A SPECIAL OPS ATTACK ON A SUSPECTED DRUG BOAT.

SHOULD THE MILITARY BE USED TO STOP DRUG SMUGGLING?

AN IMMIGRATION RAID NEAR SYRACUSE.

WILL UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS BE ALLOWED TO STAY?

AND NEW GUIDELINES ARE COMING ON SCHOOL PRAYER.

SHOULD TEACHERS BE ALLOWED TO LEAD PRAYERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

STAY TUNED, "IVORY TOWER" IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED THIS WEEK BY SARAH PRALLE FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, TARA ROSS FROM ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, AND ANIRBAN ACHARYA FROM LEMOYNE COLLEGE.

BEFORE WE GET TO OUR PLANNED TOPICS TONIGHT, WE WANT TO TOUCH ON THE BRUTAL ACT OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE THAT OCCURRED THIS WEEK, THE MURDER OF THE INFLUENTIAL YOUNG REPUBLICAN POLITICAL ACTIVIST, CHARLIE KIRK.

KIRK WAS SHOT AND KILLED WHILE SPEAKING TO COLLEGE STUDENTS IN UTAH.

SO WE WILL QUICKLY GO AROUND THE TABLE, SARAH.

YOUR REACTIONS?

>> WELL, IN THE WAKE OF TERRIBLE TRAGEDIES LIKE THIS, I LIKE TO LOOK AT HOW PEOPLE REACT TO THEM.

IT DOESN'T BECOME AN OCCASION TO COME TOGETHER AND TOGETHER CONDEMN POLITICAL VIOLENCE AND REASSERT DEMOCRATIC VALUES THAT WE NEED TO SOLVE DIFFERENCES THROUGH NON-VIOLENT MEANS?

OR DO PEOPLE USE IT AS AN OCCASION TO CAST BLAME, TO FURTHER DIVIDE US, TO SORT OF, YOU KNOW, BLAME OTHER, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE.

AND THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE WITH LEADERS IN OUR SOCIETY , YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO HAVE LARGE PLATFORMS.

HOW DO THEY DEAL WITH THIS IN THE WAKE OF IT?

DO THEY CONDEMN IT ACROSS THE BOARD OR ARE THERE SOME BUTS AND SOME ATTEMPTS TO PIN IT ON THE OTHER SIDE OR IS IS THERE SOME SOUL SEARCHING ON THE PART OF FOLKS AROUND SOME, YOU KNOW, THEIR OWN WORDS AND ACTIONS AND WHETHER THAT CONTRIBUTES TO POLITICAL VIOLENCE IN THIS COUNTRY.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO POLITELY COMMENT ON THE MURDER OF A PERSON WHOSE CRITICS HAVE POINTED OUT SPREAD RACIST BIGOTRY.

CONSERVATIVE ACTIVISM.

AS A NON-VIOLENT PERSON COMMITTED TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, TAKEN AN OATH TO THE CONS STATION, I STRONGLY UNEQUIVOCALLY CONDEMN THE KILLING OF ANY PEOPLE BASED ON THEIR VIEWS.

I MAY NOT AGREE WITH WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY BUT TO MY DEATH, I WILL DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO SAY SO.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS I'M ALWAYS CONCERNED ABOUT AFTER ANY OF THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS IS THE RUSH TO JUDGMENT; YOU KNOW, TO CONNECT IT TO A PERSON'S IDEOLOGY, OR TO THEIR RACE, ET CETERA.

AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE STOP.

THE OTHER THING THAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT THIS IS THAT THERE MAY BE A CONNECTION BETWEEN SOMETHING ELSE THAT HAPPENED, YOU KNOW, AS WE WERE LEARNING ABOUT CHARLIE KIRK'S DEATH AND THAT IS THAT ALMOST ALL OF THE HBCUS HISTORICALLY BLACKED COLLEGES RECEIVED DEATH THREATS AND I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT THESE TWO THINGS MIGHT BE CONNECTED AND MIGHT BE PART OF THAT RUSH TO JUDGMENT.

>> THANK YOU.

