constitution. very rare. but over time dorothy had built up this wonderful collection of documents not just for the federal constitution but state constitution. and so should all this cool stuff. she wanted to let as many people as possible see it. i was there in philadelphia working on constitutional things. since that's not a very far trip that would accentuate the rich stuff she had. it was obvious that was the case. we began working and planning it out. working with the new york historical society. takes a while to do these and certainly i was not alone. there is a huge number of people from the historical society and sort of dorothy's team was pivotal in helping me do all of that. i definitely want to note that. when we worked on putting the exhibit together, everybody was in place for the grand opening in february of 2020, which we held. it is a wonderful time, it was the new york historical society and everything closed down shortly after that. were thrilled we were able to put that together

about the constitution. i keep hearing that people are going to stop -- is of the direct election of senators that people want to repeal? host: there are a lot of proposed eminence to the constitution. plenty of those. -- amendments to the constitution. plenty of those. caller: there are some people that want to turn back all of the vans meant -- advancement. the rights of women to vote. that is an important one. host: section one of the 14th, all persons born and naturalize in the united states are citizens of the united states and of the state they reside. no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of any citizen nor shall the state deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. june 13, 1866. it was ratified in 1868. the constitutioncenter.org, a very good resource to perhaps pull up during the first hour of "washington journal" today. the constitution center very much a friend of this network. glad to always have their help. michelle

before i get to that, i think i need to start with the constitution, it's constitution day, that's how i start pretty much any question so you might be thinking the problem is just the framers do not anticipate that the government might be excessively lie within the constitution itself. but as it turns out, the constitution is not on governmental overreach. the framers did not state power in criminal cases live through the constitutional crack, it's exactly the opposite. the framers of our constitution were well aware how a state could try to abuse coercive criminal powers. they knew about excess of what they feared majority would seek to oppress their opponents through the use of criminal law and punishment. they worried oppressively how a police state could deprive people of their liberty. far from being silent the government's power in criminal matters, the constitution kind of obsessed with it. one of the animating features of our constitution is its preoccupation with regulating the government when it comes to criminal. the constitution provided protection for people accused of cr

marshall was telling madison what the constitution meant are needed madison drafted the constitution. and marshall didn't feel that there is any reason why madison had a monopoly on the meeting of the significance of the constitution. constitutional scholars pointed out that the framers of our constitution, minute secret, didn't keep an official record because they didn't want people to focus on with their intention was, the wanted people to focus on the words in the constitution and contemporary understanding it. when marshall says in mcculloch versus maryland, the constitution is expanded he is saying that the constitution is not like any other document, not like a statute. as a vehicle for moving forward and moving the country forward it and it is organic and changing over time. his view of the constitution was issued evolve and i think that the success of our constitution's survival from two centuries or more than two centuries in the success of our society and of art form of government, has much to do with the wisdom that supreme court justices have brought to the interpretation

about the constitution. i keep hearing that people are going to stop -- is of the direct election of senators that people want to repeal? host: there are a lot of proposed eminence to the constitution. plenty of those. -- amendments to the constitution. plenty of those. caller: there are some people that want to turn back all of the vans meant -- advancement. the rights of women to vote. that is an important one. host: section one of the 14th, all persons born and naturalize in the united states are citizens of the united states and of the state they reside. no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of any citizen nor shall the state deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. june 13, 1866. it was ratified in 1868. the constitutioncenter.org, a very good resource to perhaps pull up during the first hour of "washington journal" today. the constitution center very much a friend of this network. glad to always have their help. michelle

constitutional scholars pointed out that the framers of our constitution met in secret. they didn't keep an official record because they didn't want people to focus on what their intention was. they wanted people to focus on the words in the constitution and in our contemporary understanding. when marshall says in the cologne versusmaryland that he should , this was a constitution we are founding, he's saying there the constitution isn'tlike any other document . it isn't like a statute. it is a vehicle for moving forward, moving the country forward and it's organic, it's changing over time. his view of the constitution was theconstitution should eat all .and i think that the success of our constitution is its survival more than two centuries and the success of our society and of our form of government has much to do with the wisdom that it's supreme court justices have brought to the interpretation of the constitution over time. and i think that was marshall's view about how the constitution should be read . >> we want to thank you all again and a special thanks to profe

