>> THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND THE SUPREME COURT.

ALBANY DEMOCRATS NOT ON THE SAME PAGE.

AND CHICK FIL-A COMING TO THE THRUWAY •BUT MAYBE NOT WHEN YOU NEED IT.

STAY TUNED, IVORY TOWER IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED TONIGHT BY SARAH PRALLE FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, AND NINA MOORE AND CHAD SPARBER, BOTH FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY.

THE QUESTION WHETHER THE 14TH AMENDMENT BARS DONALD TRUMP FROM RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT HAS NOW MOVED BEYOND HYPOTHETICAL.

THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT AND THE MAINE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAVE NOW ISSUED DECISIONS TO KEEP HIM OFF THE BALLOT IN THEIR STATES.

TRUMP HAS APPEALED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO REVERSE THE COLORADO DECISION AND WILL LIKELY DO THE SAME IN THE MAINE CASE.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS WHETHER A PRESIDENT IS BARRED FROM HOLDING OFFICE FOR ENGAGING IN INSURRECTION, THE LEGAL QUESTION IS WHETHER TRUMP DID SO, AND THEN THERE'S THE POLITICAL QUESTIONS.

SHOULD VOTERS OR THE COURTS HAVE THE FINAL SAY?

SO WOULD BANNING TRUMP BE UNDEMOCRATIC.

>> AS AN INSTITUTIONALIST, I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I CANNOT THINK OF ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE MORE UNDEMOCRAT THAN THIS.

YOU HAVE ESSENTIALLY, FOUR PEOPLE ON THE COLORADO STATE COURT TELLING 74 MILLION AMERICANS WHO THEY CAN AND CANNOT CAST A BALLOT FOR, ALL BECAUSE SIX PEOPLE CAME TO THESE FOUR INDIVIDUALS TO ASK THEM TO DO SO.

NOW I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT THE COLORADO STATE COURT, THEY DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE.

THERE WERE PLEADINGS, THERE WERE BRIEFINGS, THERE WAS A THREE OR FOUR DAY HEARING ALL TO PROVE WHAT WE ALL ALREADY KNOW.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

AND WHAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY WHO IS PUSHING FOR THIS TO THINK ABOUT IS, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE SHOE IS ON THE OTHER FOOT AND IT'S BIDEN IN STATES MOVING TO REMOVE BIDEN IN.

>> THAT'S A POLITICAL ISSUE.

WHAT ABOUT JUST THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION?

I MEAN IS THE TEXT CLEAR?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

I THINK THAT WE CAN DEBATE WHETHER OR NOT THE TEXT READS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, BASED ON WHETHER ONE IS A TEXTUALIST OR ONE WHO READS TEXT, AS MOST PEOPLE DO, WITHIN CONTEXT.

SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT HAS NEVER BEEN USED BEFORE TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT.

AND THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT IN WHICH THAT WAS RATIFIED HAD A VIEW TOWARDS THOSE WHO WERE IN THE SOUTH AND HAD BROKEN FROM THE UNION.

SO, TO STRETCH IT NOW TO TRUMP, WITHOUT AN ACTUAL FINDING OTHER THAN BY A STATE COURT, OF WHAT HE SUPPOSEDLY HAS DONE-- AND IN THE CASE OF MAINE, NO COURT PROCEEDING AT ALL, IS DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC.

AND, YES, SO ONE COULD MAKE THE LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT WAY OR THE OTHER WAY.

BUT WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS POLITICS.

AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE JUDICIAL PROCESS BEING USED TO EFFECTUATE A POLITICAL END.

>> BUT NOW, SARAH, THE COURT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO TAKE POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS-- POLITICAL ISSUES INTO CONSIDERATION.

THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO RULE ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE.

>> RIGHT.

AND I WOULD SAY THE JUDGES IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE NOT THE ONES THAT ARE A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY, RIGHT?

THEY'RE TRYING TO APPLY THE LAW TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.