NOW, LAST WEEK THE UNITED STATES MILITARY DESTROYED A SMALL BOAT SUSPECTED OF SMUGGLING DRUGS IN THE CARIBBEAN SEA.

ALL 11 PEOPLE ONBOARD WERE KILLED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS LABELED DRUG CARTELS AS "FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS."

VICE PRESIDENT VANCE CALLED KILLING CARTEL MEMBERS THE "BEST USE OF OUR MILITARY."

IT APPEARS THE ADMINISTRATION IS GEARING UP FOR MORE SUCH ACTIONS AGAINST THE CARTELS.

SO, ANIRBAN, SHOULD THE MILITARY BE USED IN SOME SORT OF ATTEMPT TO STOP DRUG SMUGGLING?

>> ON THE FACE OF IT, I WOULD SAY NO, IT VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PERHAPS EVEN U.S. LAW.

BUT, YOU KNOW, POST 9/11 WHEN WE PASSED OVERWHELMINGLY EXCEPT WITH ONE VOTE, WE PASSED THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE, WHICH SAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN USE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FORCE AGAINST NATIONS IN ORDER TO PREVENT ANY FUTURE ACTS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

I'M NOT READING THE WHOLE THING.

BASICALLY GIVING THE PRESIDENT CART BLANCHE IN USING POWER TO PREEMPTIVELY GO AFTER PEOPLE WHO THEY THINK ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SECURITY OF UNITED STATES IF THE CARTEL MEMBERS CAN BE CONSTRUED AS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION THEN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CAN VEER THIS TOWARDS THE AUMF AND USE IT AND I THINK DAN CRENSHAW FROM TEXAS INTRODUCED A RESOLUTION THAT HASN'T PASSED YET CALLED THE AUMF CARTEL WHICH GIVES THE SAME POWERS TO THE PRESIDENT TO NOT JUST GO OVER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS LIKE ISIS AND AL-QAEDA BUT THE CARTELS.

IT HAS NOT PASSED IS A RESOLUTION.

I'M NOT SURE BUT TRUMP MIGHT BE WALKING A VERY THIN LINE HERE.

WE WILL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

>> YOU ARE SAYING DOMESTICALLY IT'S NOT CLEAR BUT INTERNATIONALLY, IN TERMS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, IT WAS A BOAT IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS.

>> YEAH.

>> AND THIS ISN'T A NATION STATE, RIGHT?

CARTELS ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT CONFINED TO ONE NATION.

THEY'RE NON-STATE ACTORS AND THEY'RE NOT ORGANIZED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.

WHEN YOU USE THE WORD TERRORIST, TERRORISTS USE VIOLENCE FOR POLITICAL ENDS.

NOW THERE MIGHT BE DRUG SMUGGLING-- THERE ARE TERRORISTS WHO USE ILLICIT WAYS OF RAISING MONEY, BUT YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO ARE SMUGGLING DRUGS ARE DOING IT FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, WHETHER WE AGREE WITH THAT PARTICULAR ENTERPRISE OR NOT.

IT'S A "BUSINESS ENTERPRISE" AN ILLEGAL ONE AT THAT BUT NOT POLITICAL SO HE MENTIONER THIS KIND OF CONCEPT THAT THESE ARE POLITICAL ACTORS, AND THEREFORE THERE IS SOME KIND OF ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR DOING SO.

I THINK THIS IS A REALLY DANGEROUS SITUATION.

AND THERE IS NO DUE PROCESS.

WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THE PEOPLE ON THE BOAT WERE ACTUAL DRUG SMUGGLERS.

11 PEOPLE JUST LOST THEIR LIVES WITH ZERO DUE PROCESSES.

YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY THE WAY THIS IS HANDLED, THE COAST GUARD GOES IN THERE IF THEY SUSPECT SOMETHING.

THEY STOP THE VESSEL.

THEY BOARD IT.

THEY DETAIN PEOPLE FOR PROSECUTION AND THEN PRESENT EVIDENCE.

I MEAN SO FAR WE HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THESE WERE EVEN MEMBERS OF A CARTEL LET ALONE DANGEROUSLY, YOU KNOW, ABOUT TO ATTACK OR, YOU KNOW, LAND ON U.S.

