♪ host: good morning. sunday, june 23, 2024. this weekend, the u.s. conference of mayor had a meeting in missouri. at the g of hundreds of mayors from cities across the country, they discussed issues climate change, gun violence, and immigra morning, we want to hear from you. what is the top issue facing your city or town? if you are in the eastern or central us at (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain or

pacific time zones, you can reach us at (202) 748-8001. if you would like to text us that number is (202) 748-8003. please be sure to include your name and where you are writing in from. we are also on social media at on x @cspanwj. one of the issues also on the agenda for the u.s. conference of mayors is of course the economy. and coverage in cnbc about the economic conditions facing many cities. many large cities are in deep financial trouble. here is why. this is a story from back in pal governments across the united states are looking to rein in spending as the pandemic era stimulus drives up and inflation lingers for longer than expected. clearlym there are significant capital that's clearly -- clearly, there are significant capital needs. the group issued a general obligation bond rating from new york cthe financial challenges within cities appear to be mounting

e high municipal credit ratings and robust demand for urban commodities like housing. for example, new york city had a total public debt of $177.6 billion at the end of fiscal year 2022 according to resears bout profits partnered with the university of denver to promote transparency in public accounting. during a discussion at the u.s. conference of mayors on the economy, madison's mayor discussed how her city used american rescue plan funds. here is a portion. [video clip] >> you know, our city focused on g, and most of our cities have a housing crisis. during also had increasing issues around eviction's and homelessness -- evictions and homelessness so we look for new andlter the unfiltered and provide lifelines to families really neededand who needed time. i am grateful for the assistance

dollars that came from the biden administration. we targeted funds for young -- we targeted funds to provide younsome of that was employment summer programming, afterschool programming. but we wanted to young people needed us that we were stepping up and providing them with options. we also invested in entrepreneurs of color in particular in madison. when our economy came roaring back, they were able to join in that and be poised to be part of it. i have to say that the boost of federal monefrom the bidpandemic, it was really an opportunity for usollectively to demonstrate how effective cities can be in delivering services to our residents. we know and i hope we are now ing with the world how effective we are, how good cities are doing the work. it is just a matter of finding the resources to make that happen. we have the local know how to scale up from a grassroots

level, which is the most efficient way to address the needs of our unique communities. thewe all know that. but it alsshowed me what my city was capable of. and it inspired me to expand my thinking around potential partnerships, l. and frankly, what we as cities deserve and partnership from the federal level. host: and you can find more coverage of the u.s. conference of mayors on our website c-span.org, where you can find the proceedings and many of those panels like the one you just saw there. now let's hear from john in brooklyn, new on the top issues facing his city. the morning, -- good morning, john. caller: my main issues facing my city is number one inflation and free commerce. the american government establishing pricing things. it is not president biden's fault fornflation.

it is free commerce. you can charge what you want for your goodsi want to know why nobody challenges these companies making billions of dollars during inflation. nobody challenged them. second, i want to talk about the border, immigrants. does anybody know what colo running a government which america and did to certain nations years wealth, running government. i remember trace governments in other countries and running them. they took the wealth for years and now they started up against them. if you let dr. history, you find out the same people that are immigrants coming to the southern border are your dnaelatives

especially blacks to blacks and other p americans. you have that dna. those are your people. host: thank you, john. during the u.s. conference of mayors meeting this weekend, homeland security department's rebecca sternal discussed enforcement efforts being made by the biden administration to stem illegal immigration. here is a portion. [video clip] >> ticket accident to strengthen what we can given our current pipelines, including referring a record number of individuals for expedited people. over the past year, we have removed or returned over three quarters of a million people, which is more than any fiscal year since 2010. we bolstered technology on theborder including autonomous surveillancens at ports of entry to detect smugglers and narcotics and we also proposed rules that allowsylum to be applied earlier. we two more explicitly resolve cases of adults who cross regularly between ports of entry, and we targeted smuggling

operations and increase prosecutions, increasing s and offering financial rewards for those who help us disrupt high-priority human smuggling targets. this side of the border but also internationally. we continue to work with partrs.we have expanded enforcement measures against entities and from irregular migration and globalized pathways. obviously, we work very closely with the government of mexico and their enforcement efforts and their decision to non-mexicans to be repatriated from the u.s. we can detect pubc safety long before they get to our border. the department has also worked with partner countries making it more difficult f t merely fly in from another country. an distinction charter airlines that bring immigrants to the western hemisphere that arrived at our southern border. host: next up we will hear from