AND YOU KNOW, THE ANALYSIS I'VE READ SUGGEST THAT THE SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT IS PRETTY CLEAR.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE QUITE CLEAR.

DONALD TRUMP-- LET'S BE REALLY CLEAR-- IS THE THREAT TO DEMOCRACY.

HE IS THE ONE THAT CROSSED THE LINE.

THE JUDGES ARE TRYING TO HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE.

IF A DEMOCRACY IS GOING TO EXIST AND PERSIST, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR UNDEMOCRATIC ACTIONS, RIGHT?

AND SO FAR WE HAVE FAILED TO DO SO.

YOU KNOW, THE REPUBLICANS HAD A CHANCE WHEN HE WAS IMPEACHED TO VOTE FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT.

THAT WOULD HAVE DISQUALIFIED HIM.

THEY COULD HAVE VOTED TO DISQUALIFY HIM.

THEY DIDN'T DO THAT AND NOW IT'S ENDED UP IN THE COURTS.

FRANKLY, I THINK THEY'RE DOING THEIR JOBS.

DEMOCRACIES NEED TO FIND WAYS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES.

NOW WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT HOW THEY DO THAT; THAT THEY DON'T GO OVER THE LINE AND USE EXTREMELY UNDEMOCRATIC MEANS TO PROTECT THAT DEMOCRACY.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE KIND OF-- I FEEL IT'S A BREAK THE GLASS MOMENT.

I DON'T EXPECT THE SUPREME COURT TO UPHOLD THE COLORADO CASE; HOWEVER, I THINK IT'S A USEFUL DISCUSSION TO HAVE TO SORT OF SEE, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE LINES?

HOW MUCH-- WHAT ARE THE TOOLS THAT A DEMOCRACY HAS TO PROTECT ITSELF?

AND WHEN SHOULD WE EMPLOY THEM?

IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THIS 14th AMENDMENT SECTION 3 IS ONE OF THOSE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE AT OUR DISPOSAL AND WE SHOULD USE THE IT.

>> THIS IS THE SORT OF TOPIC OF AN ECONOMIST FACING UP AGAINST TWO POLITICAL SCIENTISTS AND IT'S INTIMIDATING.

I MIGHT LIKE TO VOTE FOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER FOR PRESIDENT, THAN IMMIGRANT AND I CANNOT DO THAT BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION UNDEMOCRATICALLY RESTRICTS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND SAYS HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE.

AND SO WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT KEEPING TRUMP OFF THE BALLOT, IS THAT UNDEMOCRATIC OR NOT.

TO ME, IT'S IRRELEVANT IN THAT THE REAL CENTRAL QUESTION IS DID HE ENGAGE IN AN INSURRECTION OR REBELLION AGAINST THE U.S. AND DID HE GET DUE PROCESS IN DECIDING THAT?

AND THAT, TO ME, IS THE HUGE QUESTION BECAUSE HE HASN'T FORMALLY BEEN CHARGED WITH INSURRECTION.

I WOULD SAY THAT I'M GLAD THAT WHATEVER YOU THINK ABOUT TRUMP, WHATEVER YOU THINK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I'M GLAD IT'S HAPPENING NOW SO THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DECISION BEFORE THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION IN JULY.

BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE GREATER THREAT TO DEMOCRACY OR THE INTEGRITY OF THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT WOULD BE IF WE ARE DECIDING THESE CASES AFTER THE PRIMARIES HAVE CONCLUDED.

>> OR AFTER COLORADO STATE HAS TO PRINT THE BALLOTS AND THE COURT HAS SIGNALED THAT THIS IS SOMETHING, ESSENTIALLY SAYING TO THE SUPREME COURT THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE THIS UP IN ORDER FOR US TO ENSURE.

NOW THERE IS ALWAYS THE OPTION OF A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE, RIGHT?

WHICH WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT.

BUT YOU SAID, TELL YOU HOW YOU ARE WRONG... >> PLEASE.

I'M READY.

