he says courts, not the supreme court. there's not a wording in the opinion that really is about the unique powers of the supreme court opposed to all the other judges in the system. note also he says as well as other departments. we today have tended to read marbury as if he's making unique claim about how only courts are only the supreme court in context i do think marbury is actually better read as saying courts along with other folks are bound by the constitution and just as, you know, a congress can't tell us how we have to rule, there are certain domains in which other branches of government might be able to make independent constitutional determinations like jacksonp vetoing the bank bill or jefferson pardoning the sedition act convicts. >> well, i do think he is saying very clearly that at all of the departments do have a responsibility to evaluate the constitutionality. but at the end of the day, the final word, it is 'em fattically the judicial department to say the law. that's the heart of marbury and that's wh

supreme court in that time? >> i'm not sure i understand the question. >> well, i mean certainly i think to the extent that the question is alludeding to the fact that you had not just the idea of the carpet baggers coming down there, but there were also efforts at the same time to project federal power to protect everyone, but particularly the recently freed slaves from being subjected to violence by others down in the south. i mean that is a part of this period of constitutional history. there's the crook shank case that hopefully we'll get to mention at least in passing that was involved in an application of one of those civil rights statutes to a situation also coming out of louisiana. so those cases also came to the supreme court at the same time. and if you want to put a slightly broader kind of historical context here, what the supreme court is wrestling with during this period is not just this particular case and what to do with the reconstruction amendment. i think they're also dealing with the reality

what goes on in the supreme tiow court. we'll see that by the end of this term.o say a that's a prediction i will makes >> all right, mike, do you wantn to say anything about those cases? in on the ulatinigh harris case that paul's doing.fw and look, just to make sure we understand what's going on. arizona was underpopulating theb districts with the fewest then citizens. in other words, b it was exacerbating the problem.unde their votes were already worth more, and by overpopulating them, they made them worth thati much more. which is a serious issue, but the truth is, and, again, it will be interesting to see how the conservatives on the court react to this, and i'll probably never be invited back to the rnc after i see it. the 10% thing, total populationt is, by definition, an incrediblf rough proxy for voting power. so the court, i thought, was pretty consistent saying, look,u if you get it in the 10%, that'a close enough. all of this is close enough for government work.d but then there was this summary affirmance from a

supreme court decisions. we take a look at the real story behind the famous marbury v madison case, delving into the heating battles between outgoing thomas jefferson, and newly appointed chief justice john marshall. >> he established that the interpreter of the constitution, in his famous decision. >> marbury v madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. >> joining the discussion, law school professor and discuss her, and an author. landmark cases, if going 12 -- exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings. landmark cases premieres live this monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern and c-spanc-span3, radio. for background on each case, order your copy of glenmark cases companion book, for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmark cases. all weekend long, american history tv is joining our comcast cable partners to showcase the history of santa rosa, california. to learn more about the city's on our 2015 to her, -- tour, visit c-span.org/citiestour. we continue with a look at santa rosa. sonoma coun

ultimately the supreme court. before we do that, it's time to take your calls. we're going to begin with a call from joe watching us in pittsburgh. joe, you're on the air. what's your question? >>> i'm interested in the two attorneys that defended dred scott. montgomery blare and roswell field, from st. louis. >> thanks. i'm going to ask our guests to spend a little time because when we get to the part of the story, we'll spend more. the montgomery blare being the more famous of the two. what can you tell us about him? >> i want to point out quickly. montgomery blare is a marylander, like roger taney, a former slave hold who are has a different view ultimately of how dred scott should turn out. when we get to the supreme court, it's a contest. marylander against marylander. >> next is from california. jim is watching us there. you're on the air. >> thank you for this series. several questions. thanks specifically to the two guests here. very, very interesting. i'm a former retired attorney, and last time, i think,

supreme court.e' >> you mentioned people's view of the court.view how much do you think people's t view of the court this term is going to be scene through the prism of the same-sex marriage case last term and the health care case? >> i certainly think those two h cases have dominated the debate since june when they were released, but i think going forward -- we just heard adam liptack on your program.ink i'm sowe pleased that c-span iso going to be having other programs on the court. i think we're going to learn a lot more about this court. it's not just two decisions or three decisions from last term, but this court, as adam explained, is granted a number of hot button cases. and i do think these cases and the decision the court renders will influence public opinion over the next year. >> if some of our viewers want to learn about some of our cases before the supreme court, our "landmark cases" supreme court series begins tonight at 9:00 on c-span. the kickoff to a 12-part prograo on c-span.alking

