In the news.

Welcome, I’m Professor Shaw now, Professor McDaniel, this is Government in the news for American

and Texas government. So one of things one to start off with is really something that’s taken over the news

headlines as the tragedy in Orlando where forty nine individuals

were killed in a nightclub. And we’ve seen quite a bit of talk, talk

from President Obama as well as to presidential candidates, as well as some a

number of other leaders talk about this. And so we want to start off with is releasing how their what their reaction

was to this. And so first we have President Obama’s initial reaction. This is an

especially heartbreaking day for all of our friends, our fellow Americans who are lesbian,

gay, bisexual or transgender. The shooter

targeted a nightclub where people came together to be with friends, to dance and to sing

and to live the place where they were attacked as more than a nightclub. It is a place of solidarity

and empowerment where people have come together to raise awareness,

to speak their minds and to advocate for their civil rights. So this is a sobering reminder

that attacks on any American, regardless of race, ethnicity,

religion or sexual orientation, is an attack on all of us

on the fundamental values of equality and dignity that define us as a country.

And no act of hate or terror will ever change who we are or the values that make us

Americans. Today marks the most deadly shooting

in American history. The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful

assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder

of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school

or in a house of worship or a movie theater or in a nightclub.

And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing

is a decision as well. OK, so those are the statements from the president, the United States.

We also had statements from both of the presumptive party nominees, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Let’s take a look what Mrs. Clinton had to say about this. Originally, I had

intended to come to Cleveland under very different circumstances. We

are heading into a general election that could be the most consequential of

our lifetimes. But today is not a day for politics.

The Orlando terrorist may be dead. But the virus

that poisoned his mind remains very much alive and we

must attack it with clear eyes, steady hands, unwavering

determination and pride in our country and our values.

As president, I will make identifying and stopping lone wolves a top

priority, and I will make sure our law enforcement and intelligence professionals

have all the resources they need to get the job done, even as we

make sure our security officials get the tools they need to prevent attacks.

It’s essential that we stop terrorists from getting the tools they need to carry

out the attacks. And that is especially true when it comes to assault weapons

like those used in Orlando and San Bernardino. If the FBI

is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t

be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked, and you shouldn’t

be able to exploit loopholes and evade criminal background checks

by buying online or at a gun show. And yes, if you’re too

dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America.

As president, I will work with our great tech companies from Silicon Valley to

Boston to step up our game. We have to do a better job intercepting

ISIS communications, inflammatory anti-Muslim

rhetoric and threatening to ban the families and friends

of Muslim Americans, as well as millions of Muslim business people and tourists from

entering our country hurts the vast majority of Muslims who love freedom

and hate terror. The terrorist in Orlando targeted LGBT

Americans out of hatred and bigotry, and an attack on

any American is an attack on all Americans.

There is no better rebuke to the terrorists and all those who hate

our open, diverse society is an asset in the struggle

against terrorism, not a liability. So as you see there, you have

again, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton providing her her comments. And

so it was a planned speech in Cleveland. But in response to that, the terror

attacks that changed really what she wanted to say. But we also have comments from

Mr. Donald Trump, the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party. On the

Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, was the worst terrorist strike

on our soil since September 11th. So much carnage.

Such a disgrace. It’s an assault on the ability of free

people to live their lives. Love who they want and express their

identity. But the current politically correct response cripples our ability to talk

and to think and act. Clearly, the killer whose name I will

not use or ever say. Was born an Afghan of

Afghan parents who immigrated to the United States. The bottom line is that the

only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his

family to come here. We have a dysfunctional immigration system

which does not permit us to know who we let into our country. And it does

not permit us to protect our citizens properly. The immigration laws of the United States

give the president powers to suspend entry into the country of any class of persons.

When I’m elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world

where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our

allies. Until we fully understand how to end these threats,

we cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour

into our country, many of whom have the same thought process as this savage

killer. Many of the principles of radical Islam are

incompatible with Western values and institutions.

I want to mainstream immigration policy that promotes American

values. Why would we admit people who support violent

hatred? Hillary Clinton can never claim to be a friend of the gay community

as long as she continues to support immigration policies that bring Islamic

extremists to our country and who suppress women, gays and anyone

else who doesn’t share their views or values. Ask yourself

who is really the friend of women and the L B an LGBT

community? Donald Trump with actions or Hillary Clinton with

her words? Immigration is a privilege and we should not let anyone

into this country who doesn’t support our communities. All of our communities. Every

single one of them. The Muslim community. So importantly, they have to work with us.

They have to cooperate with law enforcement and turn in the people who they know are bad

and they know it. And they have to do it and they have to do it forthwith. When I’m

president, I pledge to protect and defend all Americans who live inside

our borders. Wherever they come from, wherever they were born,

I don’t care. All Americans living here and following

our laws, not other laws, will be protected.

OK, so there you have it, the back and forth between the president, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Welcome

to Presidential Politics 2016. This wasn’t the end of it, though. President Obama,

after hearing the comments of Mr. Trump, actually had a response directly to the statements that Trump offered after

Orlando. Enough talking about being tough on terrorists, actually

be tough on terrorism and stop making it easy as possible for terrorists to buy assault

weapons for a while now. The main contribution of some of my friends on the other

side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to

criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase radical Islam.

They know who the nature of the enemy is. So there’s no magic to the phrase

radical Islam. It’s a political talking point. It’s

not a strategy. And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with

a broad brush. And imply that we are at war

with an entire religion and we are doing the terrorists work for them.