[LAUGHTER] >> ONE WAY IS THINKING ABOUT DEMOCRACY AS RESTING WITHIN THE COURTS.

AND IN FEDERALIST NUMBER 70 IT WAS EITHER HAMILTON OR MADISON, WE DON'T KNOW THE AUTHOR, WHO SAID, WHICH SAID THAT THE PEOPLE ARE THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF POWER-- I'M SORRY, THE ULTIMATE FOUNTAIN OF POWER IN THE COUNTRY.

AND SO YES WE HAVE ALL OF THESE SAFEGUARDS THAT ARE IN PLACE, COURTS, SEPARATED POWERS AND SO FORTH BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE FRAMERS RESTED THEIR HOPES ON THE ELECTORATE.

AND SO WHAT THOSE WHO OPPOSE TRUMP HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO IS TO CONVINCE THE 74 MILLION AMERICANS WHO STILL BELIEVE IN HIM AND BELIEVE HE SHOULD BE PRESIDENT AND TO SHOW THEM WHY THEY'RE WRONG BECAUSE IF TRUMP GETS REMOVED AND IF HE IS SCUTTLED THIS TIME AROUND, I PROMISE YOU THAT THERE IS ANOTHER TRUMP-LIKE PERSON WHO IS GOING TO RISE FROM THE ASHES.

>> BUT THE FRAMERS DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, SAY THAT ALL THE POWER SHOULD BE HELD BY THE PEOPLE AND, YOU KNOW, OUR DEMOCRACY IS MORE ABOUT THAN JUST ELECTIONS AND VOTING; ALTHOUGH THOSE ARE OBVIOUSLY CENTRAL TO IT.

WE HAVE THE RULE OF LAW.

WE HAVE FORMS.

THE FRAMERS WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE DEMOS, THE POP LAT,-- THE POPULOUS OF VOTING IN AN OUGHT AUTOCRAT.

AND THIS IS A SITUATION THAT IS A REAL THREAT.

DONALD TRUMP IS VERY CLEAR THAT HE WANTS TO DESTROY DEMOCRACY AS WE KNOW IT.

>> I WOULD PREFER TO TAKE OUT THAT PART OF THE ISSUE.

LIKE DO WE LIKE HIM DO WE NOT BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU.

THAT ISSUE DOESN'T MATTER.

I WANT TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS.

AND ON THAT, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GO BACK TO THIS DUE PROCESS ISSUE.

SO GEORGE CONWAY HAD WRITTEN THIS INTERESTING OP-ED PIECE IN THE ATLANTIC WHERE HE SAYS THAT THE DISSENTING OPINIONS IN THE COLORADO CASE WERE SO WEAK THAT THEY PERSUADED HIM THAT TRUMP IS INELIGIBLE.

I THOUGHT IT WAS AN INTERESTING ARTICLE.

BUT HE SEEMS MORE CONVINCED THAN I AM IN THINKING THAT TRUMP WAS AFFORDED DUE PROCESS; THAT THIS COLORADO CASE WAS FIVE DAYS LONG, LOTS OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND SO FORTH.

IS THAT ENOUGH?

>> THE QUESTION IS WHAT PROCESS IS DUE?

AND ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A PROCESS IN A SINGLE STATE THAT HE WAS PROVIDED OR IS THIS, GIVEN THAT IT IS A FEDERAL ELECTION, SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED AT A HIGHER LEVEL?

AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT HERE SIMPLY THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH I THINK WILL TAKE IT UP.

BUT ALSO UNDER SECTION 3 CONGRESS HAS THE MEANS BY WAY OF A 3/4 VOTE TO OVERRIDE THESE DECISIONS WHICH AGAIN, SUGGEST THAT WE ARE NOT IN A DEMOCRACY.

EVEN A CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY.

THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO RELY ON THE COURTS.

TO GO BACK TO YOUR POINT IN FEDERALIST NUMBER 10, MADISON SAID YES THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THE PASSION AND THE POOR JUDGMENT OF THE PEOPLE WILL RULE BUT ULTIMATELY, ULTIMATELY ONCE THEY HAVE REGAINED THEIR SENSES, THEY ARE TO CONTROL.