he's argued before the supreme court. randy barnett, thank you for being with us. >> great. >> paul kens actually wrote the book on locker in, his book, "economic regulations on trial," his home base is texas states university where he teaches political science. thanks. well, i'm telling people they should be interested in this. why don't you explain why, both of you. why is this case important? >> well, the case has become a symbol in -- a political symbol. it was made into a political symbol by teddy roosevelt when he ran for president in 1912. it was about how roosevelt claimed that the court had overreached and overstepped its bounds to block progressive legislation from being enacted at the state level. ever since then, it's been a political flashpoint. it was made a political flash its point in a presidential campaign. >> political flashpoint for which side? >> well, roosevelt claim e eed laissez faire economics. he was extolling holmes as the modicum of what just should be when -- he put him on the court when he wa

visit ncicap.org] sunday on "q&a," supreme court correspondent and author of the companion book of c-span upcoming series "landmark mauro. tony tony: one of the judges did not get his position, his office because of the suit, and the supreme court dealt with it, marbury versus madison, marbury was one of those judges, and the court said basically he probably deserves some remedy, but the remedy that congress has provided for this goes beyond the power of congress, the authority of congress, and so the supreme court was going to strike down that law. and this is something the court had never done before. you know, declaring an act of congress unconstitutional. at 8:00is sunday night eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." and on monday, c-span debuts its new series "landmark cases," historic supreme court decisions. on the series premiere, we take a look at the real story behind the famous marbury versus madison case, delving into the heated debate between outgoing president john adams, the new president thomas jefferson, and justice john marshall. john marshall established the courts as th

this court has jurisdiction to hear henry montgomery's claim because the louisiana supreme court relied exclusively on federal juris prudence. in miller this court held that mandatory life in prison was unconstitutional. it also held that life in prison would be an uncommon, rash sentence even today. >> isn't it just like a state saying, we have a fourth amendment, and the federal constitution has a fourth amendment. we are going to apply our own constitution, but in applying it, we will follow the federal precedent. i think we would say, in that case, the case has been decided on the state constitutional ground, even though the state court, in interpreting that ground, is looking to federal decisions. >> in this case, your honor, the louisiana supreme court did not state that it was exercising any independent grounds at all. under michigan v long -- >> i thought that the case is cited said that. the case -- i thought it cited an earlier louisiana supreme court case, which made it very clear that it was following the federal rule as a matter of discretion and not because -- not because

that's just recent supreme court law. if even one of them should be satisfiable by simply finding the generic conclusion rather than agreeing upon the particular species at issue, i would think it's a the latter rather than the former. >> justice scalia, i'm reminded of your separate opinion, i think it was in walton versus arizona, where you were choosing between two things that you didn't particularly like, and one of them was the fact that the court had made, recently or not, had made a finding of a -- beyond a reasonable doubt, a factual finding of a specified aggravating factor an element of the crime. and whether it's recent, whether the court should or shouldn't have done it, it has. and it is just like any other element of the crime. and on the shad point, i think the other point i would have said is, the florida supreme court, and i'll refer the court to the bevil case, the florida supreme court said the 16 aggravating factors that makes one eligible for death are vastly incommensurate in terms of relative levels

supreme court. however, the number of open seats varies from case to case. for important cases some visitors arrive the day before and wait throughout the night or pay people to hold their place in line. 72% of all adults across the political spectrum support video cameras in the courtroom. whether you're here in california, in the comfort of your own home, you can watch congress and the executive branch in action on c-span. this is an important part of making our nation's legislative and executive branch open and transparent to all americans. but one government institution remains closed to the public eye. the u.s. supreme court. supreme court decisions on major cases from brown versus board of education to bush and gore, has significantly shaped american society and changed history. in fact, our very lives. gideon versus wainwright. loving versus virginia. roe versus wade. mcdonald's versus the city of chicago which struck down the handgun ban. citizens united. shelby county versus holder which st