SOIL.

SO I THINK THAT THAT'S VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.

>> SO THE PRESIDENT CLEARLY, TARA, WANTED TO SEND A MESSAGE TO DRUG CARTELS AND IT SEEMS THAT THAT WOULD BE A PRETTY STRONG MESSAGE AND PROBABLY RECEIVED.

>> PROBABLY RECEIVED.

THE ISSUE HERE IS, AS SARAH POINTED OUT, IS THAT WE DON'T KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE ON THAT BOAT WERE PART OF A DRUG CARTEL.

SO IF THEY ARE PART OF A DRUG CARTEL, THEN THE MESSAGE IS STRONG AND HAS BEEN RECEIVED.

IF THEY JUST COULD BE 11 PEOPLE WHO, YOU KNOW, WERE MAKING TAKING AN OPPORTUNITY TO SELL DRUGS OR THEY MIGHT JUST HAVE BEEN 11 PEOPLE WHO WERE SELLING SOMETHING ELSE ILLICITLY.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF YET.

SO IT'S SORT OF HARD TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT OF THE MESSAGE IF WE DON'T KNOW IF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED WERE PART OF THE PEOPLE WE WANTED TO GET THE MESSAGE.

>> BUT EVEN IF THEY WERE, GO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION, IS SITUATION WHERE THE ISSUE IS NOT AN ISSUE OF IMMINENT DANGER, YOU NOTIFY THE OTHER GOVERNMENT THAT , YOU KNOW, YOU ARE AT LEAST CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND YOU ARE GOING AFTER THESE PEOPLE.

THERE WAS NONE OF THAT.

SO THAT SORT OF INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENT WAS VIOLATED.

>> I THINK IT DILUTES THE INTERNATIONAL NORM OF NOT ATTACKING-- IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS WITH YOUR OWN MILITARY.

TOMORROW, SAY OTHER KUN COUNTRIES, RUSSIA OR ISRAEL OR EUROPEAN COUNTRIES MIGHT SAY A BOAT FULL OF REFUGEES OFF THE COAST OF MEDITERRANEAN BUT BE A TERRORIST THREAT TO ME SO I'M GOING TO BOMB THEM.

THAT LIQUIDATES THE INTERNATIONAL NORMS AND LAWS WE HAVE IN SPACE FOR A STABLE INTERNATIONAL ORDER THAT YOU DON'T STRIKE WITHOUT WAR ON A FOREIGN WATER.

>> YOU KNOW ONE THING I WONDER DID HERE-- ONE THING I WONDER ABOUT HERE, IF THIS IS LEGALLY, IN TERMS OF AUTHORIZATION, AS YOU POINTED OUT THE OTHER ATTACKS THAT HAVE BEEN AGAINST, LIKE AL-QAEDA, FOR INSTANCE, WHERE THROUGH THE 2001 AUTHORIZATION.

YOU KNOW, THE MILITARY HAS LAWYERS AND THEY OFFER COUNSEL AS TO WHETHER YOU CAN DO SOMETHING.

SO WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THAT LEGAL PROCESS?

>> I GUESS FOR ME THE BROADER ISSUE HERE IS, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK WHEN TRUMP GOT REY LEBLGED THAT OUR INSTITUTIONS-- RE-ELECTED THAT OUR INSTITUTIONS COULD HOLD AND PUT BOUNDARIES AND GUARD RAILS AND SOME PEOPLE TALKED ABOUT THE MILITARY AS BEING ONE OF THOSE, THAT MILITARY PEOPLE MIGHT NOT FOLLOW ORDERS THAT ARE BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW.

AND I THINK WE CAN'T COUNT ON THAT, CLEARLY.

OUR INSTITUTIONS ARE FAILING US EXCEPT FOR-- THE ONLY ONES I SEE PUTTING IN BOUNDARIES IS THE LOWER COURTS.

BUT I DON'T THINK THE MILITARY IS GOING TO SAVE US IN THIS CASE, RIGHT?

THEY FOLLOW ORDERS.

AND WHO IS AT THE TOP RIGHT NOW OF OUR MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT IS ALL TRUMP LOYALISTS AND LACKEYS.