>> BUT IS THAT THE CASE WHEN THE PERSON THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THE VIEW OF MANY, TRIED TO ESSENTIALLY OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT?

>> I'M SO GLAD YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION AND I HATE BEING IN THE POSITION OF DEFENDING SOMEONE WHO I THINK IS DISGUSTING, SO I'M NOT DEFENDING THIS DISGUSTING INDIVIDUAL.

I'M DEFENDING PROCESS BECAUSE MANY WOULD ASK, SHOULD WE DO THE SAME FOR BIDEN, WHO IS NOW BEING ACCUSED OF BEING IN CAHOOTS WITH CHINA, OF GETTING IMPROPER FUNDS AND ALL SORTS OF OTHER ACCUSATIONS.

SO WHO IS WRONG IN THIS IS REALLY A QUESTION OF YOU KNOW, WRONGNESS BEING IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.

THERE ARE MILLIONS... >> THERE IS EVIDENCE IN ONE CASE.

>> MANY SAY THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE CASE OF BIDEN?

>> BUT HE DIDN'T ENGAGE IN AN INSURRECTION.

THAT'S THE BRIGHT LINE THAT THE 14th AMENDMENT SUGGESTS, A REBELLION OR INSURRECTION.

SO I THINK IF SOMEONE WERE TO ACCUSE BIDE BIDEN OF THIS, IT WOULD GO UP IN FRONT OF A COURT AND SAY HE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN... (ALL TALKING AT ONCE).

>> CAN I JUST RESPOND?

HERE IS THE CHALLENGE, THAT IN OTHER STATES THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO HANG THEIR HAT ON SECTION 3 OF THE 14th AMENDMENT.

THEY'RE GOING TO FIND 134 OTHER LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO ACHIEVE AN END THAT IS PROBLEMATIC.

THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

AND WHAT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IS WHAT DO WE DO WHEN THE SHOE IS ON THE OTHER FOOT.

AND SOME OTHER LEGAL THEORY OR STATUTE IS USED TO DISQUALIFY BIDEN BECAUSE THAT IS ALREADY HAPPENING.

>> YOU KEEP REFERRING TO THE STATES AND THAT IS AN INTERESTING OTHER WRINKLE TO THIS IN THAT THE LANGUAGE IS PRETTY EXPLICIT ABOUT BEING A SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE OF CONGRESS THAT CAN'T BE ON THE BALLOT BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THE PRESIDENCY EXCLUSIVELY.

SO WHY ISN'T THE PRESIDENCY MENTIONED IN THERE?

AND IT MIGHT BE THIS ELEMENT OF DO YOU WANT ONE STATE TO BE ABLE TO CONTROL THE CANDIDATES WHO ARE ON THE BALLOT FOR A NATIONAL ELECTION.

>> I THINK IT'S ABSURD TO THINK THAT THE PRESIDENCY WOULDN'T BE INCLUDED IN THIS, RIGHT?

>> BUT WHY IS IT NOT SPECIFIED.

>> YOU CAN HAVE INSURRECTION IN THE HIGHEST OFFICE BUT NOT THE LEGISLATURE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.

>> ONE OF THE PIECES I READ THAT QUOTED ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AT THE TIME THAT AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN SAYING, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE RAISED THAT ISSUE AND POINTING TO THE WORDS OF THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> A SINGLE PERSON OUT OF DOZENS OF LAWMAKERS.

>> WE HAVE TO LEAVE THIS ON CHILL AND COME BACK TO THIS.

THE NEW LEGISLATIVE SESSION BEGAN IN ALBANY THIS WEEK, AND GOVERNOR HOCHUL AND THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY DON'T SEE EYE TO EYE.

HOCHUL CLOSED OUT 2023 BY VETOING SEVERAL HIGH-PROFILE BILLS THAT PASSED THE DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATURE BY WIDE MARGINS, INCLUDING THE GRIEVING FAMILIES AND WRONGFUL CONVICTION ACTS.