danny in yuma, arizona. good morning. what is the top issue in yuma? caller: good morning, kimberly. nice talking to you. first off, i want to make this clear, i am for legal immigration. legal migration. what is happening right now is illegal immigration. by definition, these people are breaking the law. .ok, now what is going on here in king up all of our resources, our hospital is overrun. just our town in general is overrun by the illegal immigrants. something has to be done. we have to get donald trump back into office to stop this madness. host: danny, what would you like to bc that's what would you like to see being done at the local level or what is being done in yuma to address this as well?

caller: we need more resources. rs. we need more border patrol officers. like my next-door neighbor is a border patrol officer. and him and his partner have a 50 mile stretch of desert to cover. now you tell me, kimberly, how does two men or women, border patrol cover 50 miles of open desert? it doesn't make sense. host: thank you for your call danny. onde siemmercially zoned land but the focus of development. in central virginia cannot keep up with all of the work from home laptop class buying pros frominflated property taxes and personal property taxes and a city council that loves to spend money. david says in their community homeless with mental health issues and drug problems onalbert says the top issue in his

community, higher taxes but jeffof theted water possible by the infrastructure law. and says the top issue in his community inflation. we are lookiplease be sure to include where you are writing in from as well as we next up, we haveod morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i am good. what is the top issue where you are? caller: actually, i am in florida but i am calling on behalf of friends that live in milwaukee, wisconsin. and what i want to mentionf terrible crimes there, and when president trump made reference to milwaukee being terrible,making a lot of money with all ofmemorabilia, but there was a nine-year-old boy shot dead by a stray bullet in his bedroom in milwaukee, and the same day then of

this is ever mentioned on the media. mentioned -- i would say on fox news they cover crimes, especially in the inner cities. i have not heard this one time on cnn or msnbc. they mentioned all the terrible things trump said about wisconsin, but they did not mention and they never mentioned these poor victims in these inner cities, which are run mainly by democrat mayors, governors, and town councils. host:lauderdale? what is the situation like where you are? llere? host: mhm. caller: in certain areas believe it or not, there is a lot of crime on martin luther boulevard, and that is very surprising. the problem is miami is terrible . and certaini always thought desantis was a good governor.

a lot more can be done because we also have an immigration issue coming here, but it is never mentioned, mainly because i think desantis, he wanted to run on immigration. host: keep it focused on the cities for today. but you did mention crime. i don't have the overall crime axios had a story about homicides in particular and how homicide rates are actually going down in major u.s. cities. here is a change in year-to-date homicides 2023. an 82% drop in boston, 33% in mentioned in homicides there. the nation is on track to see one of the lowest levels of violent crimes and homicides since president obama was in ofce showed crime as a top concern ahead of election and an issue where republicans regularly edge

dethis could te the steam mergers climbed by 20% inrst three months of 2024 compared to the same period last year, according to a criminal justice consulting firm. at this pace, the murder rate in the u.s. could match its level in 2014 when many cities saw 30 year lows in violent crime and homicides. next up, we have glenn in good morning, glenn. what is the big issue for you there? caller: good morning, kimberly. thank you for taking my call. one thing that is going on in my city's gas prices. you go down the street, there is one price to me go somewhere else, there is anotherrice in some areas, it is higher than others. what i want to know, why is there no discussion about the republican federal reserve chair, jerome powell, who is

keeping the interest rate up high? now, the interest rate affects everything. i don't believe it is inflation because inflation is low, so why isn't there a conversation that you bring up on "washington journal" about interest rates? because it is affecting housing, ng the average person needs. can you answer that? can have that as a topic? host: we had a couple discussions about inflation and the federal reserve on "washington journal." you can find those on our website, c-span.org, but it is obviously a relevant topic for many folks facing higher prices. mentioned gas prices in gasbuddy.com, and you can see the heat map of where gas prices sit in different parts of the country with the most extensive being in california above $4.33 a gallon

