away the substantive right is a much less strong objection to something that is done for a limited period only.

The second argument is part of the moratorium.

The day that we were informed that

All of the beliefs included about whether busing is good or bad, that sort of thing, is not really an issue at the moratorium stage.

At the moratorium stage, all you were saying is that we ought to have one set of rules that apply in every district in the United States, and only Congress can provide those.

And the final argument is that the power of Congress to do this is in which the power of the court did a temporary injunction.

If you can come to a court that says, okay, I'm going to preserve the status quo, we should have an order.

Well, I find out that I have jurisdiction in this, whether there's anything I can do in this case.

It's humongous.

The exercise of the legislative power of Article 1 ought to have the same powers as the court should say let's hold things to status quo while we exercise our response to the ordinance.

Mr. President, I said it, and I don't believe it, but we believe in the rule of law, and that is there.

And that is there, and I don't oppose it.

I don't oppose it.

We think that the Congress does have the power and the president has the prerogative to ask the Congress

without any busting, or with a reasonable busting.

And that's what I think doesn't look good.

It doesn't have to do.

We think that while the State Department is taking cases in and even out, for any temporary or current, we would avoid any suggestion that Congress has the power to stay in force under the 14th Amendment, under the ordinary second amendment.

I think it takes some showing of unusual circumstances to justify it or not.

When I was named such a pretty name, that's what I mean when I refer to the movie, and she reads it.

And I think that starts when she... First, the reason is supposed to be all about attention.

The legislation is for both.

Yes, the moratorium would be necessary to accomplish the long-awaited purpose.

On top of that, you have to show that the moratorium has a purpose.

But we don't know why the moratorium was that's going on.

And some of the estimates show

that the Professor was in court, like me, some few years ago, and so the community has gone beyond the requirements of the institution.

Again, the question today is the murderer, right?

That's a big question.

So you have a strong, a strong, strong, it's the one of our first leaders that I think is fantastic.

of the variation of court decisions.

The variation of court decisions.

A lot of things that have been decided, I thought a year ago, that people can't see a marker.

I think that there is a chance that we've very, very much improved all the things that are going on now.

So we think there is a reason we can't, but we emphasize the need to come to the court with the facts organized.

I like what the Secretary of State recently said yesterday.

He referred to a grand tax tax rate.

Go ahead, Mark.

I don't know how much the evidence is, but at least you can show that it's fairly confused.

And there's terrible confusion in the moratorium in the city at least.

And with that thought in mind, I come to the question of what, how do we handle that here?

Our point is that we shouldn't tie the current legislation so closely to the moratorium legislation that we have found is a damn thing of us, that the government is sent to.

Let's take a break now.

Can we take a break?

Uh,

I think the moratorium is required because of its infusion.

I think on the moratorium, all you have is just trouble coming.

You said it would be by the eruptive, but I would say in the courtroom.

During the argument in the moratorium, the first thing you have to tell the circuit is the green door.

The first thing you have to tell the circuit is the green door.

Looking at the Congress, nothing good could come out of a Congress on this issue in the election year.

This legislation presented to Congress is not going to be acted upon in a responsible way.

On the other hand,

I'm not making an argument to be put if we can't say that.

That's, uh, that would mean that the politicians don't think straight when I came here.

Mr. President, what do you think about the trade, Mr. President?

I saw some of your questions.

The first one, I would think, Mr. Starkey, is very effective.

He suggested that in the present atmosphere, Congress might go too far, and it's better to avoid it.

That's a reason.

The moratorium makes preempt what could be a very radical action by the Congress that would be wrong.

That doesn't quite make sense.

I just think that's all that's going to do.

It's very sensitive.

I mean, that is a very good question.

You don't want to point it to the Congress, and they're likely to get into a little bit of trouble.

I mean, go ahead, please.

Can you give all your answers?

The list that you see is very important here.

to be used with your statement to treat the Congress.