But we are now seeing how dangerous this kind of mindset and this kind of thinking can

be. We’re starting to see where this kind of rhetoric

and loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we’re fighting,

where this can lead us. We now have proposals from the presumptive Republican nominee

for president of the United States. To bar all Muslims from immigrating

to America, we hear language that singles out immigrants. And suggests

entire religious communities. Are complicit in violence.

Where does this stop? Because that’s not the America we want.

It doesn’t reflect our democratic ideals. It will make us more safe. It will make us less

safe. Fueling ISIS notion that the West hates Muslims,

we’ve gone through moments in our history before when we acted out of fear and we came

to regret it. This is a country founded on basic freedoms, including

freedom of religion. And if we ever abandon those values,

we would not only make it a lot easier to radicalize people here and around the world.

But we would have betrayed the very things we are trying to act. And then the terrorists

would have won. And we cannot let that happen.

I will not let that happen. OK. There you have it, a little bit of repetition there

from the first clip versus the last clip. But the last clip is President Obama’s response

to some of the tweets and then some of the statements that Donald Trump in particular made

in response to the Orlando tragedy. So and, you know, Chris McDaniel, I don’t want to,

you know, just focus on these sort of micro politics. You know, we certainly have our own

views about Orlando and have nothing but respect for the victims and respect for

the law enforcement people put their lives on the line for this. So so, you know, when we inject politics into it, it’s because,

you know, the tragedy does have serious public policy consequences. And there’ll be invocations of public

opinion as America tries to figure out what to do with the threat that is new and something

we haven’t really dealt with before. So, you know, with any tragedy, you always ask what happened, what caused

this? And one of the things we’re singers really several frames me being put forward

and discussion of this. And so President Obama in his initial speech really talked

about really put forth gun control for him. And so this is, again, the idea of a mass shooting.

And President Obama’s got, you know, over the past few years is becoming much more,

I guess, despondent and talking about mass shootings like I have to talk to all about this. You know, least once

a month, I’m coming to you about it, about some type of mass shooting. And so he.

So you have the gun control issue coming up in terms of his frame, like, look, this is a problem of why is other

Western industrialized nations don’t have this problem, but we do. But you also see other frames coming

into play as well. Whereas Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump focused

more on the idea of terrorism and controlling and trying to control terrorists. That’s

you see that for him coming through. Where was Hillary Clinton? You know, and Donald Trump and even to some extent maybe

since President Obama’s idea of increasing surveillance to stop terrorism.

And that’s what they seem to agree on. But they seem to disagree on. They seem to agree one would stop terrorism

is to increase surveillance, but they simply disagree on what they should

do in terms of banning Muslims, things like that. But then finally, you see agreement all three in terms

of bringing L.G., the LGBT community into the fold, saying, oh, these are Americans.

By hurting them, you are hurting us, as opposed to in the past where some groups may have seen them as

as a deviant group or something like that. They’re like, no. These are people.

You are harming our people. And so you see this very protective language towards the LGBT community.

And so, I mean, it’s very interesting. See the various the variety of ways in which they’re talking

about this. And you know how this could have play out in the future in terms

of policy action to try to prevent future events such as this. I mean, you know,

when when Professor McGee and I talked about framing and this is something that we’ll get into in the in the

in the media module, we talk about framing. We’re talking about the way in which events are perceived or presented.

And so, you know, you could frame an issue in a variety of different ways. Professor McDaniels said the president

tends to frame the Orlando tragedy is the manifestation of, you know, lax

gun control laws. And there’s a reason that that President Obama prefers

that frame. I think it’s consistent with his own sincere beliefs and ideology that, you

know, the way to understand the tragedy and, you know, the way to deal with the tragedy is to focus on the issue

of availability of guns. But there are other people who have different views on this. And those

are manifest in their frame. So Donald Trump comes out and says, look, you know, the problem here is radical

Islam. We need to see the tragedy through that lens. And so when he talks about, he talks. But what

do you do if you believe that if you think that, you know, the core problem here is Islamic

fundamentalism, then it suggest a whole different set of public policies and responses. And so part

of this, you know, we would probably observe from a large scale point of view from the 20000

foot perspective. Right. What we’re talking about are people with legitimate differences

over how to view what’s going on in other playing out in a very political context. It’s a 2016 election.

Their presidential candidates who are trying to get elected, they’re trying to convince voters to trust them

with the country. And so what part of what you’re seeing now is a battle over who’s who’s perspective,

who’s frame is most compelling to people, you know, and it’s probably the case that Democrats

are more receptive to the frame offered up by the president and to a slightly lesser degree, Hillary Clinton. We’ll

talk about here in a second. And Republicans are a little more likely to, you know, adopt or respond

to the frame offered by Donald Trump. But it’s it’s fasting to hear that. You know, if you guys are out

out there listening to this and you think these people are talking past each other. Well, yeah. I

mean, I would submit to you that that’s legitimate. That while there’s a political angle to it,

just different ways of viewing what’s happened. And it doesn’t make them any, you know, any more or less correct or appropriate,

although you do have some people are turned off by just talking about politics after a tragedy like this. But I think that’s

on of. I’d also point out just from a stagecraft standpoint, if you go back in and take a look at those

those different statements. I think Hillary wins hands down on flags. Trump has two flags.

Hillary’s got two flags plus like the Peyton background with the big stripes in

the background. So she looks pretty good. The president, again, not to focus too much on stagecraft,

but it is relevant. The president is presidential. You know, Professor McDaniel, I were

talking off air about, you know, the tone that President Obama can strike.

You know, he’s the only one of these three people now running for office again. You know, he’s burnishing his legacy, certainly.