, and some of the cheapest being down here in the south with some places where gas is lower than $2.51 per gallon. next up, we have carl in chicago, illinois. carl, what is the big issue in chicago? caller: yes, good morning. i am concerned here out the lack of response to climate change adaptation. we have a local coal-fired power plant that is owned by similar suburbs outside of chicago claim to support environmental needs they cannot bring themselves to make significant change. so we need to tax carbon i think if we are ever going to get this more sustainable direction. host: ok, thank you, next up is m in bethlehem,sylvania. what is the biggest issue in your town? caller: town

are gas and lack of housing. but my main thing is about the guy who called in talking about crime in wisconsin. an ex-president who is a felon whosin, probably has more charges than any pern in the whole state, and you are talking about crime. first of all this guy go to jail because he is a straight criminal. that is what he is, criminal. and we will have this guy run our country. host: you mentioned housing in bethlehem, pennsyl what is going on there? mac, are you still with me? caller: yes. host: you mentioned that housing is an issue in your community. what speciller: you know, we have peosing to be built in their neighborhoods. because why would you want people to live in squalor?

why would you want people to not have affordable housi can't understand it. host: thanks. speaking of housing, that was something else that came up at the u.s. conference of mayors. mayors heard about the difficulty of affording housing [video clip] >> residential real estate obviously you remember the housing crisis of the last but we are now in a different place. the me now with rising prices is unable to afford median priced homes. median household, median priced homes in 200 33 out of 401 metro areas -- 233 out of 401 metro areas. ok? as of 2023. 2019population have been on

affordable metro where the median income was not high enough to purchase the median value house.now that figure is 60%. of the 10 largest u.s. metros, eight are unaffordable. before the pandemic, this was true only in new york and los angeles. price growth in western and midwestern trail the national average while metros in northeastern florida see the highest appreciation and mortgage rates will eventually move lower in 2024 and 2025, affordability, but only modestly. the trend of lower affordability is not only expected to reverse persistently low inventory us building, there are many reasons for that, and price increases in many make any unaffordabilitys an ongoing problem. host: speaking was james diffley , speaking at the u.s. conference of mayors.

next up is in florida. what is the big issue where you caller: the problem here is just inflation prices, and that is it. ates. when you get a 13-year-old girl that is raped in front of her brother in new york and you have a 12-year-old girl killed in texas and a mother of five killed in new york people are opening their eyes and realizing something is going on in this world. ach other and everybody else. the problem is we cannot handle the problems coming in this country. we have enough problems here with us, our people. we are not picking them off the street. no. but we are letting them on the street and giving them drugs. that is all i have to say. host: thank you for your call julio. several other folks have the same concerns as julio,

especially about inflation and gas prices. linda writes in that the top issues in her community our groceries and gas -- are groceries and gas for the car. lol. ma ar-15 killing machines, legally, women's rights, clean air and water, and our other cities with corrupted mayors saying oakland california and dalton, illinois. another says unsafe school environments is the top i their community. next up, thomas is in new haven, connecticut. thomas, what is the top issue facing your town? caller:hink the big issue herei am begging c-span to do their homework. realize the statistics you read that it is down, the doj does not require to report prior data anymore, ok? so please, i am begging you, c-span. do your homework.

host:thank you, thomas. ralph is in connecticut. good morning, ralph. what is the top issue there? caller:i have several issueset down on the main issues. we have senior citizens living in the complex here. i have gone through a lot of situations with the mayor senator, and the last was nobody has done anything. channel 12 came on board. host: what were you asking? their job. host:hat specifically were you hoping they would do that they are not doing? caller: ok because we are over here trusting everybody as a citizen. we have paid taxes. we have been to the army. we are going through all of these different situations which we do not have to be living. for a senior citizen home where there are

mice bedbugs, all of this stuff. nobody does anything. i got documents, by the way ok? hing too. the last person that i brought this issue to was blumenthal. yes, i will look into it. host: ok, i think we got your idea there, ralph. brad is in boyd, texas. what is going on in boyd? caller: you know, it is crime and illegals. i see illegals walking through my neighborhood. they look like they are casing out everybody's home and all of they are driving through the neighborhood, the exact same people. it looks like they are figuring out how they can steal things and haul out. host: try to keep the language clean for us. the tucson mayor was also at the u.s. conference of mayors this weekend discussing how cities across the u.s.re handling immigration, particularly what they are doing to help

immigrants in their communities. here is a portion of the remarks she made on friday. [video clip] >> recently, mayors across our country have been exploring opportunities to identify or create legal pathways or permanence for immigrants, long-term undocumented residents and asylum-seekers in our countriesdq is an issue that we want to continue working on with the biden-harris administration. introduced a resolution at the u.s. conference of mayors calling for federal policymakers to increase efforts to help cities confront their economic developments and demographic challenges by creating a visa. many of you signed onto the resolution that in this provide a new pathway for skilled immigrants and immigrant entrepreneurs and welcoming communities facing population stagnation or decline.