SHE ALSO CRITICIZED THE LEGISLATURE FOR PASSING 500 BILLS IN THE FINAL WEEK OF THE SESSION.

HER OFFICE CALLED SOMEOF THOSE BILLS "EXTREME."

WAS THE GOVERNOR RIGHT TO VETO THESE BILLS AND TO WAIT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE TO DO SO?

SO THERE COULDN'T BE AN ATTEMPT TO OVERRIDE IT?

>> I WILL TALK ABOUT ONE BILL.

I DON'T AGREE WITH ALL OF HER DECISIONS.

ONE OF THE ONES THAT I DISAGREE WITH AND ISN'T GETTING AS MUCH ATTENTION BECAUSE IT WAS A LOCAL ISSUE, WAS THIS BILL TO-- THAT WOULD HAVE EXPEDITED AN OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT OFF THE COLD OF LONG ISLAND AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEY HAD TO BUILD TRANSMISSION LINES UNDER A PUBLIC BEACH IN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH.

AND THIS WAS, IN ORDER TO BUILD A HUGE OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT, WHICH NEW YORK STATE IS TRYING TO DO MORE OF THESE-- WOULD HAVE BEEN 130 TURBINES THAT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED ELECTRICITY TO A MILLION HOMES, RIGHT?

SO, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE SAYS LIKE WE WANT CLEAN ENERGY.

WE LOVE IT.

BUT WE JUST DON'T WANT THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THAT CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY IN OUR BACKYARD, RIGHT?

AND WHAT THAT IS GOING TO TO DO THEN IS REALLY, YOU KNOW, GUM UP THE SYSTEM, RIGHT?

SO NEW YORK STATE HAS PLEDGED TO BE 70% RENEWABLE ENERGY BY 2030, THAT'S JUST SIX YEARS FROM NOW.

TO BE COMPLETELY EMISSIONS FREE ENERGY BY 2040.

AND IF WE GET THESE KINDS OF, YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNOR REJECTING OR VETOING THESE KINDS OF EFFORTS TO BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE BY CAVING INTO LOCAL PRESSURE, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE ARE IN REAL TROUBLE HERE AND THIS IS GOVERNOR HOCHUL WHO ALLEGEDLY SUPPORTS THE CLIMATE POLICIES OF THE STATE.

AND SO I JUST WORRY THAT THAT IS A SIGNAL OF THE THINGS TO COME DOWN THE ROAD.

>> OKAY.

SO GOVERNOR HOCHUL DOES WANT TO GET RE-ELECTED, PRESUMABLY, SO WE MAY BE TALKING ABOUT DEMOCRACY IN THE PREVIOUS ISSUE BUT IT GETS US TO NIMBYISM.

>> YOU ARE GETTING INTO BELLWEATHER ISSUES OR WHATEVER, AND TO ME, THE BELLWEATHER BILL THAT IS INTERESTING IS THE ONE THAT WOULD HAVE BANNED NON COMPETE CONTRACTS.

THAT WOULD HAVE HELPED WORKERS BUT COULD HAVE HAD THE POTENTIAL TO STIFLE INNOVATION.

A YEAR AGO ON THIS PROGRAM WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT, THIS I RECOMMENDED THAT MAYBE THESE CLAUSES SHOULD BE FOR SELECTIVE OCCUPATIONS ONLY.

THERE IS NO SENSE FOR HAVING NON-COMPETE CLAUSES FOR LOW INCOME.

MAYBE FOR HIGH INCOME.

THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT HOCHUL WANTED TO DO.

SHE WANTED TO EXEMPT WORKERS EARNING MORE THAN $250,000 FROM THESE NON-COMPETE PROHIBITIONS.