>> THE PRESIDENT'S DEPORTATION POLICY HAS HIT HOME IN CENTRAL NEW YORK.

LAST WEEK IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES RAIDED A SMALL FACTORY NEAR SYRACUSE IN WHAT THEY SAID WAS A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

FIVE WORKERS HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR RE-ENTERING THE COUNTRY AFTER BEING DEPORTED.

>> 52 OTHERS WERE DETAINED AND MANY OTHERS WERE DEPORTED.

NONE HAD EVER BEEN ARRESTED FOR VIOLENT CRIMES.

U.S. ATTORNEY JOHN SAR CONE WARNED OTHER BUSINESSES THAT HIRE UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS WILL BE NEXT.

SHOULD PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE PAPERS BUT HAVE BEEN HERE FOR YEARS, SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO STAY IN THIS COUNTRY AND WORK?

>> YES AND NO.

OKAY.

AND THE REASON I SAY YES IS YES, THERE SHOULD BE A PROCEDURE SO THAT THEY CAN OBTAIN THEIR CITIZENSHIP.

THAT'S WHAT, UP UNTIL THIS ADMINISTRATION, WE HAD BEEN WORKING TOWARDS.

BUT WE DO NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE IN THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY.

AND THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PART OF THE RUB IS THAT YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO, FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, WHETHER IT'S A DELAY IN THE HEARING PROCESS OR WHETHER THEY JUST CAME IN UNDER THE RADAR AND NOW THEY'VE BUILT LIVES AND REMAINED UNDER THE RADAR.

THESE PEOPLE HAVE LIVED HERE FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS.

THEY'VE CONTRIBUTED TO THE ECONOMY.

MANY OF THEM HAVE CHILDREN WHO ARE NOW CITIZENS; SOMETIMES GRANDCHILDREN.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S BEEN THE ISSUE IS, THE ORIGINAL ACT WAS ILLEGAL BUT NOW THEY HAVE DONE ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT U.S. CITIZENS DO, SO I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME SORT OF PATH.

THE OTHER RUB HERE IS HOW MANY YEARS DO YOU HAVE TO BE HERE, THREE YEARS, FIVE YEARS?

HOW LONG DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE BEEN HERE TO GET THIS PATH TO CITIZENSHIP?

>> THAT PUTS YOU IN A SITUATION, WELL, IF YOU HAVE BEEN HERE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF YEARS, YOU CAN BREAK THE LAW WHEN YOU GOT HERE AND THAT-- >> YES, THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THIS KIND OF MOVEMENT WOULD SAY NOW YOU ARE SAYING THAT IF I CAN BREAK THE LAW FOR LONG ENOUGH TIME, I CAN BE FREE TO, YOU KNOW, BECOME A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.

I WOULD SAY THAT AS FAR AS I REMEMBER, THE ADMINISTRATION SAID WE ARE GOING TO GO AFTER THE WORST AND THE MOST CRIMINAL ELEMENTS IN SOCIETY AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

BUT HERE, YOU KNOW, ANECDOTALLY, I'M SEEING THIS WOMAN WHO WAS MARRIED TO THIS MAN FOR 20 YEARS, HAVE TWO CHILDREN.

AND ALL OF A SUDDEN MASKED MEN COMING AND TAKING HIM AWAY.

AS A FATHER, I DO FEEL SAD, LIKE, YOU KNOW, ISN'T IT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT TO A CHOILD TO CHILD TO JUST SEPARATE THEM FROM THEIR PARENTS WITHOUT ANY DUE PROCESS?

SO I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE HUMANISTIC PART OF IT, RIGHT?

THAT I DON'T LIKE THIS VISION OF, YOU KNOW, MASKED MEN WITHOUT ANY, YOU KNOW, IDENTIFICATION COMING IN AND JUST NABBING UP PEOPLE AND MAKING THEM VANISH IN DIFFERENT AREAS WITHOUT MUCH DUE PROCESS.

IN MANY CASES, THEY BE GOING TO ICE AND CHECKING IN.

THEY WERE DOING EVERYTHING ACCORDING TO THE LAW.