this leaves women in texas unable to exercise their constitutional rights and unable to obtain judicial review at the very moment they need it. this kind of scheme to nullify the constitution of the united states is one that all americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear. if it prevails, it may become a model for action in other areas by other states, and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents. nor need one think long or hard to realize the damage that would be done to our society if states were allowed to implement laws and empower any private individual to infringe on another's constitutionally protected rights in this way. the united states has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights through a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights. the united states also brings a suit to certain other federal interests. among other things, sp-8 conflicts with federal law by prohibiting federal agencies from exercising their authorities an

in fact, the 2004 constitution was hardly a departure from this 964 constitution. there were many things that these 2 constitutions had. they were quite similar to one another and that they were both very authoritarian and nature. so this is not a good sign going into the next few months. very interesting indeed, jennifer latasha, really there, and nonresident senior fellow at the atlantic council, you raised the center. thanks so much for sharing your expertise with us on out there. thanks for joining us. jennifer, thank you. one of sir dawn's top military leaders says the transitional government that needs to take a more active role. general mohammed hummed under gala has frequently accused the government civilian faction of failing to govern effectively. but opponents accuse me of trying to seize power and one the administration dissolved and attempted coup last week has watson tension between the 2 sides. i didn't know that you'd be the blame us. we are part of the partnership. politics are based on things. i don't like, but i blurred my lessons. i'm a military

before i get to that, i need to start with the constitution. it is constitution day. you might be thinking that the problem is that the framers did not anticipate that the government might be excessively punitive. maybe they did not anticipate that they would abuse coarser powers and the constitution does not speak to this. if this were the case it would not be the supreme court's faults that happen under their watch. the problem would like with the constitution itself. as it turns out, the constitution is not silent on governmental overreach on criminal cases. they did not let state power in criminal cases slip between the constitutional cracks rate is the exact opposite. they were well aware at how the state could abuse the coercive powers. they knew about the bloody codes in england. they would fear that the majority would oppress the minority through criminal law and punishment. how the police state would deprive people of their liberty. far from being silent, the constitution i would say is kind of upsets -- kind of obsessed with it. one of the preoccupations is

the former constitutional law professor justified his decision by citing emergency measures in the constitution that his critics, and many legal scholars said did not support his intervention. political leaders have complained about the constitution since it was agreed in 2014. they want it to be changed to either a more directly presidential or a more directly parliamentary system. the president said, says he plans amended that a powerful union and trainees, his largest party, have objected to changing the constitution, said is still to appoint a new prime minister while millions struggle under economic and political stagnation dorsey jabari al jazeera. ah, let's bring in our guests in tunis. i'm l as who's a political scientist and a member of chinese is and other party in syracuse, new york, my. how many dia, how mommy, a political science research. syracuse as universities, maxwell school, and also in june of sherry for the a political commentator, a warm welcome to you. all. i'd like to begin with you in tunis at some point. we're going to have to start to call this a qu. we haven't heard

the former constitutional law professor justified his decision by citing emergency measures in the constitution that his critics, and many legal scholars said did not support his intervention. political leaders have complained about the constitution since it was agreed in 2014. they want it to be changed to either a more directly presidential or a more directly parliamentary system. president said, says he plans amended, but a powerful union and teenagers largest party have objected to changing the constitution. said is still to appoint a new prime minister while millions struggle under economic and political stagnation. dorset jabari al jazeera. ah, let's bring in august finch eunice m l a who is a political scientist and a member of chinese is another party in syracuse, new york mohammed, dia mommy, a political science research. syracuse as universities, maxwell school, and also in june of sherry for the a political commentator, a warm welcome to you. all, i'd like to begin with you l in tunis at some point we're going to have to start to call this a qu. we haven't heard from chi side in a ma