they suggest this would be an opt in policy. mayor johnson launched the asylum-seekers that will house approximately 800 refugees denverare currently in hotel shelters. another 200 individuals with intensive legal assistance for six months. it is an incredible program that mayor johnston put together. that legal assistance could people proactively apply for asylum and work permits while their are adjudicated in the backlogged immigration court system. over that time, the city will house and feed the immigrants. host: and again, you can findage of the u.s. conference of mayors conference a few comments from social media. donnieofd we pay the

highest taxes in the country. it is a joke to live here. no wonder everyone is leaving. truth sayer says the quality o thereof is the top issue in their community.rays, my town has a way of black topping roads and have time. pfaare straining many communities. willhe fthel says, i live in semi rural southeastern arizona perhaps the biggest problem is the shrinking supply of water. and again, we heard earlier from danny on illegal immigration. next up will be moving to open forum so you will be able to call in with whatever your issue is that you want toe news. our line for republicans is (202) 748-8001. r line for democrats is (202) 748-8000. and for independents, (202) 748-8002. and before we move into open forum, we will get o in from marcus in gary indiana. marcus, what is the top issue in gary? caller: the top issue in gary has been as it always has been no housipo kids,

and donald trump running for president. i can't believe the fact that we are thinking of him running for president, a convicted felon. that is all i have. thank you. host: ok, so now let's move into open forum and hear what you all have to say about what has been on your mind this next up, we will hear from wayne in minnesota on our line for democrats. good morninghi there way. can you hear me? looks like we have lost wayne. rob in new york city on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i guess i am like everyone else, obsessed with this -- or a lot ofssed with this upcoming debate. of course, i am hoping that park. i hope it is revealed in the debate and they are both training and practicing with

these debates in private, but i just wrote down a couple of topics the former president has been spewing. he is talking he is talking about hollywood stars. he talkssilence of the lambs." he is to talk about crowd size. he talks about elvis pressley and his guitar, frank sinatra and i realized he is just an en that is good in front of a tv camera. he is really not a serious guide. yes, heas theabout some of the important headlines. but if you quene him and tried to get to talk about some of these things at any length, you are not going to get it. you have a tv entertainer that is pretending when he talks to have some kind of a control over the issues, which he really

doesn't, and he doesn't care about. host: i want to actually bring in more information about that. there is a story thehill.com about republicans urging trump to avoid 20/20 debate pitfalls, saying don't. senate republicans are urging former president trump to avoid a repeat of his much-maligned performance weather to meet onstage thursday for a pivotal moment in their rematch. the 2020 debate performance is rumored fogering come and running roughshod over biden and the debate moderator chris wallace as well as the infamous response that the proudnow republicans are urging him down in the name of presidential success. don't take the bait, said senator john from south dakota the number two senate republican who is running to become leader next year. demeanor is important. tone is important. i think you can be decisive and ways you want to get president biden as much rope as

possible because i don't think that will probably play well for him. next up and open forum, we have bob in sacramento, california. hiare you with us? let's go to lisa in fort myers, florida, on our line for independents. good morning, lisa. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just want to say how stout it how sad it is we don't have any other candidates. we would have more people to choose from and better candidates. we are just turning into a laughing stock in the world and very sad. host: so what are you plaing to do in november, lisa? caller: i have no idea. host: ok. caller: i have no idea. i will just wait and see if another cabecause these two, neither one arent to run our country right now.