THERE IS REPORTS THAT THE LEGISLATURE WAS WILLING TO GO TO $300,000 OR $500,000 AND SO IT'S REALLY INTERESTING TO ME THAT IF THAT'S TRUE THAT THOSE TWO SIDES COULDN'T COME TO SOME KIND OF COMPROMISE, SOME KIND OF AN AGREEMENT AND SO EITHER THEY'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH THAT AGREEMENT SOON AND THINGS WILL BE FINE, OR IT'S A SIGN THAT, OH NO, THERE IS A LOT OF ISSUES BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR THAT THEY CANNOT RECONCILE AND THINGS ARE GOING TO BE GUMMED UP FOR A WHILE.

>> IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE AT LOGGERHEADS, THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR AND THE DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATURE?

>> I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION BASED ON MANY OF THE STATEMENTS THAT ASSEMBLY SPEAKER LEADER CARL HEASTIE HAS SAID ON SOME OF THE ISSUES HE YOU HAVE GROWTH TALKED ABOUT.

HE HAS LAID OUT WAYS WHERE HE THINKS A COMPROMISE CAN BE REACHED IN REGARD TO THE NON-COMPETE TO EXEMPT LOW INCOME AND MIDDLE INCOME AND THEN IN A NUMBER OF OTHER CASES THAT WE CAN GET INTO THE DETAILS OF.

BUT WHAT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IS YOUR OWNING THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 500 MEASURES BEING PASSED BY LARGE MARGINS, 500 OUT OF ROUGHLY 900 FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR IN JUST THE FINAL DAYS.

AND ON TOP OF THAT, YOU ALREADY HAVE LIMITED OPPORTUNITY FOR VETTING AND LOOKING AT THE FEASIBILITY OF THESE BILLS FOR MANY OF THEM.

ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNOR, THERE WERE NO HEARINGS.

THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

AND YET WE'VE GOT OUR LAWMAKERS, WHO ARE VOTING FOR THESE THINGS.

AND WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT THE NEXT BIG BATTLE WILL BE HOW TO DEAL WITH NEW YORK STATE'S $4 BILLION DEFICIT, THIS IS AN ISSUE BECAUSE A LOT OF THAT MONEY HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOCATED.

AND SO NOW WE COME BACK TO THE CLASSIC DISAGREEMENT OVER WHETHER TO RAISE TAXES ON THE WEALTHY-- WHICH THE GOVERNOR HAS SAID SHE IS NOT GOING TO DO-- TORE MAKE CUTS TO EDUCATION AND HEALTHCARE, WHICH THE ASSEMBLY SPEAKER SAID HE IS NOT.

BUT BOTH OF THEIR HANDS ARE TIED NOW THAT WE'VE GOT THESE 500 BILLS THAT WERE RUSHED THROUGH.

>> IT IS RIDICULOUS.

LIKE I'M ABSOLUTELY ON HOCHUL'S SIDE HERE BECAUSE 500 BILLS AT THE LAST MINUTE, YOU KNOW, LAWS HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

YOU NEED TIME TO SORT THROUGH ALL OF THOSE THINGS BEFORE THEY GO THROUGH.

>> BUT IN HER DEFENSE, NOT ALL-- I MEAN-- ACTUALLY NOT IN HER DEFENSE.

IN DEFENSE OF THE LEGISLATURE, I MEAN SOME OF THE BILLS HAVE BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME.

SOME OF THEM ARE NOT NEW.

THE GRIEVING FAMILIES ACT IS OVER A DECADE OLD.

SHE VETOED IT LAST YEAR.

THEY TRIED TO WORK WITH HER TO MAKE CHANGES TO IT AND SHE STILL VETOED IT, RIGHT?

SO IT'S NOT FAIR TO SAY THAT THESE WERE ALL NEW THINGS.

OFTEN TIMES BILLS GET RECYCLED AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

THEY GET REINTRODUCED.

AND IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT THE LEGISLATURE PASSED 896 LAWS SO I DON'T THINK THEY'RE COMPLETELY AT LOGGERHEADS.

SHE SIGNED THOSE.

>> BUT THEY ADMIT MANY OF THESE WERE NEVER DEBATED.