before i get to that, i need to start with the constitution. it is constitution day. you might be thinking that the problem is that the framers did not anticipate that the government might be excessively punitive. maybe they did not anticipate that they would abuse coarser powers and the constitution does not speak to this. if this were the case it would not be the supreme court's faults that happen under their watch. the problem would like with the constitution itself. as it turns out, the constitution is not silent on governmental overreach on criminal cases. they did not let state power in criminal cases slip between the constitutional cracks rate is the exact opposite. they were well aware at how the state could abuse the coercive powers. they knew about the bloody codes in england. they would fear that the majority would oppress the minority through criminal law and punishment. how the police state would deprive people of their liberty. far from being silent, the constitution i would say is kind of upsets -- kind of obsessed with it. one of the preoccupations is

we have a constitution date tool kit. parents, if you're thinking of something to honor constitution day and if the teacher hasn't offered them a chance to go to that tool cool might be a good idea to say, hey, let's look at that tonight. >> suzy, good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you so much for taking my call this morning. i feel i had a very good foundation civics education from the late '50s into the '60s. however, when "schoolhouse rock" came out with how you can make a bill, i found the young people around me just fascinated and fell in love with wanting to know. my question is we have not seen that in quite a while, i'm sure, but are you reaching out to other areas of academia to help you promote and push this civics education such the arts, the film and other areas other than just political science department? >> it's a wonderful question. thank you so much, caller. that's part of the reason the civics renewal network is there. we put it all on one website so you can look across and find anything you'd

our constitution would've been rendered void. our politics today however are no more ruthless or polarized in the politics in washington today. he faced not one but two constitutional crises. one precipitated by the jeffersonians and later and both of which threaten the independence of our courts. what marshall understood, is to read for compromise and he knew how to forge consensus when none seemed possible. he understood that what transcends partisan politics, but should unite the judiciary is a commitment to defend the legitimacy and the autonomy of the courts and the rule of law read in the courts must be the guarantees of the principal the no person is above the law. the independence of our courts is the linchpin of our liberty and without it, our republican our constitution are lost. and independence of our judiciary, who do we depend and when the judiciary itself is under attack. in the last several decades, they have licensed pitched battles of the nomination federal judges and we have seen a president disparage judges ex

we have decided to dissolve the constitution because we will write a constitution together all of guinea. we will bring together the 4 regions to the diaspora and have inclusive consultations to decide the future of this country. they also release the video of president off a con. they surrounded by special forces personnel. it remains unclear where president, con days being held, and who has control of the country. the earlier have gone far, was heard near the presidential palace. but ginny, as defense ministry, which is loyal to president con day, says it repelled the attack by special forces. the military has been deployed on the streets and is urging people to stay home. and this is the presidential palace and the calhoun business district, and cannot cree heavily armed soldiers have been seen guarding the area. the exact whereabouts of the presidents are unknown. it was early a reported that he was near the presidential palace hotel. calhoun. there had been celebrations in parts of cannot cree with strong opposition supports. there are still anger less than a year after president af

is there a constitution with a bill of rights? once you get beyond that, now you are getting into the area where people differ about what should be said and done inside of classrooms. do not think there is an ideological divide about whether we should teach the factual underpinnings of what we have in the constitution, how we got there and what our system is for arbitrating what it means. host: james is in ohio, an independent, good morning. caller: good morning. there is a big gap in the discussion. i appreciate everything you are saying so far about the u.s. constitution, but civics is broader than that, or should be. we have state constitutions, county charters, townships. in ohio, we have municipalities . i have spoken at the city council and very often, or almost all the time, there is no one there except someone who is concerned with a specific topic. we have the city administration that will sometimes -- this is anecdotal, of course -- will pretty much ignore what city council does and go their own way. we should not overlo