refusing to pay, he took his case all the way to the supreme court. i know why lochner is known as one of the most controversial decisions in supreme court history as we explored this case with our guests, randy barnett, professor at georgetown university law and, paul kent, political five professor at texas state university. "landmark cases" live monday at nine about user on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. >> "american history tv those quote is featuring c-span's original series, "first ladies: influence and image." series anduced this cooperation with the wte

if the case is going to be brought to the supreme court and seek certain that the supreme court's term for the fall and the spring will start filling quite quickly as we all know it only handles 70 cases, maybe 80 cases in a given term. that decision will have be made fair which soon. there's a window of opportunity where the fifth circuit has to come down, they have to make whether it's going to grant it, it may not do that. this is a case of tremendous import but that may be waived. if they miss the window for the term, let's alone being denied, they wouldn't be heard until the next term coming around starting all of next we're. that's a thing to think about for the timing of this. and for significant cases that don't get heard until later, decisions won't come up summertime. it goes newspaper the supreme court, something not only midway through next year from the supreme court. >> midway through an election year. so it's been on hold, government's been working up scenarios how to implement the program, all of you have experience, either within the government or working on the adjudi

case all the way to the supreme court and finally won. he was then nominated for vice president of the united states. he couldn't accept it because he was too young to serve. hishe went on all through life to fight for the causes he believed in. then in 1987, he decided to run for the united states congress and lost that election. then went into a variety of other ways of being an activist including teaching on the college level, where he brought the story of the civil rights movement to thousands of people. when he was1998 older, he became the national chair of the preeminent civil rights organization in america and100 years, and the naacp he served in that role for 12 years. so he was a leader throughout his life. he said that he had seen how individuals had stepped up. is that part of the motivation behind this project? to share those leadership stories? >> absolutely. these stories are stories of weree whose lives motivated by service most of all in a variety of capacities. and they come from all different areas. they are educators an

court's most significant decisions. our series premiere focuses on marbury versus madison, which established the basis for judicial review, giving the supreme court the power to invalidate acts of other branches of government when they violate the constitution. that's live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> the house energy and commerce committee heard from state health insurance marketplace . this is two hours. >>> good morning. the subcommittee of oversight and investigation convenes this hearing today to examine the state health insurance marketplaces established under the affordable care act. we seek to understand the sustainability challenges these state exchanges continue to face. the centers for medicaid and medicare services has awarded $5.51 billion to the states to help them establish their exchanges. let me repeat that. the states receive $5.51 billion in federal taxpayer dollars to set up their own exchanges yet the aca had no specific definition of what a state exchange was supposed to do or more importa

historic supreme court decisions. at our special guest christopher bracy and martha jones. they will explore the historic supreme court ruling by revealing the life and times of the people who were the plaintiffs, lawyers, and justices in these landmark cases. live monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern. and be sure to join the conversation as we will take your calls, e-mails, facebook,, and tweets during the program. on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. and for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the companion book. it is available for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.or g/landmarkcases. >> each week american history america bringsel you archival films that help provide context to today's issues. ♪ since 1979 the soviet union, in violation of every convention , protecting the rights of a sovereign nation, has tried to impose its will on the people of afghanistan. it's like the death and destruction brought by the soviets, the afghan struggle for freedom continues. michael berry, a representative of the international federation for human rights has spent almost

supreme court this summer. each of my colleagues in the cabinet shares the president's passion of giving every american a fair chance at achieving their dreams. and that's especially true of the leader who has joined us today. attorney general loretta lynch has devoted her life to fighting on the side of justice. she's daughter of north carol a carolina. i see we have a few north carolinians in the audience. and loretta made her home in new york. i imagine we have some new yorkers in the audience. after earning her law degree in harvard. over the course of her distinguished career, don't say that too loudly, loretta has prosecuted terrorists and corrupt public officials. she's gone after cyber criminals and human traffickers. so it's clear, if you break the law, you better watch out, because loretta will go after you, and she'll win. loretta led the u.s. attorney's office for the eastern district of network under two presidents, president bill clinton and president barack obama. and when eric holder announced t