host: thank you lisa. next up, we have carrie in fort lauderdale morning. caller: yes, thank you very much. i am a first-time time caller originally from the bahamas an immigrant. fortunately for me, i was able to get my citizenship through the reagan. just sad to see how americans are sothis country is not doing good. world and you will see how america is doing. happy but definitely n happy -- i don'tthink it needs to go there. america, wake up. that man does not need to go. have a good day. host: next up is mary in mississippi on our line for republicans. good morning good morning. i would like to point out to the democrats who called and talk

about theald j. trump is. i would like to ask them a quondo any of you people le run your personal business? man. he is pitiful. it is sad to see him up on that stage struggling like he does. all of his people including his latives that are going to vote for him you should be ashamed of yourselves because it is elder abuse. so ask yourselfwould you let joe biden run your personal business in the mental shape that he isanybody who watches him can see he is sad. it is pitiful what is going on untry. the lies you all have told on donald trump, 99% of them are not even true, but you believe it. you people are gullible. you need to wake up. host: in silver spring,

maryland oour line for democrats, good morning. caller: hi. first i would like tocompasses mr. trump. trump cranks up false incendiary messages to rake in campaign cash. in other words, he is stealing from america to pay for his legal fees. and i would like you to )summarize the 1, 2, 3, the third fauci, what an incompetent, ignorant man led to covid-19 killings of thousands of peoplplease, can you summarize it? or i can read the whole thing for you on this phone. host: which article were you referencing? ca it is the review of dr. fauci's book. host: in what news organization? caller: the "washington post." ok, i will look for that from rebecca in virginia on our line forhi there rebecca. can you lower the volume on your tv and tell us what is on your mind? yes.

hi. i wanted to say that for me personally i can determine based on the history of both candidatesommon sense. it is in front of us and easy to make a decision. both of them have records now so yourepresented the values that you see most important. and it is pretty clear. in my case, it appears it will be trump based on record alone and i will votfor that. thank you. host: thanks for your call, rebecca. a previous caller was referencing an article in the "washington and the headline was trump about trump. emails falsely suggesting he could be executed. it was neither accurate nor subtle. it read, one month until all hell breaks loose, they want to sentence me to death. message blasted out to his supporters was a reference to the formers

sentencing scheduled for july 11 when he facefines or time after being convicted on 34 charges of business product in connection with hush money paid to an adult film star. o!a death sentence is not under consideration in the case, neithe a guillotine as another fundraising pitch suggested last week. the incendiary ems are part of a strategy t raiseially that president biden's campaign opened up in recent months. according to people close the condition of anonymity, they were not authorized to speak for the campaign, but experts in small dollar fundraising suggest solicitations are aggressive, even by the standards of trump'lic and inflammatory language. next up, tim is in alexandria, kentucky, and our line for republicans. good morning tim. can you hear me? caller: yes, ma'am what is on your mind? caller:you have 10 million people coming into this country and they all have to have somewhere

to live. i believe that averages out to 400,000 homes in each state, so that could be part of the housing shorte. and the cost of housing going you can't get one. that is all i have. host: thank you for your callnext up is blake in mississippi on our line for independents. good morning. caller: well, tim, i don't think that is fair either. imagine being an african-americanand you built this country. all of these people coming here you loan money to buy slaves and built all of this wealth and everything, and imagine their descendants not being able to do anything. they don't have any land anything. i am curious. imagine they are soldierseurope again and again and again, and they are coming home and being second-class citizens. we just got our freedom 60 years ago.

it is amazing. you don't want to gi freyou want an uneven playing field. americans want to keep black people at a certain level like they are quasi-slaves. you can put us right back into slavery. do not want to give us any economic power. all the other licit. they secretly -- i don't think it along a t8yalk it privately but everybody is complicit in keeping the afthey don't want to give us any reparations, free education, you don't want to give us that because you don't want to compete with us on an even level. host: ok,hithe idea. let's hear from charles from kentucky on our line for independents. good morning, chcaller: yes, good morning. i just have three things to say. we are going through a big change, and that is change.org change in health care, and

changehealthcarecyberat tack.com. ut how we are being attacked by china. have a good day and god bless america. host: remi is in baltimore maryland, and our line. caller: good morning, and thanks for taking my call. i just want to piggyback on two things. the gentleman who was just on i have to wholeheartedly agree with where ween it comes to our inner cities. i want to talk about baltimore for a second. i will let it go at that. the point i am trying to make is have those trying to be in leadership a jump to the world. talking to people from other countries, but i am finding is how people feel about the united states of america in whatever role has been over the

last 55 to 70 years. what i see, and it came up in conversation the other day, if we have leadership that people will look at, have credibility. move forward and have a good presence when they show up. you have to think about leadership that could be brought as ourlarry hogan -- our governor wes moore and larry hogan. put those two on the ballot andething you can look forward to. that is my point for toda thanks for coming in. gary is in livingston, tennessee. caller: yes ma'am. one of the things i want to talk about is the downfall of the churches. can you believe you have churches running around supporting a rapist,that is a very sad thing. the other thing is healtcare yo $70,000 $40,000. a $70,000 trip.