so before i get to that any just art with the constitution on constitution day see may think the problem is just the framers did not anticipate the government might be punitive in this way maybe they did not anticipate coercive power so the constitution doesn't speak to the senate that werees the case it certainly would not be the supreme court's fault that this happened under their watch because in the problem lies with w the constitution itself. but as it turns out the constitution is not silent nongovernmental overreach the framers did not let state power that is the opposite they are well aware how they could try to abuse the coercive powers they knew about the excesses and they feared they would seek to oppress their opponents and they worried of cecily how a police state could deny people of their liberties so far from being silent the constitution i would say is that one of the animating features is the preoccupation with regulating the government when it comes to criminal powers the stconstitution provided for those have been accused of crime in a structural provision so the fram

the former constitutional law professor justified his decision by citing emergency measures in the constitution that his critics, and many legal scholars said, did not support his intervention. political leaders have complained about the constitution since it was agreed in 2014. they want it to be changed to either a more directly presidential or a more directly parliamentary system. president said, says he plans amended that a powerful union and teenagers largest party have objected to changing the constitution. said is still to appoint a new prime minister while millions struggle under economic and political stagnation dorsey jabari al jazeera. ah, let's bring in august finch, eunice m l. a z who is a political scientist and a member of chinese and other party in syracuse, new york mohammed, dia, mommy, a political science research, syracuse as universities, maxwell school, and also in june, a sheriff, a political commentator, a warm welcome to you all. i'd like to begin with you l in tunis at some point we're going to have to start to call this a qu. we haven't heard from chi side in a major

it's widely seen as the constitution that pays away for constitutional democracy. protective the rights of expression, the right, the freedom of expression of the freedom of thought, established independent institutions with an independent judiciary. however, there's a copy to that constitution. 964 states that the king has the right to dissolve the parliament and appoint the prime minister. under the current situation, it seems that the supreme lead of the taliban, the middle meeting and the commander of the faithful, hey, better law will ultimately have the final take. he could be the one to fire the government and point to any parliament, though the parliament, sorry or decide that this provision is in conflict with a shady law and therefore it has to be, it has to be changed. ah, opposition politicians in june. you have warned they'll call for widespread protests unless the president reverses, moves to seize power for political parties, formed a coalition to oppose guy aside, who they say last legitimacy. after carrying out a crew. last weeks i had announced he'd rule by decree and

the former constitutional law professor justified his decision by citing emergency measures in the constitution that his critics, and many legal scholars said did not support his intervention. political leaders have complained about the constitution since it was agreed in 2014. they want it to be changed to either a more directly presidential or a more directly parliamentary system. president said, says he plans amended, but a powerful union and teenagers largest party have objected to changing the constitution. said is still to appoint a new prime minister while millions struggle under economic and political stagnation dorsey jabari al jazeera. ah, let's bring in august finch eunice m l as who's a political scientist and a member of chinese. he is and not a party. in syracuse, new york mohammed, dia mommy, a political science research. syracusa university is maxwell school, and also in june, a sheriff academy, a political commentator, a warm welcome to you all. i'd like to begin with you l in tunis at some point, we're going to have to start to call this a qu. we haven't heard from chi side in

we're called the defense of the constitutions of the united states using his knowledge of the state constitution. what do you think would be a model? um, i think that atoms later on becomes a strong advocate of executive power and i think he would have wanted the presidency to be more empowered if you actually read article 2 of the constitution, it's hard to know what a president can do the actual powers of the presidency and more shaped by washington's administration and the language of the constitution. jefferson is a much trickier subject. because the people that oppose the constitution the so-called anti-federalists. especially patrick henry in virginia said if jefferson would he was here he would be with us he would have opposed this. and madison who is jefferson's closest friends has no no, he's my man. i know him and he's told me he would have endorsed. well, he didn't quite say that and jefferson was more interested in the bill of rights than he was in the constitution itself and i think over time it's clear that jefferson. did not believe that the constitution created or should have cre