host: the supreme court kicks off the new term on monday. tell us which case you will be featuring monday night when the series against and why. mark: one day night, we feature library versus madison, the foundation -- ball bearing versus matzo, the c as the ultif the constitution judicial review which is still being debated today whether the court is stepping into much. ande is a debate going on this shows relevance one the court should decide issues like gay marriage. marbury versus madison establishes that but it is a great case that shows the personal stories behind the cases. there is a battle going on in this between john adams, thomas jefferson, and john marshall, behind the scenes that is the story of this case. it has legal importance but the shows are also personal stories that are engaging and i think eliminating all the time pwe ark eliminating all the time pwe on foreign policy by canadian party leaders. >>> syria's deputy prime minister was in new york today speaking to the u.n. general assembly. he discussed the possibility of

it goes to the supreme court, the supreme court says, that is not true. there might be individual aboriginal rights. it remanded it back down the line for decision. right? eventually, to make a long story short because we are getting close on time, what happens is by 1989, the court kind of recognizes the idea of individual aboriginal rights based on the dann sister's father. they lead the process. but they say, we do not want original aboriginal rights, we want the right to use the land as they always had. after that, in the early 1990's, raids against the sisters increased. in february 1992, the blm moved to round up the horses. carrie dann stopped that roundup by getting in the middle of the cattle pen with the cattle and they were afraid she would be crushed and left. all right? the wind is picking up. this continues through the 1990's. sporadic raids. big raids in 1992. not just on the dan's, but on the chief of the council. takes place in 2002 using helicopters, semi's, horse trailers, cattle were taken and sold at auction in reno. one of the buyers

written by veteran supreme court journalist tony mauro, and published by c-span in an imprint ofth sage publications incorporated. landmark cases is available for a dollars $.95 plus shipping. get your copy at c-span.org/weimar cases >> each week american history tv's reel amercia brings you archival films that help to tell

the supreme court has been meeting since 1790. we're trying to figure out just how many cases they have decided over the course of that time.d it is probably over 20,000. we had to narrow it down to 12.h you can do a parlor game over it, because we came up with 12 e along with our partners at the constitution center.ns we talked toti constitutional scholars, legal scholars on bot. the left and the right to come up with this list. so it was tough, because there are a lot of great decisions, important decisions that are not on this list., but this is a good mix of different amendments to the constitution, personal stories. sometimes these cases are casese where the court got it right and set precedent that's followed all the way through until today. some of the cases are cases asew wherehe history is judged that s court got it wrong.. >> as we said, the supreme courtfe kicks off its new term on monday. tell us what -- which case you will be featuring monday night when this series begins and why. >> monday night we feature vers marbu

his office, his position and theof this sued supreme court dealt with it. the court said, basically -- he probably deserves some remedy but the remedy that congress has provided for this goes beyond the power of congress, the and they of congress, supreme court was going to strike down that law. this is something the court had , declaring anore act of congress unconstitutional. >> on the series premier, we take a look at the real story of the marbury versus madison case. we talk about john adams, thomas jefferson, and the newly appointed chief justice, john marshall. john marshall establish the court as the interpreter of the constitution. his famous decision he wrote in marbury versus madison. versus madison is probably the most famous case that this course -- this court ever decided. >> a yellow law school professor will join the discussion. , exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings by revealing the life and times of the people who are the plaintiffs, lawyers, and justices in these cases. it premieres live this monday at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-sp

. >>> as the supreme court starts a new term, they debut historic supreme court decisions. we take a look at the real story behind marbury versus madison delving into the heated political battles between john adams and thomas jefferson and john marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution in the famous decision he wrote of marbury versus madison. >> marbury and madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. >> joining the discuss, yale law school professor akehl reed amarch. landmark cases exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings by revealing the life and times of the people who were the plaintiffs, lawyers and justices in these cases. landmark cases premiers tonight on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio. order your copy of landmark companion book for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >>> the supreme court begins a new term today meeting for the first time since a number of high-profile decisions were announced back in june. cases this fall include whether a woman who lost her legs after she attem