down through the south here are just bought, i guess you could callbut the downfall, you pay for the church. are still out there supporting him. the chur are falling down and it is their own fault for not standing up for what is right and what is wrong, and i said health care. it is time to build better health care because people are hurting for health care. the biggest portions of reur stuff, which is used by the lack of health care and making wills. all i have to say. i appreciate you guys so much. thank you. host: for calling. anthony is in las vegas,eva, morning. caller: good morning. i know how you like to clip articles to show the viewer's proof of stories. i just hate how the media covers s.my top issue is illegal immigration.

senator her advisor was killed by an illegal immigrant. people online when you look that story up they don't mention that. ital story. the new york post covered itshows it to the viewers but if the media did not cover up things so much, i think people would come together in this country. host: i am going to look and see if i can find an article. do you happen to remember the person's name, anthony? caller: the person's name, the killing. give me five seconds. host: we will look for that as well while we hear from another color. david is in north line for democrats. good morning, david. caller: good morning. i hope things are going well. yes, my subject today would be immigration.

i am very upset with what is going on with the country rightwith our citizens attack , and i just don't see where anne is doing anything or no one is talking about that. our pewe have people coming into this country at several times and just saying they feel threatened in their country, and they are coming here, killing our people, our children. and i just wish we could get more publicity, get a spotlight on that more because there is a concern that is affecting all of us each and every day.

when you live in a country, you expect that country, the is supposed to do is protect you. right now, i don't feel like we are being protected. host: thank you david. ious caller referenced a case in nevada and i found ane about this from fox news that has been reprinted on yahoo.com. the headline from april of this year, illegal immigrant arrested in crash that killed a democratic senator's advisor. an during man who was arrested in connection to a tehwo advisor to the democratic senator of nevada earlier this month was in the country illegallyeen detained at the border in 2021 and then let go. enforcement told fox news digital. the illegal immigrant was involved in a deadly crash that took the life of kurt 6. the collision occurred about five miles south of downtown

reno nevada. he was originally charged with a felony hit and been changed to a failing to stop at the scene of an accident. citing the sheriff's office was being held in april at the county jail in reno on $100,000 bail. next up, mary and is in centreville, maryland, and our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. host: can you turn down the volume on your tv, please? off. caller:it is my first time. host: thanks for calling in. caller: you. thanks for being there. i was up an official ballot, which i think anybody can do in your county, wherever you live. the official ballot for the democratic president. i am looking at suffolk county long island. if you look at it, there are other choices. especially marianne williamson. she is not given any -- this day

and woman, to see her dismissed and treated as such any non -- i don't know. i am a mother of three vets. america is beautiful. i hope when we go to the ballot really use our voting power to make it even more beautiful here. thank you. host: call. gene buffalo, new york and our line for republicans. good morning. caller: hello? ok, i would just like to pose a question. if you are a convicted felon, a rapist, and you have nine bankruptcies including a casino and three failed marriages how is it possible to run for president? that is all i have. james is in battle creek michiggood morning, james. caller: yes, good morning. i have just been wondering about the coup of january 6.

i don't understand how a gentleman or a president can try to take over the country illegally and all of this time we cannot take him to court before we have to vote on if he gets elected back into office and just give him the country. the juice department, the supreme court somebody would do something about this before we elect this gentleman. we spent all this time and it is just ridiculous. i don't understand it, but i hope it is before we elect the president that he goes to court for trying to take over the country. host: stay tuned to our next segment because we will be discussing donald trump's cases before the supreme court in our next segment, but before we get to that, mary is in michigan on our line for independent. caller: good morning, kimberly. i have spent the past two years

volunteering at our local elementary school, and iarticle in the newsletter from our retiring senator debbie stabenow, and she is on the committee or leads the committee that is discug the farm bill, which expires in september of consequences for a lot of low inc elderly, and disabled about snap benefitsthey would like to cut them by $3and then she also talked about 21 million children during the summer get $40 per child in increased snap benefits for the summer months when they are homebecause by volunteering in the school, i knew howtant breakfast and lunch was served here in michigan. it was free. it is a federal program, but it is paid for myself, why do 15 southern states refused this

money summer after summer -- refuse this m summer? i saw debbie stabenow say an election year and they want those families in those states to basically is what she said. i would like to have maybe your producers bring on some representatives and talk about the farm bill, which is going to be very consequential to a lot of people. and then the other thing she mentioned is there is actually two bills in congress. this is hard to believe. that congress wants to raise their pay. c-span showing the back and forth about whether they deserve a pay raise this year. and then a couple days ago, i have one more thing to mention. a gentleman blamed the president about ou allowancend personal security.