because it's widely seen as the constitution that pays away for constitutional democracy protective the rights of expression, the right, the freedom of expression of the freedom of thought established independent institutions with an independent judiciary. however, there's a cap yet to that constitution. 964 states that the king has the right to dissolve the parliament and appoint the prime minister. under the current situation, it says that the supreme leader of the taliban, the middle war, meaning the commander of the faith, will have better law, will ultimately have the final say, he could be the one to fire the government and point to any parliament. zillow of the parliament, sorry, or decide that this provision is in conflict with a chevy or law, and therefore it has to be, it has to be changed. prominent afghan position says his home has been destroyed by the taliban. and jamal ma says, and his family members of the group detonated explosives their property, and none of the cars and all the valuables were taken of us despite the taliban, reassuring former government officials, whe

the 1964 constitution is stopped by afghanistan's last king, a constitutional monarchy for almost a decade, before he was overthrown in 1973. it gave women the right to vote for the first time and opened the doors for their increased participation in politics. the king could dissolve parliament but it was allowed to pass no-confidence votes in the government. islam is the state religion but was not mandatory. the clergy's role was limited in society, including judicial proceedings. we have more from kabul. reporter: the taliban seemed to be trying to extend an olive branch to the international community by saying, we have resurrected a constitutional declaration of 1998 when the taliban were in power in afghanistan. instead they chose to go for the 1964 constitution. why that one in particular? it's widely seen as the constitution that paved the way for because additional democracy and protected the right of expression and freedom of expression and thought, established independent institutions with an independent judiciary. however, there's a caveat to the constitution, 1964 states that th

the constitution is for 2 reasons. and we refuse for the president to have a constitution that only suits him. no, we cannot say each president can have their own constitution. this is not democracy . yes, we can amend the constitution within a quiet dialogue away from any crisis with the participation of all parties, we need to evaluate everything agree on everything and go back to the people for a referendum on this amendments. the president has given himself the right to whatever he wants. he was one of saddam's top military leaders. it says the transitional governance needs to take a more active role. gentlemen. $100.00 has frequently criticize the government civilian faction for failing to govern effectively. but opponents accused the army of trying to seize power and say they want the administration dissolved an attempted crew last week, worse than tension between the 2 sides. these 2 people have been killed and a bowman tax and the city and city of jobless. one last was near the city council and another just out

constitution is not just words." this is what he writes in his column today, in contrast to the parades and fireworks evans did -- independence day, constitution day may seem boring. after all, the constitution is just words, but it has a great story. it was born in a crisis. its birth has been called the miracle of philadelphia and endured conflict over slavery, a civil, economic depression and even two world wars. it has been at the center of some of our fiercest national debates. we cannot tell the story of something we don't know. and too many americans, especially young people are unfamiliar with the u.s. constitution and its essential place in our history and importantly, in their own lives. on the issue of americans civic knowledge and knowing the constitution, annenberg public policy center out with their annual survey. here is some of the top line numbers. u.s. adults who can correctly name all three branches of government increased this year to 56%. that is up from just over 50% last year. more respondents

so what do you think lives behind this talk of going back to that constitution at area constitution? so i think there are 2 questions. first is what it means. what does this mean? i think you can look at different function of constitution. one basic function of confusion is to define the political regime defined the game. the, the rules are political game. how about i'm already in there and it means that going back and i can pick people, confusion doesn't necessarily mean that they have committed to the political regime embedded in that kind of petition which was a kind of a monarchy i'm calling. discuss that how the issue elected parliament was disposed in petitions, but we should have this caveat the all about have stated that they are going to have their merit, which denies any element of the government. the other more important element function of a constitution is that it could be a contract. it enumerate the right, the citizens as limits on the power stay tolerant to have so bar, i'm not admitted any bill of rights and limits under power in the country. they always say that the