But, you know, he can come out and he has this sort of gravity and tone and he doesn’t seem

to be as politicking as the other two. I couldn’t help but be struck by that contrast,

watching those three statements, you know, together. But well, let’s let’s bring it back and talk a little more generally

about the three different kind of aspects of this. We’re talking about, you know, guns

and gun control. We’re talking about gay rights and we’re talking about Islamic

extremism and some of the different policies associated with that. I think we’ve prepared a little bit of data on some

of these. So three things in particular. So Donald Trump has suggested, as proposed,

a temporary ban on immigration of Muslims to the United States. So that’s one thing we

won’t talk about. We also want to give you guys a few numbers on support towards gun control,

assault rifle bans and things of that nature. And then we also have some public opinion on

gay rights. Let’s start with the first slide, which is just public opinion on the Trump proposal.

So you all can take a look at that. And what you see is that it’s a proposal. So this is again.

Let’s let’s be clear. But I think President Obama probably intentionally misrepresented this slightly.

It’s not a full and forever ban on all Muslim immigration. It’s a temporary

ban. What Trump says to ban until we can figure out what’s going on.

OK, well, that’s actually the way it was worded in this particular question. So if you’re sort of surprised by the level of support

for this, Trump’s particular language was used in the frame

that was offered to people when they were asked this for polling purposes. So a temporary ban on Muslims traveling

to the United States. So you can see them looks all respondents. That’s the cluster of bar graphs over to the far left

right. There’s there’s basically 50 percent support for that. Around 40.

That’s slightly less than 40 percent, about 38 percent opposition. And then a cluster of people, you know, about 10 percent

say they don’t know. You can see there’s a partisan divide on reaction here with Republicans

being the most supportive of a temporary ban and Democrats being the least supportive or the

most opposed. But you see, it’s not a it’s not a proposal that is viewed, at least at this point in this particular

poll, as being crazy or outlandish. In fact, it enjoys majority support,

bare majority, but majority support and fairly considerable support amongst independents and Republicans.

Right. So when people talk about Trump’s extremism and Professor

Daniel are agnostic on whether this particular policy proposals, you know, good or bad, we have our own views,

but we’ll keep them to ourselves. You can see that as far as the public’s concerned,

what Trump is saying doesn’t strike them as being crazy. All right. And that’s important to recognize.

You know, one of the reasons Donald Trump keeps saying these things in this this particular proposal in particular

is that there’s a decent amount of public support for it. Yeah, and this is actually a very

large literature about this. Then again, when people feel threatened. This poll was taken right

after shortly after the Paris attacks, the San Bernardino attacks. And so there was this very

high and I guess attention to radical Islam

or Muslim extremist. And so because of this like note, we need to stop a ban on all Muslims.

Now, again, this also feeds into is you know, it stops the Syrian refugees.

There are problems sort of implementing this. And the sense that you’re saying, look, we’re cutting off humanitarian aid. And

this is where some people say, no, this is this is where it’s incorrect and we need to be careful

about. We just presented some data and it was in response to a particular question. But as Professor McDaniels

suggests, how you ask that question is going to significantly influence the results.

So you notice in that frame, is that a temporary ban on Muslim immigration? I think if

you if you said a ban on Muslim immigration, I think that would drop support.

On the other hand, I think if you said, you know, a ban on Muslim immigration from

areas where there is Islamic extremism or lots of Islamic extremism, you

would probably see an increase in support. So, you know, I guess that’s one way of saying something. We also talk about

later in the semester, and that is that, you know, public opinion is, you know, kind of malleable.

People don’t walk around real strong opinions about immigration policy towards, you know, Muslim countries.

It can be substantially influenced by how you word it. So it is interesting to listen to Trump say

it’s a temporary ban until we figure out what’s going on. That’s his best play where

President Obama was saying, you know, there’s some people, meaning Donald Trump, who want to ban all

Muslims and ban immigration and. Ah. Well, that’s not quite

what Trump was saying, although it’s not a, you know, a crazy sort of extrapolation. But that

frame, that way of framing the issue does much better in terms of mobilizing support to President Obama’s

position or the the anti-Trump position. So it’s interesting to watch them talk about the issue

and try to finesse it a little bit with an eye towards public opinion. Now, what’s also important about this in terms

of this is not a A. People see this as somewhat raise because, again, about one in three Democrats

support this. So it’s not a small portion of Democrats who support this idea when it was brought forth

in March. Now, again, that may not. That wouldn’t stop the thing that happened in Orlando because he was born

in the US. And so it would’ve prevented the Orlando tragedy. But the president

does have the power to do this. So there’s an article in The Washington Post today which exercise that, you know, you know, Donald

Trump is mostly correct. So going back from the 1950s immigration law,

the president has the power to restrict certain individuals now was put forth mainly to stop

communism coming into the U.S. But President Obama’s use this by saying that if you are associate

with war crimes, you cannot enter the U.S. And so there is the power to do

this. Again, again, you run into problems like what’s the litmus test for saying someone is Muslim and non-Muslim, things

like that. But the president does have the power to bar certain

individuals from entering, entering in the U.S. And this is not something far fetched. So President

Obama has used this. And again, if Mr. Trump is elected, he could use this as well.

I mean, it’s an interesting point. I’d actually sort of go to the broader constitutional issue to fill, read the constitution.

There’s really nothing in the Constitution. A lot of stuff about citizenship and subsequent Supreme Court

decisions have clarified questions of citizenship. There’s really not much about immigration.

