Therefore, I ask the question again, are they safe?

So, Mike, yeah, I appreciate the comments that have been raised in the report and my colleagues from the union expressing their concerns.

We work closely with the Clinical Excellence Commission, which is the leading safe and quality body across the system, to ensure that we are meeting standards and using equipment that meets standards of safety and quality.

Now, the recall... to a specific set of circumstances.

Those circumstances don't involve us.

They don't involve the machines that we're using or the issues raised.

What are they communicating to you? Are they happy with the equipment they've got in the back of the ambulances?

So I'm also a paramedic, Mark, as you know, and practice clinically.

So I'll turn it over to you, Professor Morrison.

Thank you, Laura.

And I suppose I know we don't have to do disclaimers, but I want to be clear that I do not represent the views of the state of California or any other plaintiffs in this matter.

The views of this matter are entirely my own.

The first question is.

is the waiver a rule? It is surely a matter of broad application.

It applies not only to California, but to a whole bunch of other states.

Professor Marston, would you like to add anything?

Chadha suddenly became a man with no country and no valid visa, so he was slated for deportation.

And under a provision of the Immigration Act of, uh, 1952, there was a provision that allowed the Immigration Service to let people stay in this country if it would constitute an undue hardship for them to go back to the country from which they came.

He applied for that change in status, and it was granted by the Immigration Service.

In his oral arguments, Morrison cast the legislative branch, not the imperial presidency, as the problematic usurper of power inside the American government.

That is a terribly important aspect of what the Framers were concerned about.

Th- They were fearful of this concentration of power, lest tyranny result.

And the tyranny they were concerned with was the tyranny of the legislature, indeed particularly the House of Representatives.

And so whatever irony they may seem to be, I would suggest to you that that is an intentional irony in our constitutional system, designed to prevent the kind of activity which took place in this case here.