and, and yes, this is a constitutional monarchy. but a lot of those powers have been delegated to the government and they need to be able to be implemented with people given their rights and the more rights they feel they have the more economic opportunities they have, the less you're going to see these social movements that are disruptive folks, i'm very sorry tom. unfortunately i got the better office, but thanks to all i guess, to rushes to, to, to new fall booed onto elizabeth myers. and thank you to watching, you can see the program again by getting our website al jazeera dot com and motivate, go to our facebook page. that's facebook dot com, forward slash a j inside story. you can also join the conversation on twitter. we are a j inside story. i'm bernard smith from the theme in. busy morocco, thanks for watching. the news. oh, my name is sandra. i'm the foster. i'm in the county to find out if you book for the live mechanic workshop, you will see that your god letter baby. i might not do that for you specially missed on it an

we have decided to dissolve the constitution because we will write a constitution together all of guinea. we will bring together the 4 regions to the diaspora and have inclusive consultations to decide the future of this country. will they also release video present itself content areas surrounded by special forces? it remains unclear where president, con day is being held, and just who has control of the country. the earlier heavy gunfire was heard near the presidential palace, but guineas, defense ministry says it repelled, be attacked by special forces. the military has been deployed on the streets and is urging people to stay home. bursts right there at the presidential palace in the calhoun business district and cannot cree heavily armed soldiers have been seen guarding the area of the exact whereabouts of the president are unknown. it was earlier reported he was near the presidential palace at hotel car loom. let's find out more and speak to use of bow. who's a journalist in guinea? he's joining us on the phone from the capital. a cannot cri, you said so. soldiers on the streets an

right but theoretically against any constitutional right. and in any other state. so if another state uses the same kind of provisions to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights and then in particular to deprive their citizens of the ability to seek immediate review, we will bring the same kind of lawsuit. >> so there have been pressure it seems from democratic lawmakers on the hill and anti-abortion groups and even some can argue from the white house on the department of justice to do something about this texas law. did you feel any of that pressure? is that any -- and did that play any role in this? >> the department of justice does not file lawsuits based on pressure. we careful evaluated the law and the facts. and this complaint expresses our view about the law and the facts. >> all right. thanks, everybody. >> thank you all. >> you were just listening to attorney general merrick garland talking about the federal government's response to that texas abortion ban through legislation known as sb-8. and the lawsuit that will now be p

and, and yes, this is a constitutional monarchy. but a lot of those powers have been delegated to the government and they need to be able to be implemented with people given their rights and the more rights they feel they have the more economic opportunities they have, the less you're going to see these social movements that are disruptive folks, i'm very sorry tom. unfortunately i got the better office, but thanks to all i guess to rushes to to, to new fall. i booed onto elizabeth myers, and thank you to watching. you can see the program again by getting our website al jazeera dot com and motivate, go to our facebook page. that's facebook dot com, forward slash a j inside story. you can also join the conversation on twitter. we are a j inside story. i'm bernard smith from the theme in. busy morocco, thanks for watching. the news. news. news, news, news. news challenges. attractors. circumstances pushes forward. let us step into uncertainty and experience the happiness of the moment. let us persevere. before al jazeera comes into na

it's widely seen as the constitution that pays away for constitutional democracy. protective the rights of expression, the right, the freedom of expression of the freedom of thought, established independent institutions with an independent judiciary. however, there is a copy to that confusion. 1964. states that the king has the right to dissolve the parliament and appoint the prime minister. under the current situation, it says that the supreme leader of the taliban, the middle $1000000.00, the commander of the faith will have better law will ultimately have the final say, he could be the one to fire the government and point to a new parliament. though the parliament, sorry, or decide that this provision is in conflict with a shady law and therefore it has to be it has to be changed and have a new lava from the comm brave year have ok now on the spanish island of la palmer has now reached the atlantic ocean. these are live pictures where a huge cloud of toxic vapor and gas has been released into the air as the lava mixes with sea water. as spain has declared the island in the canary, a

we have to be within the constitution. the constitution is for 2 reasons. and we refuse for the president to have a constitution that only suits him. no, we cannot say each president can have their own constitution. this is not the.