You know, it’s essentially something that sort of left to the states. But through the course of American

history, the federal government has become, you know, obviously sort of the broad protector of boundaries has become

more and more responsible for immigration policy. But Professor McDaniel is exactly right. There’s not

really much constitutional guidance with respect to immigration. So, you know, initially,

Congress and as the president has kind of ascended with respect to policy powers

and Congress has declined a little bit. The president in the 20th century and the 21st century became

very important players with respect to immigration policy. And so a lot of immigration policy is actually kind

of left to, you know, executive construction and how the executive thinks he or she

needs to sort of fulfill the obligations of office. So the president does have some leeway here. So as we listen

to President Obama and Trump’s different perspectives, you know, the president basically is going to be the

player on these issues. And so that’s important to keep in mind. Now, what I think we probably do now is move ahead to the

second elements. We talked about Islamic extremism and immigration. Let’s talk a little bit about gun

control, which was, of course, the focal point of Hillary Clinton and President Obama’s sort of

reaction to the Orlando episode. We have a public opinion here on some gun control issues. And

this is simply supportive versus opposed, you know,

with a. The scale being strongly supports, somewhat support, somewhat opposed, strongly oppose stricter

gun control laws in the United States. I believe that’s actually how the question was framed. So it’s very generic.

We’re not asking about, you know, should you outlaw grenade launchers on semi-automatic no-no-no?

It’s not that particular. It’s sort of just a general gun control question. And you can see, right.

That there’s a far left, again, is all respondents. And we move to the party breakdown.

And you can see the far left indicates that there is strong support for stricter gun control laws in the United

States. Now, again, that’s left to the imagination of

the respondent. Here’s to what the particulars are. And you do see, again, a partisan divide

where Republicans are much less supportive, although they’re not totally opposed. That’s important point. Take away from

the graph. Democrats are strongly supportive of stricter gun control laws. So see,

you get a partisan divide. But in this case, you know, if if we’re talking about in political terms,

why does President Obama want to talk about Hillary Clinton, want to talk about Orlando in terms of gun

control? And why does Donald Trump want to talk about in terms of Islamic extremism? Well, if you were cynical

out there, I know you’re not, but say you were, you would be tempted to say that. Well,

Democrats want to talk about gun control because they’re on the correct side or the popular side of that issue,

whereas Republicans want to talk about Islamic extremism because being bullish or stronger

on Islamic extremism is a winning issue for them. I think that’s manifest in the numbers that you see right

here. So that’s a broad view. But you know something? We want to make sure it guys we’re all aware

of and in particular the issue of similar automatic weapons. And so there’s also question

about the support for banning semi-automatic weapons. They were banned. But I think about

so that’s why you’re seeing the rise in this. And so there actually is some polling from some information on that.

And as we see, there is a significant level of support for banning assault style weapons.

So, again, you see about close to 50 percent strongly agree.

You see Democrats, 6 percent of Democrats agree with this. You see the plurality of Republicans

agree with this as well. So there is you know, if you focus on the assault style weapons, I do believe

there is support for this. And again, this was taken back in December of 2013.

So this was before the Senate was before the San Bernardino attack? Yeah, after

Paris. But before the San Bernardino thing, maybe a week or so, before that week, before some

of the some of the other recent shootings that we’ve seen. And in particular, people have been pointing

to the ar-15, which is a semi-automatic rifle which was used which has been used multiple

these shootings. And so people argue like, no, we need it. We need to pull back on

the on these style weapons. So President Obama’s made this argument. Hillary Clinton’s made us arguments. The argument

is so even in their discussion of gun control, it’s not take away all guns, but take away certain

guns. And I think that’s I think that might be a more popular way of trying

to get things pushed through. But it’s something what we’ll have to see what happens. This is

an issue that’s central on the on the on the agenda now.

Yeah. Well, I think what we all want to bear in mind, a couple of things. Again, we’re supposed to give you

a broad perspective on these things. You know, again, as constitutional element here, we talked about immigration, not having

a lot of constitutional guidance will on guns. There is a very specific constitutional provision

that is the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. And I think we want to point out

that there is a recent Supreme Court ruling here that’s very relevant, the Heller decision. It’s 2008

or 2009. I’m fuzzy on exactly what it is. But this is majority opinion

actually penned by the late Antonin Scalia, who passed away last year. But a very conservative

member of the Supreme Court essentially really backed the interpretation

of the Second Amendment as being something like a solemn guarantee of the right of individuals

to bear arms, to have access to and to have guns. And that’s

been sort of the guiding principle in the last eight or nine years. And people have interpreted the Heller decision.

That’s H E L L E R the Heller decision as being kind of Supreme Court finally

weighing in a very definitive way on the gun issue. However, and I’ve been reading some articles in

the aftermath of Orlando and actually legal scholars say that while the Heller decision isn’t quite

as cut and dried as many people think, that in fact, in the wake of the Heller decision,

there had been quite a few court cases in which the court has okayed both local

and state controls or restrictions of access to guns. And

actually, if you actually read the Heller decision, even Scalia’s opinion suggests

that there are some exceptions. You know, he basically says, look like all constitutional guarantees. There are

limits. You know, you can’t walk around with nuclear weapons, for instance. You know, the. There is a line

to be drawn. OK, so you know, as you all are out there trying to figure out what you think of this issue,

you know, it is true. There’s a robust debate about the Second Amendment and whether these gun

control laws conflict with Second Amendment rights. And where do we draw the line? There’s also a huge debate which we can’t possibly

get into now about whether, in fact, some of these bans or restrictions are appropriate,

whether they would work with respect to reducing mass shootings. And as I said, you all can read

as much as you want on that from every particular political perspective that’s out there.