>> OKAY, WE ARE GOING TO QUICKLY GO TO OUR LAST TOPIC WHICH WAS THE FACT THAT WE NOW APPARENTLY ARE GOING TO HAVE CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANTS ON THE THRU-WAY AND THEY'RE CLOSED ON SUNDAYS.

WE WILL JUST HAVE TIME TO GET ONE COMMENT FROM EACH OF YOU ON THAT.

CHAD, TAKE IT AWAY.

>> THIS IS A TOPIC ABOUT HOW AS-- AS NINE THE NEW YORK THRU-WAY IS AND I SAY THAT AS AN OUTSIDER WHO HAS DRIVEN EVERY MILE OF INTERSTATE 90.

NEW YORK CONTRACTS OUT MONOPOLY RIGHTS TO APPLE GREEN WHICH IS AN IRISH CONVENIENT STORE TO PROVIDE SERVICES.

THE REAL PROBLEM HERE IS NOT THAT CHICK-FIL-A IS CLOSED ON SUNDAYS IT'S THAT PROTECTIONIST NEW YORK IS CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT THAT RESTRICTS COMPETITION AND IF YOU PROVIDED MORE ACCESS AND END MON PLIES, THE FOOD WILL BE SUPPLIED TO YOU.

YOU DON'T NEED LAWS.

>> WHAT I THINK IS AS NINE ABOUT THIS-- IS SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM'S RESPONSE TO THIS.

THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA WHO SAYS THAT THIS LAW THAT IS GOING TO REQUIRE RESTAURANTS TO BE OPEN ON SUNDAY VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION, VIOLATES THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

HE HAS DECLARED A WAR OVER THIS BILL, THREATENED TO WITH HOLD FEDERAL FUNDS FROM CITIES THAT REQUIRE CHICK-FIL-A TO BE OPEN ON SUNDAY.

HE IS RIDICULOUS.

>> THAT BILL, WE SHOULD SAY, IS A BILL THAT IS MOVING IN THE LEGISLATURE TO REQUIRE THEM TO BE OPEN BECAUSE A POLICY, CHICK-FIL-A'S POLICY IS TO BE CLOSED ON SUNDAY AS A DAY OF REST.

>> CHICK-FIL-A SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO BE OPEN ON SUNDAYS AND THRU-WAY DRIVERS SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO GO WITHOUT THEIR CHICKEN SANDWICHES WHEN THEY'RE DRIVING ON SUNDAY.

BUT I ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT APPEARS TO BE A BAIT AND SWITCH HERE.

THE FOLKS WHO NEGOTIATED THIS DEAL ON BEHALF OF THE STATE KNEW THAT CHICK-FIL-A WAS A RESTAURANT THAT WAS CLOSED ON SUNDAYS.

AND TO NOW COME AFTER THE FACT AND ASK THE LEGISLATURE TO FORCE THEM TO DO SOMETHING THAT THEY ALREADY UNDERSTOOD WAS NOT PART OF THE CULTURE, IS A BAIT AND SWITCH AND THAT'S WRONG.

>> HOW DO THEY HAVE MADE SUCH A DEAL?

>> GET RID OF THE MONOPOLY AND IT'S FINE.

YOU CAN GO TO ANOTHER RESTAURANT.

>> THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE...

RIGHT.

IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE MON PLY.

WE NEED TO GO TO THE AS AND F. SARAH YOUR F. >> MY F FOR THIS WEEK GOES TO THE NEW YORK TIMES COVERAGE OF THE CLAUDE EVEN GAY, THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF HARVARD WHO RESIGNED THIS WEEK AFTER FACING ACCUSATIONS OF PLAIJ RICH.

THIS STORY IS ARGUABLY NEWSWORTHY DID NOT WARRANT THE DOZENS OF STORIES AND OP-EDS PUBLISHED BY THE PAPER.