guelzo: we do an audit thing in our constitution, we divide -- an odd thing in our constitution, we divide responsibility. we say that congress can declare war and raise an army or navy, but then we say the president is the one who was the commander in chief and to take charge and time of war. is that division of power between the legislative branch and executive branch still practical today in an environment of instant decisions? are we looking, as we did at the situation in kabul, looking at a process that now moves so fast that it almost makes the idea of congressional action and sponsor to it seem slow and ponderous and antique? does that create an argument in favor of unilateral presidential decision? because we have not had, correct me if i am wrong, we have not had a formal declaration of war in terms of conflict since world war ii. dakota: this reveals the reality of humans in the loop. you can create your aquatic structures, trade sets of rules and authorities and permissions, but if somebody wants to do something, they will find a way to work around that. if you recall the budget

our constitution is clear. it authorizesti the president ad the president alone with that power and authority over our military.e there is no constitutional authority granted to the chairman of the joint chiefs general milley. not anyone else but the president. our republic is designed to prevent apolitical a political coup. so what we are describing here is the constitutional crisis of the highest order, "an act orcr instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government," now an investigation. it must be informed immediately. there are three critical steps that must be taken as part of any program. we need to talk to any of the people that were in that room that made that oath to general milley. two, we need to see the transcripts of the calls and that is the calls with milley and china's counterparts and the calls with nancy pelosi. we need to know everything that pelosi andi. milley said and everything that they did. were milley and policy colluding? were they staging a military politica

i considered the move on july 25 a coup of the constitution of tunisia. the abc across -- of democracy across the world says no political leader, a prime minister or head of state, should be able to do what else sayyid has done to tunisian politics. constitutions around the world are sacred and ratified by the people i know when the leader -- no one leader should marginalize it. what he did was totally wrong and a recipe for dictatorship. since july 25, sayyid has been reinforcing his view, first to marginalize the constitution, and he recently on september 22 said it clearly that he is going to go back to the constitution of 1956. that is a very worrying signal to all political parties. and secondly, sayyid has been consolidating all the powers in his hands, leading the way to towards a formula of total rule, which is what we had in the last few decades. >> let's put that to our other guests. a recipe for a dictator. do you think that is the case, and if it is, how can you fight against it? what is your strategy now that you are not part of a political p

the constitution is for 2 reasons . and we refuse for the president to have a constitution that only suits him. no, we cannot say each president can have their own constitution. this is not democracy . yes, we can amend the constitution within a quiet dialogue away from any crisis with the participation of all parties, we need to evaluate everything agree on everything and go back to the people for a referendum on this amendments. the president has given himself the right to whatever he wants he want ahead. ok, let's bring in a little into this. he's an executive committee member of the opposition, enough to party. good. happy with us on all. just 0 where it is enough to stand in this whether or not the. busy asian was the 1st or the bad that i have done is and we are more than happy that right now the majority a country, the people and the parties, n g o z. we are standing on the same ground in describing what size is doing, is it cool and that using the just in it and that he has to go back into just a messy, he has t

and yes, this is a constitutional monarchy. but a lot of those powers have been delegated to the government and need to be able to be implemented with people given their rights. the more rights they feel they have, the more economic opportunities they have, the more you will see these social movements that are disruptive. anchor: unfortunately, time has gotten the better of us but thank you to all of our guests. and, thank you for watching. you can see the program again by visiting our website, aljaze era.com. you can go to our facebook page, facebook.com/aj inside story. you can join the conversation on twitter, @ajinsidestory. the thanks for watching. ñçw;w;w;w;w;w;w;w;wyoçosososogog man: i remember years back talking to my dad and saying, "at some point in my career, i'd love to do a deli." and i remember him looking at me in a surprised way like, "really? why? you've spent all this time in fine dining and traveled the world and trained yourself. why the ... do you want to do a deli? [bell dings] i think i was ultimately