SO AND AGAIN THE LENNY SCHMITT SAID THEY HAD VETTED THESE PEOPLE.

THEY HAD LEGAL DOCUMENTATION AND I THINK THE PROCESS COULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A HUMANISTIC APPROACH.

THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE-- I DIDN'T BREAK IMMIGRATION LAW BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE TO.

I CAME FROM PRIVILEGE, RIGHT?

NOT EVERYBODY IS LIKE THAT.

YES, THEY'VE COMMITTED A FELONY BUT AS A COUNTRY WE CAN BE KINDER, I BELIEVE.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE BUSINESS SNRZ IN THIS CASE, THE FACTORY OWNERS SAID THEY HAVE CHECKED EVERYBODY'S PAPERS AND THEY HAD WORKING PAPERS.

BUT IT'S JUST LIKE THE POST STANDARD RAN A PIECE NOT LONG AGO ABOUT A FARMER WHO SAID YEAH, WE CHECK IT, BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE REAL.

>> I MEAN FIRST GOING BACK TO SOMETHING YOU SAID ANIRBAN, IT'S NOT ALWAYS A FELONY.

IT'S A MISDEMEANOR, A LOT OF THESE VIOLATIONS ARE MENTAL HYGIENE ORES.

WE'VE GOTTEN SO FIXATED ON LIKE THEY BROKE THE LAW.

THEY BROKE THE LAW BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A LEGAL WAY FOR THEM TO COME HERE.

IT WASN'T INTENTIONAL THE WAY WE SEE SOME OTHER CRIMINAL ACTS.

THEY LOO WOULD LIKE A LEGAL WAY TO COME HERE AND STAY HERE AND WE DO NOT OFFER THAT.

WE MAKE THAT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT.

I WOULD LIKE TO GET AWAY FROM THE IDEA THAT THEY BROKE THE LAW, THEREFORE THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED.

WE NEED TO FIND A BETTER WAY.

AND LIKE YOU SAID, IN PART, FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR THE HUMANITY OF HUMAN ASPECTS BUT ALSO LIKE YOU ARE SUGGESTING FOR ECONOMIC REASONS, LIKE THESE-- THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT FACTORY THAT MADE NUTRITION BARS THAT'S EMPLOYED-- WHAT WAS IT, 70 PEOPLE AT LEAST IN THE COMMUNITY.

AND THESE OWNERS HAVE HAD THIS BUSINESS SINCE 1980.

AND IT WAS A GOOD BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, AND PROVIDED ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIS PLACE.

AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE DO THIS, KEEP DOING THIS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, IT IS GOING TO HAVE LOCAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS, WHICH ADD UP OVER TIME NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT IT COSTS A LOT OF MONEY TO RUN THESE RAIDS AND TO DO THIS KIND OF ENFORCEMENT.

I MEAN WE ARE JUST SPENDING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THIS.

IS THIS WHERE WE WANT TO SPEND OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT DOLLARS?

OR ARE THERE BIGGER MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES?

AND IT'S HARD TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THESE ISSUES WITHOUT SUGGESTING-- POINTING OUT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A LAWLESS PRESIDENT.

SO IF WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ENDORSING LAWLESSNESS, I'M THINKING THERE ARE BIGGER ISSUES HERE.

>> TARA.

>> A COUPLE THINGS ABOUT THESE PARTICULAR RAIDS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL SARCONE SAID, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LOSING THESE JOBS, THEY WILL BE REPLACED BY LOCAL PEOPLE AND THIS WILL INCREASE EMPLOYMENT.

WELL, THE AREA HAS ONE OF THE LOWEST EMPLOYMENT RATES IN NEW YORK STATE.

THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES.

THE OTHER ISSUE IS, AND THIS IS A A ONE OF THE CONCERNS FOR ME IS THAT ACCORDING TO THE OWNERS, THEY CHECKED WITH BOTH THE I.R.S.

AND ICE TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE PEOPLE WERE ALL SET IN TERMS OF THEIR PAPERWORK, ET CETERA.

AND WHEN QUESTIONED ABOUT THIS, ICE DIDN'T RESPOND, NOR DID THE I.R.S.