"THE NEW YORK TIMES" SUCCUMBED TO A HIGHLY ORGANIZED CAMPAIGN BY CONSERVATIVE ACTS VISITS TO GET THE MAIN MAINSTREAM MEDIA TO COVER THIS SCANDAL AS A LARGER ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO READ THE EXCELLENT OP-ED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES THAT TALKS ABOUT THE BROADER SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS CAMPAIGN.

>> THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH RELEASED A REPORT THAT SHOWS ONE OUT OF FOUR ADULTS IN THE STATE SUFFERS FROM FOOD INSECURITY.

PEOPLE WHO EXPERIENCE HUNGER HAVE HIGHER PROHIBIT PROBABILITY OF CHRONIC DECEASES LIKE ASTHMA, STROKE, DIABETES AND HEART DISEASE.

THE STATE HEALTH COMMISSIONER JAMES McDONALD SAID NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO GO HUNGRY.

I AGREE.

THE QUESTION IS WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

>> CHAD?

>> MY F GO IS TO FORMER UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN LACROSSE CHANCELLOR JOE GOW FIRED AFTER POSTING PORN GRAPHIC VIDEOS OF HIMSELF, HIS WIFE AND THIRD PARTNER ON LINE.

HE SAID THIS IS A VIOLATION OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND FREE SPEECH AND HAS ME QUESTIONING MY COMMITMENT TO THOSE IDEALS.

ZIMMERMAN WROTE AN OP SAID DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF A PROFESSOR TO PROVOKING AND ADMINISTRATOR TO REPRESENT THE UNIVERSITY.

GOW OUGHT TO READ THAT.

>> MY A THIS WEEK GOES TO THE BUY NOTHING PROJECT WHICH IS AN INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT TO BUILD A FREE GIFT ECONOMY.

BUY NOTHING GROUPS HAVE SPRUNG UP AROUND THE COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD WHERE PEOPLE CAN GIVE AWAY THEIR UNWANTED ITEMS AND ANY ITEMS FROM CARDBOARD BOXES TO DINING ROOM TABLES AND ASK FOR THINGS THEY WANT OR NEED INSTEAD OF BUYING THEM.

BUY NOTHING ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO OFFER THEIR SERVICES FOR FREE AND ASK THEIR NEIGHBORS FOR HELP.

IT'S DESIGNED TO DECREASE CONSUMERISM AND WASTE AND TO BUILD COMMUNITY.

I'M A MEMBER OF MY LOCAL BUY NOTHING GROUP ON FACEBOOK AND I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE WATCHING TO CONSIDER JOINING YOUR LOCAL GROUP.

>> NINA YOUR A.

>> AXIOS REPORTS THAT CONSUMER CONFIDENCE IS "BIZARRELY LOW."

EVEN THOUGH ACCORDING TO AXIOS THE U.S.

BOASTS THE STRONGEST ECONOMY OF ANY RICH NATION, THE PREDICTED RECESSION NEVER HAPPENED, EMPLOYMENT IS ROBUST, REAL WAGES HAVE BEEN RISING AND EVEN CRIME IS DOWN.

THINGS ARE LOOKING GOOD FOR THE NEW YEAR.

NOW, THE PROBLEM IS TO CONVINCE AMERICANS THAT THAT IS THE CASE.

>> AND CHAD, YOUR A.

>> SO I WANT TO TAKE THIS NEW YEAR AND HOPEFULLY COMMIT DO GIVING As EXCLUSIVELY ON THE LOCAL BUSINESSES AND PEOPLE AND EVENTS.

THE CITY OF CHERYL AND ONE OF THEIR NEW INCOMING COMMISSIONERS, KEVIN SAILS, I'M INTENTIONALLY IGNORANT ABOUT HIS POLITICS.

THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT ABOUT POLICY RATHER HE IS A FORMER STUDENT OF MINE.

A GOOD MAN, SMART MAN AND I'M PROUD OF HIM FOR SERVING AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL IN ONE OF OUR COMMUNITIES.

>> THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN YOU CAN DO SO ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY.

FOR ALL OF US AT "IVORY TOWER."

HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.