now, there's no doubt, justice scalia, in the taylor, previous louisiana supreme court opinions that the state said we are voluntarily adopting teague, there's no doubt about that. we think the question is whether that raises the question of an advisory opinion from this court. why do we say it doesn't? because in cases like coleman v. thompson, the court said where the federal law holding is integral to the state court's disposition of the matter there is no risk of an advisory opinion, and later in coleman the court said only if resolution of the federal issue, quote, could not affect the judgment is there the risk of an advisory opinion. here we don't think there is the risk of an advisory opinion. of course, it's within the realm of possibility. we doubt it's going to happen, but it could happen that on remand, the louisiana pk spk could say we've seen what you think about teague and we'll adopt our own retroactivity standards, as some questions have done. the question is does it make this court's opinion advisory. we think not. the assistant solicitor general talked about cases

and that -- so the supreme court was going to strike down that law and the supreme court -- and this is something the court had never done before, declaring an act of congress unconstitutional. ? >>> that's sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q "q&a." on monday c-span debuts its new series "landmark cases, historic supreme court decisions." on the series premier, we look at the real story behind the famo famous marbury v. madison case devilling into the political battles between john adams, thomas jefferson and the chief justice john marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution in his famous decision he wrote in marbury v. madison. >> marbury v. madison is probably the most famous case ever decided. >> joining the discussion, yale law school pref akeil reed and cliff sloan. landmark cases, exploring 12 supreme court rulings by revealing the life and times of the people who were the plaintiffs, lawyers and justices in these cases. landmark cases premiers live this monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span 3 and c-span ra

: historic supreme court decisions." on the series premier, we take a look at the real story behind the marbury versus madison case, devilling into the heated political battles between john adam, thomas jefferson and newly appointed chief justice jeanmar shall. >> john marshall in marbury versus maddon. >> marbury-madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decide. >> joining the discussion yale law school prefer akhil reed amar. landmark case, exploring 12 historic landmark rulings by exploring the life and times of the people who were the plaintiffs, lawyers and justices in these cases. "land mar cases" premiers live on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio. and for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of landmark cases companion book. it's available for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmark cases. >>> latvian president raimonds vejonis doesn't have experience with refugee and ask asking for help. last week they agreeing to accept 531, more than twice the number it's accepted since the

as much as you'd like the court to overturn roe v. wade, none of you are on the supreme court. but you're able to run for president and able to express an interest in the supreme court. but we in congress have a bunch of things we could be working on and have a meaningful hearing to figure out how we get to the ultimate decision -- ultimate desire that we want. and if it's zero abortions, then let's talk about how we get there. you know you'll not overturn roe v. wade. so i just hate that we come here and we drag witnesses here and put them in the position of testifying on things that they can't control just so we can do messaging. and that is the problem in this country when we can be actually trying to accomplish something. and we keep talking about benghazi. i'm okay with letting the facts play out how they'll play out because i think it is important for the american people to see how government works and when there's something wrong, you figure out what went wrong and you try to fix it. but it's too often we try to bl play gotcha moments when there aren't gotcha moments, in

segregation was further reinforced by supreme court decisions in the education context. which first delayed desegregation in brown. the all deliberate speed decision. and by restricting regional desegregation solutions, which insured that whites could flee integration by leaving the diversity of cities. baltimore's history of housing segregation is well-documented in books like not in my neighborhood and block busting in baltimore. and by the litigation in which the legal defense fund participated challenging segregated public housing in baltimore, thompson versus hud. few realize baltimore played a pioneering role in introducing residential segregation to northern cities when the city council of baltimore passed the first municipal ordinance in 1910. it was the talk of the nation. people from all over the countries called the city council in baltimore to find out how did you do it t. send us the language. baltimore taught the rest of the country about how to create municipal ordinances requiring segregation. i want to talk about what i think are two under appreciated el

sunday morning at 10:00 on oral histories, an interview with supreme court justice clarence thomas on his upbringing in the segregated south and the influence of his grandfather on his career. in our complete weekend schedule at c-span.org. ♪ >> c-span presents landmark cases, the book. a guide to our landmark cases series which explores 12 historic supreme court's decisions including marbury versus madison, korematsu versus united states, brown versus the board of education, miranda versus arizona, and roe versus wade. cases, the book. featuring introductions, backbones, highlights, and the impact of each place case -- each case. written by tony moral and published by c-span. landmark cases is available for a dollars $.95 plus shipping. get your copy today at www.c-span.org/landmark cases. -- a dollars $.95 plus shipping. >> coming up nest on american barnhiselv, greg barnhart i discusses the rise of american modernism and the role it played in the cold war. he argues that in an effort to win over skeptical intellectuals and cultural critics around the world, institutions in the un