AS TO OKAY, DID YOU BASICALLY GIVE THE OKAY FOR THESE PEOPLE TO WORK AT THIS PLANT?

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP WENT TO THE MUSEUM OF THE BIBLE THIS WEEK TO ANNOUNCE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WILL SOON ISSUE NEW GUIDELINES PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN 1962 THAT STATE-SPONSORED PRAYER VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

IN RECENT YEARS THE LEGAL PENDULUM HAS SWUNG TOWARD THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION AND AWAY FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

SHOULD THE NEW GUIDELINES ALLOW FOR TEACHER-LED PRAYER, AND WOULD THE COURT ALLOW IT?

IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S WHERE THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO GO.

>> YEAH, I THINK THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO GO THERE, NOT THAT HE HAS A PARTICULARLY STRONG RELIGIOUS BELIEF BUT BECAUSE HE SEES THAT HE HAS A STRONG BASE OF SUPPORT IN THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT, AND LIKE YOU SAID, I MEAN THE LEGAL-- THE SUPREME COURT DECISION AS ROUND THESE CASES HAS SHIFTED.

BACK IN THE 1970s, THE COURTS WERE PRETTY CLEAR ABOUT ESTABLISHING A BRIGHT LINE BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.

ESPECIALLY AROUND ESTABLISHMENT AND I THINK PUBLIC SCHOOLS WERE PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT, THERE WAS A RECOGNITION AT THAT TIME THAT THESE ARE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE PERSUADABLE WHO LOOK UP TO THEIR TEACHERS AND COACHES AS ROLE MODELS AND IF THOSE TEACHERS AND COACHES ARE TALKING ABOUT CERTAIN RELIGIONS MORE THAN OTHERS LIKE CHRISTIANITY, THAT THEY MIGHT BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO FEEL PRESSURE TO CONFORM TO THAT AND/OR LEFT OUT OR LESSER THAN IF THEY DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO CHRISTIAN BELIEFS.

AND THIS IS WHY THE CASE THAT A COUPLE YEARS AGO IN WASHINGTON STATE I FIND SO TROUBLING, THE CASE WHERE THE FOOTBALL COACH HELD A SILENT PRAYER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FOOTBALL FIELD AFTER GAMES.

AND THE SUPREME COURT RULE THAT THAT WAS-- THE SCHOOL SAID THAT THAT VIOLATED THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.

THE SUPREME COURT SAID NO, IT DOESN'T.

IT ACTUALLY IMPINGES ON HIS FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.

AND AGAIN, I THINK IT'S LIKE THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES DON'T REALLY GET REAL LIFE.

LIKE WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS AND THE FACT THAT KIDS, LIKE ON THE TEAM MIGHT FEEL REALLY PRESSURED TO PARTICIPATE, THAT PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE MIGHT FEEL LIKE CHRISTIANITY IS BEING ENDORSED.

AND THAT THEIR RELIGIONS ARE NOT.

AND SO I FEEL LIKE THIS IS THE DIRECTION THE COURTS ARE GOING.

I DON'T SUPPORT IT.

>> TARA.

>> YOU KNOW, IT SEEMED TO ME WE HAD PRETTY MUCH DECIDED THIS ISSUE AND AS SARAH POINTED OUT, WE HAVE BEEN SLOWLY ERODEING ENGEL VVITALE.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THOSE WHO SUPPORT THIS NOTION THAT THERE SHOULD BE PRAYERS IN THE SCHOOLS; THAT IT SHOULD BE LED BY TEACHERS AND/OR ADMINISTRATORS, THEY DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT THE WORLD THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE US BACK TO IS A WORLD OF THE 1940S AND 50s.

AND WHILE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME POSITIVE THINGS ABOUT THAT, THE REALITY IS THAT WE ARE A MUCH MORE DIVERSE NATION.

YOU KNOW IN THE 1940S AND 50s, THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE YOU PROBABLY WON'T TO SCHOOL WITH WERE PROBABLY CHRISTIANS JUST LIKE YOU.