And, you know, from a purely kind of constitutional and public policy issue, it’s one of the most

fascinating and important conversations that we’re having right now as a country. What do we want to do when there actually

is a specific constitutional provision? But it was written about the militia and it was written a long time

ago and certainly before we had automatic weapons, certainly before we had radical Islam,

at least in context. We see it today. So what do we think about this when we do as Americans? And

that’s part of the conversation that the candidates are having and that we would encourage you all to think about.

This is this is a huge civil liberties argument in regards to one gun control bill that

also the monitoring of Americans where, you know, the idea that Harlequins and I will pay

attention to, you know, more danger to lone wolf terrorists. Well, the problem in order to do that means

you have to basically spy on private on private citizens. And so she said, I work

with the tech companies, which means that she’s going to find ways to to develop software to follow you,

but also software to crack open your iPhone, things like that. And so this

is seen as okay in order to alleviate this threat. I’m going

to have to infringe upon your civil liberties. And again, we’re seeing a lot of this in terms of level of support for

monitoring Muslim neighborhoods. But it’s also an need to see look at to what degree are Americans willing to say, OK,

fine, I’m willing to have, you know, lower

Loretta Lynch and others, you know, monitor my my emails so I can. So I can.

Just in case there might be something going on. There might be something going on. You know, there’s this whole element. You

all probably seen this this morning as we were coming into work, the wife of the shooter

has become a major issue. And, you know, you all saw in the clips Trump and Hillary,

especially Trump alluding to, you know, these communities. Presumably Trump is referring to Muslim

communities need to step up. It wasn’t just talking about condemning the violence. He was talking

about alerting authorities about action within their own communities. And you all might think that’s

in some ways it has sort of a chilling connotation, a lot of ways. But on the other hand,

you know, in response to 50 people dead in Orlando, maybe we’re willing to accept that. But

but, you know, we’re talking about the wife. The wife knew about

this guy’s tendencies and did not report them, encouraged him to get help. Wasn’t that

the deal? Yes. You see what she wanted him to try to stop him from doing it. Right.

And so this is his second wife. So his first wife, who he’s divorced, his first wife comment on the fact

he was bipolar and abusive. Second wife actually helped him in terms of some of the

reconnaissance, knew what he planned and try to get him to stop but not report ahead of time. Yeah. And this is

an element to Trump’s comments. I don’t know whether Trump’s comments were made before or after this information came to light. But

you know, that that element of it is also, you know, very interesting about,

you know, you’re and in this case, you know, is she a criminal at this point

for not going to the authorities on this? You know, and but by the way, this is a

small but really kind of important legal. If you’re married to someone, you are not compelled

to. In a court case to testify against them. That’s considered sort of privilege, you

know, marital information. But if you know of a murder plot,

for instance, while you’re not necessarily compelled to testify against them in court, you can

be held responsible as an accessory to a crime. And so. Well, first of all, if your personal life

is like that, please bear that in mind. But in this case, you know, she’s probably a lot of

trouble. But this question of civil liberties is when we grapple with all the time we’ve grappled with in the wake of 9/11

with the Patriot Act and, you know, surveillance responses to a country that, you know,

as a country that has been assaulted and, you know, needs to figure out how to deal with

a threat that’s very different from the threats that we’ve had in the past. I’m you to gay rights. Yeah. So

the final frame here is really in regards to gay rights. And really it’s it’s interesting to see that all

three of the speakers, the president, Secretary Clinton, Mr. Trump, all talked

about the the idea that the LGBT community is part of the American community, that they are not

they are not outside of the we are there to protect them even stronger enforcement like I am the

true friend of the LGBT community. And you know, why has taken a stance against gay was

for gay marriage, took a stance against gay marriage. He has come out in support of transgender rights.

Simply regards to the selection of. I think he’s backed off on that. President Obama’s been pushing that pretty strongly,

but if we take a look at basic public opinion towards homosexuals, we

see what we got a trend from Gallup that that the question is, do you think that gay or

lesbian relationships between consenting adults should or should not be legal? You’re saying that, you know,

we move from the public being split to where you have about 60 percent. The public saying

it should be legal. There’s no problem, about 28 percent saying it should not be legal. So there is still

a significant portion of the population that that as oppose these types of relationships. However, there

is growing support for for these relationships. Right. The trend here runs from the late 70s

all the way through current data. Gallup Gallup has been monitoring this for a long time. So and by the way,

it’s not just in the public. You know, Professor Beganto mentioned that Trump’s position has shifted over to

President Obama’s position, has shifted over to at least on the specific issue of gay marriage. I want to

distinguish that from the broader attitudes towards gays and lesbians. But, you know, Pres.

Obama was ambivalent to oppose. Hillary Clinton was opposed initially. So

this this evolution that’s occurred across the American landscape, we’ve seen and even,

you know, amongst stalwarts of the progressive movement, you know, Obama and Clinton. So there’s been

a lot of change. But as Professor McDaniel says, I think I would point out two things. The trend

which is towards more tolerant opinions over time, accepting opinions over time. But secondly,

that there is a chunk of the American public still not comfortable with gay

and lesbian rights. Maybe not be the right word, but doesn’t want any kind of particular

accommodation or recognition, I suppose might be the most generous way to put it. All right. Although

if you switch again on this question of sort of framing, if you switch the frame to talk about, you know, should we allow discrimination

towards gays and lesbians, that that chunk who says, well, I’m not really supportive of gay marriage, if

you switch it to well, are you supportive of discrimination that no collapses? There are very, very few people

who would support open discrimination, at least in response to public opinion polls

in their heart. Who knows? But yeah. So the next slide actually shows the the idea of creating

laws to prevent discrimination against LGBT community in regards to housing

and employment. And this is really been been a big issue where you’re really seeing, you know, that, you know,

across the party, the partisan spectrum that people do support these these types of laws. Why, again,

you get more support from Democrats. And with Republicans, you’re still seeing the level of support for Republicans of the

idea of creating laws, prevent discrimination against these individuals. I think that’s where we’re really seeing

dress changed, where the idea of like, I may not like what they’re doing, but I don’t believe they should be discriminated against.