with tonight's program focusing on the 1857 supreme court decision in scott versus sandford. then american history tv continues in primetime with cia director john brennan and other current and former cia officials. talking about the history and importance of the president's daily briefing. >>> all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states, draw near and give their attention. >> landmark cases, c-span's special history series, produced in cooperation with the national constitution center. exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. >> number 759. u ernest miranda. petition ner

supreme court decisions. on the premiere, we take a look at the marbury versus madison case. itdelves into the heated battles. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution. and in the decision he wrote -- >> marlbury/madison is probably the most famous case. >> joining the discussion, a yale law school professor and author. exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings by revealing the life and times of the people who were the plaintiffs, lawyers and justices in these cases. it premieres live tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio. and for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of landmark cases companion book veil for $8.95 plus shipping at cspan.org/landmark cases. >>> nasnas announced that there are signs of water on mars. they talked about the possibility of life on the red planet last week. >>> science space and technology will come to order. without objection the chair is ordered to declare recesses of the committee at any time.

he was a retired supreme court justice. he served about 10 years in the supreme court. so he was a very important figure at the time. edwin stamm, i'm sure many of you have heard of, was the secretary of war during the civil war under lincoln. solomon chase's successor served as the secretary of treasury during these couple of years. and then he was succeeded by this fellow named euan mccullough who probably no one remember. again here is the fellow who was , on the first slide, this is spencer clarke. he was a superintendent of the national currency bureau at the time. and this is really the forerunner of the bureau engraving and printing which was started about 1868. the fellow on the right is an interesting character. france's spinner was a treasurer of the u.s. during the lincoln administration. -- francis spiller most of these military men served while lincoln was president. again, a lot of civil war historical figures. this first fellow is a gentleman -- general named winfield scott. he is known as old fuss and feathers and the grand old man of the army. for the s

refusing to pay, he took his case to the supreme court. find out why he is known as one of the most controversial decisions as we explore this case with our guests, randy bar nette. randy barnett, author of the book "restoring the lost constitution," and paul kens. "landmark cases," live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span 3, and c-span radio. >>> at today's white house briefing, press secretary josh earnest answered questions about the presidential campaign, a deployment of the u.s. troops to cameroon to counter boca haram and the transpacific partnership agreement. >> the trip to harvard was excellent. i enjoyed it. they treated me very well. spent some time on thursday and friday at the institute of politics at harvard. lot of ambitious young minds who are looking for inspiration. hopefully i provided at least a little bit. we'll do that during his briefing, i guess. good. yes, i'm very excited about the royals. i see somebody up here was looking to have a good time, which i appreciate. so i'm glad this was waiting for me at the p

find out why lochner was one of the most controversial decisions of the supreme court history. author of the book restoring the lost constitution, and paul can, author of lochner v new york, regulation on trial. monday at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio.

visit ncicap.org] sunday on "q&a," supreme court correspondent and author of the companion book of c-span upcoming series "landmark mauro. tony tony: one of the judges did not get his position, his office because of the suit, and the supreme court dealt with it, marbury versus madison, marbury was one of those judges, and the court said basically he probably deserves some remedy, but the remedy that congress has provided for this goes beyond the power of

they point to a case from the 1970s called smith versus maryland in which the supreme court held that the numbers one dials from their telephone provides to a third party are not pry variivate. this gave rise to third-party doctrine. patricia mcdonough had been walking down the street in baltimore when somebody assaulted her. he took her purse and she saw a 1975 monte carlo drive slowly by her at the scene of the crime. later, when she got home, somebody started calling her on the telephone and making threatening phone calls. she saw the same 1975 monte carlo drive slowly past her home. she called the police and she told them she was getting these phone calls. the police approached the phone company and said, we have this neat device. it allows us to record the numbers that somebody dials from their phone. remember, in the 1970s, the police didn't have the numbers you called. you were build by the minute. the telephone company said, okay, we'll put it on there for you. they did it as a favor to the police. they put it on the line and, sure enough, the man who owned the license plate o

the supreme court was going to strike down the law. this is something the court had never done before. declaring an act of congress unconstitutional. >> that is tonight on c-span's "q&a." on monday, as the supreme court starts its new term, c-span debuts its new series, "landmark cases." we take a look behind the famous ,arbury versus madison case the marshall established court as the interpreter of the constitution. >> marbury versus madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. discussion, akhil sloan.mar and cliff premieres live this monday at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span 3, and c-span radio. for background on this case what you watch, order your copy of " companion book. in august 1940 5, 70 years ago, american forces dropped two atomic bombs over japan.