TODAY, YOU HAVE MANY, MANY STUDENTS IN SCHOOLS, MANY, MANY DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS AND/OR SPIRITUAL VALUES.

SOME I MAY AGREE WITH, SOME I MAY NOT.

LET'S THINK ABOUT IT, INSTEAD, FROM THE TEACHERS POINT OF VIEW.

OKAY, IF I'M TOLD TO LEAD PRAYER IN MY CLASS, OKAY, WHICH PRAYER, HOW, AND HOW DO I WORD IT SO THAT I DON'T SCARE OFF AND/OR TURN OFF SOME OF MY STUDENTS?

THAT THEN HAS AN IMPACT ON THAT TEACHING PROCESS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR BECAUSE IF THE FIRST DAY OF CLASS IS I'VE SAID THIS PRAYER THAT OFFENDED YOU, WHAT IS THAT RELATIONSHIP GOING TO BE LIKE AS WE GO THROUGH THE REST OF THE SCHOOL SEMESTER.

SO THIS HAS MUCH BIGGER, BROADER IMPLICATIONS THAN I THINK THE ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO SEE.

>> ANIRBAN, MANY CONSERVATIVES HAVE SAID FOR YEARS THAT THE LACK OF SCHOOL PRAYER HAS LED TO ALL SORTS OF SOCIETAL ILLS.

IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THAT IS THE CASE?

>> I DON'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE, AND AGAIN IT'S FUNNY COMING FROM RIGHT RING ACTIVISTS TO SAY THAT WHEN THERE IS GUN VIOLENCE EVERYWHERE AND THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT GUN CONTROL.

YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE.

SINCE ENGLE V.VITALE THERE HAS BEEN A VERY STRONG JURISPRUDENCE TO NOT HAVE SCHOOL SPONSORED OR PUBLIC SCHOOL-LED PRAYERS.

EVEN IN 2000, EXTENDING THE SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. DOE, IT EXTENDED THE BAN TO STUDENT-LED PRAYERS AT SCHOOL EVENTS EMPHASIZING THAT SCHOOL SPONSORSHIP OF PRAYER IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

BUT AS YOU POINTED OUT, THE SUPREME COURT IS MOVING TOWARD A MORE FREE EXERCISE IN THE SENSE SAYING IF IT IS NOT SCHOOL-LED BUT IF IT IS LIKE A PRIVATE PRAYER BY PROFESSOR OR A COACH, IS THAT AN ESTABLISHMENT, RUNS AFOUL OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AND THE SUPREME COURT TENDS TO SAY NO SAYING THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER MANDATES NOR PERMITS THE INTENT TO SUPPRESS.

I DON'T THINK IT WILL UPHOLD ANY MANDATORY SCHOOL PRAYER OR DISPLAY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF BUT THE SUPREME COURT HAS OF NOW, I CAN SEE WILL BE MORE KINDER TOWARD PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT TO PRAY ON THEIR OWN, EVEN IF IT IS ON THE SCHOOL PROPERTY.

NOW I DON'T KNOW THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF THAT AND WHAT IT MIGHT LEAD TO, BUT I THINK THE SUPREME COURT IS MOVING TOWARDS THAT.

>> SARAH, STUDENTS DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRAY IN SCHOOL RIGHT NOW, RIGHT?

>> THEY DO.

>> JUST NOT A STATE SPONSORED PRAYER.

>> INDIVIDUALLY THEY CAN PRAY; SILENTLY BUT IT'S NOT BEING LED BY A TEACHER OR ADMINISTRATOR OR STUDENT BODY.

>> WE HAVE TO LEAVE THAT RIGHT THERE BECAUSE IT IS TIME FOR THE AS AND FS AND SARAH, WE BEGIN WITH YOUR F. >> MY F GOES TO ALL THE POLITICIANS PAST AND PRESENT WHO HAVE FAILED TO DO ANYTHING TO CURB GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.

THE LATEST AVAILABLE STATISTICS FROM THE CDC INDICATE THAT NEARLY 43,000 PEOPLE DIED OF GUN DEATHS IN THE U.S.

THE THIRD HIGHEST TOTAL ON RECORD.