I don’t believe they should be banned from certain types of housing or employment because because of that. Now, again,

there are some groups have have caveats, specifically religious groups are saying, you know, we don’t believe

in these types of relationships. So that mean that we would have to openly hire somebody

who is homosexual that goes against our our wishes. And this is this is one of the big thing you’re seeing in terms

of religious freedoms. And this sort of can be played on the courts as time goes on. We’ll have time to go into that right

now. But this is some that can be played out for quite a bit. But we really want to show you, is

it really there kind of three themes that were brought about, brought about by the president and the two candidates.

Terrorism specifically regards to Muslims, gun control, but also

gay rights rulings show you public opinion and show how the public thinks about these and where

they line up with the general sentiment of the public. And so, as you can see, when it comes to banning Muslims,

there seems to be there is, again, a considerable amount of support for this. So Trump is support as part of that

temporary ban. It’s not a permanent ban, but a temporary ban. Trump is you know,

is people don’t think this is crazy. About half were against it. Half they’re for it in regards

to gun control. There is some support for certain types of gun control, but not overall.

Democrats are much more supportive gun control than others. But in regards to the LGBT community,

where all three seem to be in agreement of protecting this group, you do see the public becoming more and more

supportive of their of their rights. Right. And it’s you know, we should point out again,

if you’re talking about competing frames or how to, you know, in a very cynical way leverage

a situation for political advantage, and we’re not suggesting that’s all that’s going on. I think, you know, the candidates,

I think, are pretty sincere in their views on what’s going on. But, you know, if you’re a strategist and you’re looking

at this, which you see, as Professor Daniel suggests, is that all three candidates in agreement about, you know,

this is an assault on the gay and lesbian community. This is tragic that this is something that

can’t be tolerated. And there’s a reason for that. I mean, not only, you know, morally and ethically,

but not nobody thinks that, you know, the gay and lesbian community is

an outcast, is ostracized, as separate from the American community and all agree that this is

this particular targeting is especially pernicious, you know, especially, you know,

awful and dangerous and repugnant. Right. So. There’s agreement on that. There’s not a whole lot of public

policy differentiation there. So all of them acknowledge that. But then you see the counties

diverge with the Republican county moving more towards a gun, towards a. Identification

of terrorism. Islamic extremism is what ought to be our focal point. But the Democrats tending to

move more towards gun control laws and stricter controlled access to these things is the appropriate public

policy response. Right. So it’s it’s kind of fasting to watch for the fight over framing this

issue and presenting it. And, you know, obviously at some point kind of wrangling some kind of political advantage

from it. All right. So one last thing we want to talk about, so I guess is Professor McDaniels got some

thoughts on Texas versus Delaware, which is not the first game in the next football

season, unfortunately. No, no, I’m I’m I’m sure we’d crush the blue. The Blewitt’s Lewin’s have no chance

whatsoever. So Delaware, the state that I

visited one time was like, oh, okay. Yeah. Remember, not much I’m saying about going

to Delaware State. Really? Yeah. What’s their nickname? Oh, my God,

I forgot. That’s how important Delaware State was to me. That was it was a real quick trip

through just looking at it. Thing is that it’s not a quick trip to Delaware. Yeah,

everything’s I mean, the fact that, yeah, Delaware’s a small state, but even though

the state is small and it again is the home of our vise. President Diamond, Joe Biden,

Delaware has gotten itself into a bit of a pickle. We’re Texas. Arkansas, along with 19 other states,

have sued Delaware over its handling of Western Union funds. Let’s

hear from our own attorney general, Ken Paxton, on what Delaware’s been doing wrong.

Today, we ask the US Supreme Court to resolve a serious dispute about unclaimed monies from financial

institutions to any coalition of 21 states and the state of Delaware. Every year,

tens of millions of dollars in official checks go unclaimed. This is not uncommon

within the financial services industry. However, what is uncommon is Delaware’s instructions

that if you are incorporated in Delaware, you should send all money from all unclaimed official

checks to Delaware, no matter where the financial transaction was initiated.

Thus, Delaware is claiming for itself all money from all unclaimed official checks from every

state in the nation. This practice not only valid federal law, but is wrong

and unfair. On February 10, 2015, an independent auditor for 20

states concluded that over 150 million and unclaimed official checks has been improperly

claimed and received by Delaware. That is an average of approximately seven point five

million per state extrapolated. All forty nine states with claims against Delaware

could be missing nearly 400 million dollars. You have probablythe that Professor McDaniel? Well,

I mean, the amount of money that each state lost is minimal and trauma against 7 1/2

million. But the collective amantha Delaware has gained close to 400 million.

That’s quite a bit. And so this is this is an example of federalism in action

where the issue where in the past the Article Confederation, if Texas had a beef

with Delaware, you know, there was no strong central government to solve this. In fact, you have problems

with states are actually going to war with each other and the government cannot solve this. This is a

great case of really seeing the power of a strong central government in the case of Texas is constantly

suing the federal government or costly and at odds with the federal government over things. There is something like

Texas. Look, we need your help on this. And this is a great example of seeing federalism, also

state competition and how the federal government is there to step in when the states have conflict with each other.