he appealed, and the case went directly to the supreme court. find out how the court ruled, weighing the issues of clear and present danger and freedom of speech. our guests include thomas goldstein, co-founder of scotus blog. and beverly gage. that's coming up live monday at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span 3 and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your cop ief the "landmark cases" book. >>> the pentagon's chief information officer sat down with reporters earlier this week at a breakfast hosted by the christian science monitor. much of it focussed on the military. >>> okay, i think we're set. thanks for coming, everyone, i'm dave cook from the monitor. our guest today is terry halvorsen for the defense department. he oversees the role of the largest computer network. he is accompanied by larry bailey whose role is deputy chief officer for the defense department. he holds a master's in educational technology from the university of west florida. he served as an army intelligence officer and later as a civilian. he was d

the supreme court has been meeting since 1790. we're trying to figure out just how many cases they decided over the court of that time. it's probably over 20,000. we had to narrow it down to 12. you can dido a parlor game over it. we came up with 12 along with our partners. we watalked to scholars on the left and right to come up with this left. so it was tough because there are a lot of great decisions and important decisions that are not on this list, but this is a good mix of different amendments to the constitution, personal stories. sometimes these cases are cases where the court got it right and set press department that is followed all the way through until today. and some of these cases dred scott, cases where history is judged where the court maybe got it wrong. from so as we said, the supreme court kicks off its new term on monday. tell us which case you'll be featuring monday night when this series begins and why. >> monday night, we feature marlbury versus madison, which is the foundation that justice roberts and ginsb

he took his case all the way to the supreme court. randy barnett, professor of constitutional law, and author of the book, "restoring the lost constitution peer co- constitution." and paul kens. landmark cases on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] next, the book looks at and impact onip u.s. policy in the cold war. this event is a little over a half hour. [applause] >> thank you for being here. thank you roham for coming for this talk. irish everyone to read this book if you want to understand the u.s. iranian relationship today. let me first ask you, what inspired you to write this? roham: first of all, can i just say thank you to the nixon foundation for the kind invitation to come. they've taken such good care of me. i absolutely love it. i look at my office in london and it is mostly raining. to be here is a real pleasure. this book was a l

they were first heard in 1831 by the supreme court. other mechanisms existed in the u.s. for claims against the government, tribes are not the only groups seeking redress. individual citizens did. before 1855, claims followed a particular process, individual acts of congress. before we start talking about those private bills, one thing to keep in mind, the idea of sovereign immunity. the united states and others subscribe to this doctrine, boiling it down, you do not get to sue the sovereign unless the sovereign says you do. you cannot sue the united states unless the united states gives you permission. that is the basis. before 1855, individuals who had a claim against the government over a contract, over whatever, could seek regress, but they had to do it directly through congress, getting them to propose a bill. and you see them filling the congressional record. and it is for that reason in 1855 that congress created the court of claims. it was envisioned to deal with all of these and to relieve that burden from congress. at first, they are simply an advisory board, th

historic supreme court decisions with our special guest christopher bracy and martha this historicore supreme court ruling by revealing the life and times of the people who were the plaintiffs, lawyers and justices in these cases. be sure to join the conversation . e-mails,e taking your facebook comments and tweets. for background on each case, order your copy of the companion $8.95 atilable for c-span.org >> each week american history tv sits in on a lecture. next, san diego state university professor elizabeth cobbs talks about alexander hamilton's role in government. she describes how after the american revolution, state operated as separate countries, which often created problems. hamilton argued during the constitutional convention for a strong, central government to mediate between states. this class is about 50 minutes. elizabeth: i think one of the most exciting things about history and world history is the way we discover how they are big patterns, that in a sense rule our lives. they touch the lives of an individual, or in which an individual person makes a big difference to