I think in some way it has to coordinate all the statements that are made to maintain the integrity of the program, the integrity of the program, the validity of the Constitution, and at the same time, start down-marketing all the facts that you would need to testify for Congress in 450.

Marsha, I'm going to scratch your head.

And this is important because the two things you've got to do between this day and that day is see what the available evidence was.

My impression is that in the emotional area, evidence is all our way.

But in the scientific area, it looks like evidence is all we have.

There were those who said it came along very well, but no one had this effect on the education and things of that sort.

Uh, well, the mother doesn't like that either, but it's really wrong, as they say.

So, so, uh, also it's a question of who's taking the fall.

Probably, probably.

But, uh, there is another, this is another, and if the Constitutional principle is assumed by the court, that he will take different findings by conference,

Because of all, having Congress making the findings and having a question to go to Supreme Court, are those findings supported by such things?

I would rather be in the court to make the findings up.

That's what we need to do.

Well, we have a little add-up.

You know, the rest of you will believe what we just said.

It's a general discussion.

Our business is not a hot topic.

I'm not trying to blame you.

I just want to make sure that it's accessible for you.

Mr. President, I would only make one comment, I think I made it last night, Mr. Steggall and Mr.

Chambers said, and that is I do not believe it would be difficult to develop the empirical data

to justify the attention of the Congress on this problem.

I don't think that would be a difficult problem.

Mr. President, I have no problem on that score.

I'm not talking about getting Congress's attention focused on the problem, but on the propriety of asking Congress to be studied.

That is clear to me.

I've been reading the papers in the last 24 hours.

I'm talking about the evidence to support the client's action.

That's what I was talking about.

It would be great if I could have an entry presentation to a court.

I do not believe it would be difficult for Kennedy

the empirical data needed to justify the opportunity for the Congress to deal with the property debt, including the president's substantive statute.

That I would agree with you on.

But if you mean by empirical data and the data,

You know, the ages of children and the length of time bussing and what is the intent of bussing on education on that part is considerably harder.

I'm saying it is hard, but I think you can get it.

We could make a good showing anyway.

No, we are doing non-intervention.

Now the question of intervention is really unheard.

these other two issues, I think that I would understand particularly well how you would present the moratorium.

Your actions would be part of the record, so to speak, that would be going forward in support of the moratorium.

It would have to be seen in that light, and not simply as kind of a theme, but that had to do

Well, Mr. President, we've, uh, you know, discussed four or three interventions.

The validation law sits for interventions in support of the legislative policy that we proposed even before it was enacted in the administration.

I think there are some, there are some questions of whether we should

There are those kinds of questions.

We can really look at it captive.

I think that there are two opens on the top of the head.

What do you think of it?

I mean, all of it.

Is there history?

Or maybe there's history of other human interaction.

I don't understand that.

If we have a proposal for more targets, then you intervene, not taking a position on what the outcome of the change is going to be.

But just taking that position, that's still a different type of intervention to make the court decision on others.

But of course, it's an effective support decision until the moratorium period is finished.

I think, Mr. Phillips, I mean, you see pretty much questions about this.

You want to put it like a situation where in the act of the moratorium law, you go to court and say,

I expressed some concern about an intervention that would be done in the court.

The other point, Mr. President, is that since the Supreme Court in the Swan case, Chief Justice, left open this gray area to detect as to at what point

on health and education of children, we would be using essentially the same data in court case to support the proposition that the court should not order more than X bussing or should not require bussing at all, because it would have these damaging effects on children.

The impact of

those data might be somewhat different in a case originating in court and then going to the Supreme Court.

And then if these were data that has been taken into account by the Congress, and then in case, as Ms. Tate said earlier, to the Supreme Court with a presumption in effect of validity for the congressional judgment as a reasonable judgment in light of this information.

I'm not sure how that

It's just A-factor bearing on the overall gravity.