You know, one of the things that we emphasized in the conversation, I guess it was the federalism

is our constitutional conversation was that, you know, the

federal government has jurisdiction over certain kinds of cases, federal court system in particular. Here we’re talking

about the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over certain kinds of cases and they’re fairly obvious. One is

when the United States is party to a suit. Right. So in those instances,

the Supreme Court is the appropriate court. And the reason is obvious, which is

who else could decide? You can’t let a state court decide, you know, a case where the United States is a party to

the suit. Another instance in which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction is a case in which

two states are suing each other. Right. I mean, I guess you could go to Minnesota or something

and ask them to adjudicate a Texas versus Delaware case. But it really doesn’t make much sense. But the U.S. court

system in this case, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over those sorts of cases. So part of this is interesting,

just as an illustration of a principle we talked about. And that is, you know, when the constitution was

penned, part of it was to reconcile some of the problems with the Articles of Confederation.

And part of it was to strengthen the federal government, to give it a little more teeth, a lot to do, some of the things it needed to

do. And this is an instance where only the federal government could really resolve a case like this.

So that’s sort of a general frame, the big picture. But the specific claim that the Delaware

is basically, you know, kind of running amuck here and gaining a lot of money

that it really has no right to no entitlement to. What do you do if the states

kind of engage in these sorts of activities? And so Texas does that. So you saw Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton,

Greg Abbott, the current governor, was attorney general. And one of the things. What was it? I

love the line. At some point, someone asked Greg Abbott, what do you do as attorney general, Texas? And his

response was, why wake up in the morning? You know, I get dressed and I sue the U.S. government.

And there’s some truth to that. I think at some point Texas had a couple of dozen lawsuits against other

states and the national government. That’s not just Texas, although Texas seems particularly aggressive in this kind

of thing. You know, that’s what state’s attorney general do. They’re protecting their rights as a state

against other states, as well as what they want when they feel the United States government is infringing upon

their rights. So, you know, it’s a particularly American situation. I don’t think this is going you know, there are other federal

Repub. Germany knows example, Russia is is a federation.

But I don’t think they have the same sorts of issues where states are suing each other and suing

the federal. Quite to the level that we have here in the US. No, I think, you know, one thing

to point out about Texas is suing the federal government, doesn’t it doesn’t it doesn’t matter who is in office.

So when President Bush was in office, Texas was suing the federal government. So it’s

the common thing and you see other states doing this. Again, his idea of states rights. You know, it really

states when it’s OK. How much can I how much can I get away, get away with or to what degree can I

put some boundaries away from the federal government? Because, again, the idea is having some

outsider kind of intrude upon your your daddy day business. You really see this coming over with the EPA.

But along with other with other laws, you’ve seen this right now, the suit, the transgender, Trangie, the bathrooms

we’ll talk about later on. But this this is a common thing and this is one of things

need to be aware of in regards to really some of the difficulties you

have with getting policies passed and that even something a state that a state does affects

other states, New York and Virginia. We’re in a suit going back to the gun control over gun control,

where New York was accusing Virginia’s lax laws for contributing to gun violence in the state

of New York. And this happens a lot. States are going to accompany you see states suing each other over water rights.

I was going to say water rights is the big deal. I’m from California originally and California constantly involved in suits

involving access to the Colorado River. So they’re in suits with Arizona and Nevada

over this. So if they could, they would. You know, Californians would sue each other over this. Texas hasn’t had quite the

same history, but it has a history with Oklahoma and New Mexico over water rights. And as water

becomes more and more scarce and hard, it’s hard to imagine now after the rain we’ve had this spring. But as recently as

last year, we were in such a serious drought condition. There’s all sorts of concern, you know, about what to do about this.

And part of it involves, you know, rivers that originate in other states. And, you

know, what do you do if someone dams your river upstream and dries up your water supply? Usually

it’s got involved in United States case, a lawsuit against somebody else. So, yeah, I get these

things that we will cover as we go on. So, again, we

send our condolences to the families and the victims of the other victims of the shooting in Orlando.

And we want to close with Anderson Cooper reading the names of those

who were killed in this attack. We hope you have a good week and we hope that

you stay safe. We begin tonight with their names, the names of the forty eight

out of forty nine people who have so far been identified, victims of the deadliest mass shooting

in American history. A massacre that happened in a gay nightclub just a block from where I’m standing just

down that road two nights ago. There is one name I want to tell you that you will not hear in this broadcast

tonight. One picture, one picture of a person you won’t see. We will not say the gunman’s name

or show his photograph. It’s been shown far too much already. Over the next two hours, we’ll certainly tell you

about the investigation. All the latest, what we know about what drove this shooter to do the unthinkable.

But in the next two hours, we want to try to keep the focus where we think it belongs on the people whose lives

were cut short. We’re going to start tonight by honoring them. There are more than a list

of names. There are people who loved and were loved. There are people at families and friends

and dreams. And the truth is, we don’t know much about some of them. We want you to hear their names

and a little bit about who they were. Edward Sotomayor, Junior, he works at a

travel agency that catered to the gay community. His family says he was witty, charming.

And he always left things better than he found them. He was 34 years old. Stanley,

I’ll motive out the third. He was a pharmacy technician. He was the last video that we saw of him

and was posted on social media. It showed him laughing and singing on the way to that nightclub.