WE DON'T NEED TO LIVE LIKE THIS.

BUT AT THIS POINT IT SEEMS AS THOUGH NONE OF OUR LEADERS ARE WILLING TO SPEND ANY POLITICAL CAPITAL ON THIS ISSUE.

THEY ACT AS THOUGH THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO AND NOTHING HAPPENS YEAR AFTER YEAR.

>> TARA.

>> MY F GOES TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

IN A RESPONSE TO THE STRONG AIRLINE LOBBY, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS STEADILY WORKED TO ROLL BACK OR CHALLENGE BIDEN ERA PASSENGER CONSUMER PROTECTIONS.

ELIMINATED OR CHALLENGED RULES INCLUDE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE AIRLINES COMPENSATE PASSENGERS FOR FLIGHTS EXCESSIVELY DELAYED OR IT CANCEL BY AIRLINE MECHANICAL AND/OR SYSTEMS FAILURES; AS WELL AS THE RULE THAT FEES THAT ARE BEING CHARGED HAVE TO BE SHOWN RIGHT NEXT TO YOUR ACTUAL AIRLINE TICKET COST.

THERE IS ALSO A PLAN TO NARROW THE DEFINITION OF A FLIGHT CANCELLATION.

I GUESS TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO PROTECT BIG BUSINESS.

>> EXCUSE ME.

MY F GOES TO THE ISRAELI ATTACK ON QATAR'S CAPITAL DOHA TARGETING HAMAS OFFICIALS WHICH WAS CONDEMNED ACROSS THE WORLD AND THE UNITED NATIONS NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL CALLING IT A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE SOMPT AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF QATAR.

SINCE 2019, ISRAEL HAS BOMBED ABOUT FIVE TO SIX COUNTRIES AND SOMEHOW IT IS NOT CONSTRUED AS A ROGUE STATE BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

>> AND NOW TO THE AS.

AND SARAH, YOUR A.

>> YES, LIBRARIES AROUND THE COUNTRY ARE SETTING UP WHAT ARE CALLED LIBRARIES OF THINGS WHERE PEOPLE CAN BORROW SMALL APPLIANCES, TOOLS, MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, SPORTS EQUIPMENT, CAMPING GEAR AND THE LIKE.

NOT ONLY DO THESE LENDING LIBRARIES MAKE PRICEY ITEMS ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE OF ALL SOBER I DON'TY ECONOMIC CLASSES, BUT IT ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO BUY LESS STUFF.

THERE ARE LOTS OF STUFF WE OWN AND ONLY USE A FEW TIMES A YEAR.

WHY NOT BORROW THEM RATHER THAN BUY THEM.

I HOPE THIS IDEA SPREADS FURTHER.

>> TARA.

>> MY A GOES TO THE EVERYSTON ILLINOIS CITY COUNCIL FOR COURAGEOUSLY PASSING A RESOLUTION ASKING THE STATE OF ILLINOIS AND CONGRESS TO BAN LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM WEARING MASKS AND CONCEALING THEIR IDENTITY.

EVERSTON'S CONGRESS PERSON HAS CO-SPONSORED FEDERAL LEGS PROPOSING A SIMILAR BAN.

>> DID CALIFORNIA JUST DO THE SAME THING?

>> YES.

>> THE MASKED BAN, BANNING MASKS.

AND ANIRBAN, YOUR A.

>> MY A GOES TO THE PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM ON TUESDAY SIGNED BY DONALD TRUMP, DIRECTING FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION TO RESTRICT ADVERTISING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ON TELEVISION.

THERE IS PROVEN EVIDENCE OF THIS DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND MOST DEVELOPED NATIONS RESTRICT IT SEVERELY.

HOPE THIS WILL EXTEND TO ADVERTISING ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER ONLINE PLATFORMS AS WELL.

>> THAT'S GOING TO HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON MEDIA.

THERE ARE SO MANY ADS.

THEY'RE EVERYWHERE AND THE BOTTOM LINE OF MANY MEDIA COMPANIES.

NOW, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VIEW THE SHOW AGAIN YOU CAN VIEW IT ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FOR ALL OF US AT IVORY TOWER, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