It doesn't fall, but I think it's irrelevant.

It disperses one aspect into the other.

technical, but they're the less very appropriate for you.

We have just taken a year and a half ago on this general study, and the one criticism that you hear around the country is that there's a great deal of footage between what you've been asking the administration policy and what the departments are doing out in the city, and some highly visible interventions.

in support of this last policy, I think would be tangible evidence for people that there is in fact a link between policy and practice in the fire department and the staff of the general development.

Would you have to, I don't know if you have to, I'm sorry, I think this is basically the reason for this.

What we recommend here is going to fall far short of what the majority of people in the Congress, the majority of people in the Congress, think about the situation here.

Now, therefore, it is going to be necessary for us to, when I say necessary, it's going to be necessary.

In fact, it is necessary for us to consider in our presentations and also consider it in the action to take some visible steps which

Thank you.

The purpose here is really just to talk to the issue, and then he would be advocating a constitutional amendment.

We're out and about all over the country about a constitutional amendment.

And people say, well, I don't know if you're with me.

I said, I don't know if you're with me.

This is right.

I mean, that's the political issue.

Not the right way, I believe, for some to say.

In fact, I think some would say, well, all right, this is very reasonable, but there's always a gray area.

If this is the right way, we might, we might, it's dramatic, right?

We have to do something, not just say something.

We have to do something to educate them.

But we...

We believe in our approach and that it's not simply a way of delaying our movement.

It's a delay.

It would be.

in those cases it happened in the lower course.

I think so far it's been excellent.

It's a complimentary tool here to an overall program to arrive at a comprehensive solution to a problem.

I think it's one to be looked at, you know, on its own merits.

And anything done in such an intervention case could tie in and to support, you know, the comprehensive nature of our approach.

The basis of the intervention could be easily stated.

And each one I think would be reviewed under some facts and coordinated with what else we're doing.

I think the intervention is a problem in black business when they eat kids' food.

It's just doing analysis of the tickets.

Well, it's not that they have the whole standard package of it.

Well, we don't need any of it.

I see the word from the letter.

There is a difference between what you know about the intervention, but I thought you were focusing on what actually would have been an accident.

That's right.

and what that can lead to in the way of getting involved in these issues is that there is an action statement that is to be served, but serving the country.

In other words, you would consider, um, of the, uh, what you made of us, we have a very specific plan.

Or not at all.

Or we said, very young, very young.

I'm not going to pull.

For those people who want you to act on their behalf, that we're going to go forward and we're going to stop us.

And that's the way we're going to act.

And that's the thing.

I've heard years of it.

That's what made it very powerful.

All of it specifically.

Thank you.

Mr. President, the intervention has to stop action by these legislative courts around the country.

Is that what Mark Farr is passing?

Is that what Congress is going to be working with the private fund to do?

I don't think they've got any particular case, Mr. President, to say this is what we're going to do.

Each one has to be looked at in comparison.

But the idea of part of this is we have to talk about this.

The impression I have is that the effect that John is talking about of making policy and practice somewhere near consistent could be achieved by an announcement of a certain pattern of intervention that would be consistent with your constitutional problems, and an announcement would have a certain advantage in that, namely that you're going to plan the intervention.

It's part of the moratorium, I think.

All right.

would carry out their administrative acts and all other acts to dismiss the moratorium.

What are the arguments for that?

I'm sorry, I didn't bother to ask.

I'm sorry, I didn't do it.

You had to be just as careful as you could.

But that knew it.

Mr. President, just in terms of the support generally for the moratorium, one of the arguments in favor of it is to get the legislature to provide uniformity.

So that means that...

Whether you try to recall it, we can intervene in all kinds of different problems in different ways so that we will come out of this thing with a uniform national policy.

That's a good guess.

I know that it makes sense.

I think I got the point.

Thank you.

I want to come to something else here.

The part I saw where the House feels pretty emotional too, is there something about it?