He was just twenty three. The Weese Omar of calcio Coppo. He was a dancer

and a barista. He was just 20 years old. Louise VLA, you worked at

that Harry Potter ride at Universal Orlando. He was just 20 to

one. Ramone Herrero, his cousin, said one came out to his family just this

year and was afraid they might not accept him, but they did. And they embraced his boyfriend as well.

He was 20 to. Christopher Andrew LEIGH known

known as Andrew. He was one’s boyfriend and his mom says he established

the Gay-Straight Alliance at his high school. He was 32 years old. Eric

Yvonne or te’s Rivera, a friend, says he was always willing to help everybody and sacrificed

a lot for his family. He was 36. Peter Gonzalez crews

worked at a U.P.S. store, memorized apparently all the regular customers names. He can make

anyone smile, his friend said. He was just 22. Kimberly K.J Morris

moved from Hawaii to Florida just a few months ago to help her mother and her grandmother.

She was a bouncer at Pulse nightclub. She was 37. Eddie Justice was an accountant

who texted his mother from the club Texas. His mother saying, Mommy, I love you.

He was 30. Enrique Rios, a friend, says

he was cool and a funny dude who could tell, tell people, don’t let the world hold you back

from your dreams. He was twenty five. Anthony Luis Laureano, D-La.,

a talented dancer born in Puerto Rico. He was twenty five. Jonathan Antonio Camuti

Vega worked for Telemundo, first in Puerto Rico and then in Orlando. He was just about

to turn 25. Corey James Connell was a student at Valencia Community College

and hope to become a firefighter. He was 21. Mercedes Marisol Flores. Her father

said she was a happy girl who had so many dreams. She was 26. Danco

Deirdre Drayton. Her family called her Didi’s. She was a bartender at Pulse. She was just 32.

Miguel Angel on Toronto managed a Mexican restaurant. A colleague says he was an excellent boss and a

good friend. He was 30. Jason Benjamin Joseph had a student at Southern

Technical College where a faculty member calls him a sweet kid with a bright future. He was 19.

Darryl Roman Verte. The second was a financial aid officer at Kaiser University, was passionate about

volunteer work. He was 29. Jean Carlos Mendez Perez was a perfume

salesman, apparently hit the gym almost every day. And his friend said he was always happy. He was thirty

five friends. His longtime partner, Luis Daniel Wilson Leon, grew up in a small town

in Puerto Rico, was a shoe store manager. He was 37. They died together.

Frankie Jimmy D has Lewis Velasquez, a professional dancer specializing in a traditional

folk dance in his native Puerto Rico. He was 50. Amanda Alva Ah, she was a nursing student

at the University of South Florida was twenty five. Martin Benitez Torres

was a college student in Puerto Rico visiting family in Orlando. He was 33. Lauren Chavez

Martinez, his coworkers at our hotels. He was a kind, a loving person. He was just

twenty five. Gerald Arthur, right, worked at Disney World. A coworker says he was wonderful with the gas.

He was always smiling. He was 31. Leroy Valentino Fernandez

worked for leasing apartments. A coworker says he sang at Dell in the office until they couldn’t take it anymore.

He was twenty five. Tevin Eugene Crosby, dedicated, hardworking business

owner from Michigan. He was just twenty five. Brenda LEIGH Marquez Makhoul.

She had eleven kids beat cancer twice and often went dancing at Pulse with her gay son.

She supported him that much. She was forty nine. Her son survived the shooting.

Angel El candelario Poudre recently moved to Orlando. He was new here. He had just started a new job

as a technician at the Florida retin-a Institute. He was 28. Alberto Ramone’s

Silva Menendez was studying health care management. Family says that he was the light and life

of all family gatherings. He was twenty five. Harvey Oharu. Hey, Ray Oz was salesman. A good

chief friend say he was always positive. He was humble, a lovely friend. He was 40. Shane Evan

Tomlinson was a gifted singer who performed at weddings and clubs was 33. Samoan

Adrienne Mario Fernandez worked at McDonald’s, where he brought in birthday cakes for his coworkers

and just gotten back from a trip to Niagara Falls with his partner. He was 31. Oscar Recenter

Monteiro was Simon’s partner. He was 26. They also died together.

But Dulfer Yalla Yalla worked in a blood donation center, was a Puerto Rican native, loved to dance.

He was thirty three years old. Frank Hernandez,

he worked at a Calvin Klein store, was a great brother and had love, had no gender

tattooed on his arm. He was twenty seven. Xavier Emmanuel Serrano Risotto

was a dancer described as hardworking and friendly. Proud of his son. He

was 33. A cure up. No name Mary. She recently graduated from high school, was planning

to go to Mercyhurst University and play basketball. She was just

Was said to be the most positive guy around was just 24 year olds. Louise danièle Condé was a

makeup artist, co-owned a salon with his partner. He was thirty nine. Lauren P. Rivera

Velasquez. He was the partner to where we he was

thirty seven and twenty or Darvon Brown was a captain and he asked

me. Was a captain in the US Army Reserve and a graduate of Florida A&M.

He was twenty nine L100 barrios. Martinez was twenty one. Joel Rayon Penny Hogwood

was 32. Geneva’s Rodriguez was twenty seven. We don’t have pictures of these people.

Il Marie Rodriguez Sullivan was 24. And Paul Tyrrell. Henry was 41 years

old. I think it’s important that you hear their names.

The Government Three in the News podcast is hosted by doctors Daron Shaw and Eric McDaniel

and it’s produced by the Liberal Arts ITS Development Studio and the Department of Government and the College of Liberal Arts