Yes, Mr. President.

For the first time, right now, there's a lot of parties in the Democratic control.

Because the majority of the Democrats, the only day before yesterday, there was a so-called hard-line position.

They were free and broke the bill.

83% of the Republicans who voted, 53% of the Democrats.

Now, I think it's a little out of our interest.

Yes, it was.

It's prepared already, and now it's a little out of our interest.

But I'm just asking.

I think it's very sad that some of those who voted for yesterday

I think, uh, limits the interpretation of that vote.

I suppose that's, that's certainly not for what they do with the amendment.

But it does, it does indicate, uh, that the President, as opposed to our, as opposed to the vote, of our report on each of the amendments, was voted on separately as such in the amendment, in the amendment legislation, that there has been a suspension.

I don't look for that basis.

That's what I specifically find in the Constitution.

Is it still a litmus test?

I think throughout the country it's still a litmus test, but there has been a diminution of attention to the constitutional amendment by reason of the fact that attention has been focused on the upcoming conference, particularly in the House and Senate, on the differing Boston amendments, the Scott-Maskey amendments.

So I think my father in the house.

And those countries, Mr. President, are going to have a very difficult time ever agreeing.

As we know, the instruction, I'll say before yesterday, is not a mandate to us countries.

Oh, and this is a warning to them.

If you don't include these amendments, we will reject your comments before you bring them back to us.

To these amendments, yes, countries, House countries.

Thank you.

Yes, absolutely not.

Somebody once said, your position on this matter says sin is present.

I'm going to start to say that it means something.

pieces of the suggestion.

I somehow got into that company.

Yes, Mr. President.

For example, the way in which the emergency school aid funds could be used.

The Title I fund problem, Elliott Field, you can handle that.

Of course, this structure on the right-hand side is something else.

to the members of the Congress, Senate, House, and Senate who are waiting on me to read the agreement, please indicate that I have not made this.

I would appreciate all of your standing to consider that.

Mr. President, I was remiss if I'm saying that I see the opportunity in that committee conference, if it gets hung up, as I expect it will, to incorporate some of the elements that they have considered into a possible agreement in that committee conference to be sure it would, first of all, go beyond their authority

But in order, a rule from the Rules Committee is always in order to make a conference report in order for consideration, even though the conference can agree on all of a solution which is beyond their technical capacity to determine.

So there are some opportunities here in this field.

Mr. President, one matter of reason I don't think we address in the moratorium is might be a poor hearing for me to the consulting lawyers is how quickly in their judgment a moratorium statute might be given to the Supreme Court to be ruled a death sentence.

How do you know if it's a safety patch?

One way to make it there is the court would have to consider a case that's already come through before you.

I don't think the court should find a way to get a case there.

The court would feel a responsibility to rule very soon on the validity of the moratoriums and people around the country aren't going to be bothered.

They know if you have the bussing orders or you do not because most of the drivers don't have the moratorium.

In my judgment, rather than this president will allow that answer, it has to be conditioned by what happens in this committee's conference on the first issues and how we can perhaps pull in the idea of moratorium in that conference.

I don't think we're far apart.

I'm hopeful that the court...

I would think that would be the general view of the country.

I think the Democrats as well as the public wouldn't want to have a final decision on that question before the

Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President, Mr. President,

Not that you're absent.

Thank you.

What are the next decisions?

Well, I think they go back to the specialty of the past, and maybe it's better not to go back to the century.

I don't remember it.

They had to do with the power of the Congress of Desire.

No, the Congress played a significant advantage over it.

They probably closed it, I suppose.

No, they did not.

I believe that.

I'm sorry.

That's why I voted for Friday.

He's a gentleman.

Yeah, exactly.

And I think it confirms what is the insidious, contrarian, desirable trend of course of the court law in particular.

It depends upon the court cases.

Perhaps this court would like to go back to the case that might have helped, which is first radio.

Those are our basic needs.

Thank you.

I am a very, very strong man in that direction.

I didn't think he was going to be a constitutional lawyer today.

President, I think one point I might make is that when you came in, each of the lawyers on that side were called

not as much as a week ago, and they all responded just immediately over the telephone.

We've come to work on this, and we've worked very hard on it.

We think that they've done extremely well, extremely well.

So, those on the ground, those on the ground with their willingness to

But we argue that there's a hope that we might still be here.

Yeah, we're trying.

I think we do a lot of stuff.

We do a lot of stuff.

We're working around the state.

My child's picked up, I don't know, an eight-year-old has picked up a bus for an hour and a half or something.

It's pretty critical to me.

But maybe that's just one example.

Maybe it's a good thing.

The bus is nice.

It's all good.

It's nice.

The bus is not built.

It's a good thing.

It's not like that.

Mr. President, we have not let it be on the outside.

We've been consulting council with the governor.

But in fairness, I take it you would prefer we did not.

I don't know what we would say unless you are welcome to say, obviously, that you were here.

It's no secret you were here.

But we do not want to hang you with whatever we decide.

What are you like?

I'm not sure.

It can't be any secret that they were here.

Because, for example, when these people meet with other leaders, everybody knows I had a colon, for example.

You know, a lot of people on both sides of the issues.

I think if you would have no objection, I would just say that the president's interested in getting the views and the variety of views of constitutional lawyers, but I don't know if that's what the nominees just used.

But we have, we really haven't been in the community for a while, except by Chris Holmes in some way, who helped us by getting to this point.

But we always get the consultants that make that decision, the presidential presidents, and they always find out, nonpartisan, so they don't have to have a presidential seal.

And this is to take those home.

I mean, wherever, you know, there's many worse cuts, you know, than how you do it yourself.

This is your proof that you can volunteer your services.

We're not paid, and yet we're appreciated.

I don't think we've had something like this in a very long time.

Also, if you would like, we have time.

I know many of you have asked for it.

I told them yesterday that a classmate of my wife's housekeeper under the Kennedy administration, we were invited for a tour here, and I turned it down.

My wife and daughter went on the grounds that I did not want to see the White House until it was recovered.

How do you know?

Well, I'm sorry, but this is my opinion.

I'm glad you're listening.

People are trying to prove that place.

I mean, the older government, that was investigated in 2003.

That's the other thing.

I wear out.

You're about an hour and three quarters.

I'll watch you, John.

Thank you.

That's right, that's right.

Well, I didn't try it.

If you do it right, you can get $200 in the eye.

Otherwise, it's not good.

It just has to be right there.

But they do.

They look in the eye.

My older daughter, who was here at the time, she watched carefully after I imposed that toast and I followed the Chinese habit of going around and toasting the floor.

I should notice those little drinks.

I'm sorry, I didn't have Chinese brandy, but he said that one was $120.

He told me he wanted a cup of saucer, but it actually will burn for five minutes.

So you're inspired about the fact that this little thing is going to carry you around to a scary moment.

This is the ceremony, and the ceremony is not to go around and just accommodate and so forth.

Far more important is the tip of the glass, touching it to your lips, and holding it with your eyes in this moment.

And it's the last part that's most important, and it's the last part that most non-Chinese people understand this, and they'll stick to it.

Speaking of Chinese, I used to love to work for the police.

We were there.

My wife bought a few of them, and they were so fun.

These that's out there are not expensive.

They're not the best, but they're what they make the best.

at least say that this is actually what these can be doing for your family.

They're both trolls.

So there's one for each of you here.

Please be quiet if you can't hear.

Thank you very much.

Yes, they do.

They promise.

I was just saying, I was surprised at what you were up to when you were looking at these guys.

Well, they gave us a puppy.

You know what I'm saying?

Oh, my gosh.

And he's all screwed right by his goose.

Ha, ha, ha.

This is just the right thing.