i looked that up, and that was a bill. in 1975, so that was 50 years ago. formula and it has to do with inflation. it is a very complicated formula, but it has nothing to do with the president. it was a bill that was passed in 1975. host:ox the story you mentioned about members of congress asking for a pay raise. t. here is a story in the "washington post." do members of congress need a pay raiftse aes. they have given outnd other employees but have not dared to give themselves a raiadjust for inflation. and then it said two years ago lawmakers gave out an increase to the pot of money lawmakers used to pay their congressional staff and help hundreds of junior aides reached the living wage status according to a report. we would gets a raise except the lawmakers themselves. it has been 15 years since the members of the house and senate allowed their federally mandated

cost-of-living adjustment to take effect. since then, their pay has been set at $174,000. out of political fear from voters in their primary and general elections, lawmakers have repeatedly inserted language into government funding bills that prohibits them from taking effect. this happened in april in the house appropriations committee. the net result has been a drastic payç, cut at least in terms of buying power to members over the last 15 years particularly given the rapid inflation of the last three years in the soaring cost of living in washington. has sent many lawmakers towards retirement exits over the last they grow frustrated with the dysfunction inside the wages in the private sector industry. next up, we have tommy in kentucky on our line for democr caller: well, the reason they don't need no raise is they get cutbacks forgetting the policies

for getting the policies passed. donald trump has given them good money, making the rich people into billionaires that are already with m so i don't guess they need that much money anymore. andy -- and the maga group stopping anything that biden wants to put no on things that can help the workingif they checked all of that they will find that most of them have been under aged children involved with them. they never come back with that anymore. matt gaetz has been cut back again for the things he did with under aged children. if you check that, you will find out. it is not because they stay with trump because they need money. what they stay with trump for his most of them have fooled

around with little children. host: we got the idea, tommy. let's hear from sal in las vegas on our line for democrats. good morning sal. caller:have no party application, miss, but i called on the independently. i am kind of shooting from the hip. i am going to breakfast. the place i am going to come at $3.79, bacon and ham and sausage. the gentleman tearlier, we are out here in vegas, ok? been here 51 years. we don't have federal problems out here. sheriff. just like anywhere elsin t weak sheriff, a week county commissioner beholden to the las vegas county court so they undered the treasury just to repair roads i was in bail bonds for years. they removed a policy so anytime to be -- one of the problems just illegal immigration but illegal employment, so if there

is people here and they cannot get work, they will not come here. it is a major problem. please do not let your children come here. do not come here on vacation. this is one of the worst -- if people knew what was going on in vegas -- and i have been listening to c-span for 30 years now.it is like watching "the price is right" anymore. people get up on stage. i hear republicans and democrats . meanwhile, there is so much distraction going on and we are really losing our neighborhoods. that is my main point. host: ok, thank you, sal. xt up is james in akron, ohio on our line forplease please turn down juror tv. caller: that bothers me, 76 years old, first of all. election for president, they say we need more

choices, something's wrong. they've never liked the president in my lifetime. they said we didn't have enough choices. something's wronghim. he's too he would, he's this, he's that, he's that, and nobody wantsem. now, one other thing, i did like what the lady was saying about the red states, where they a these poor people food assistance and their kids and that's crazy. one other thing i'd like to say and let it go, is that the supreme court, there should time limit. they should not be able to take on a case and hang in there for they should have 30 days to figure this thing out, say what they're going to in 30 days, they shouldn't be in office. they should be impeached and put out of there. it shouldn't take more than 30 days to figure out any case. host: that's actually a perfect segue to our next segment because we're going to wrap upp on "washington journal," we're going hear from university of baltimore law school professor, kim wehle who's going to join us to discuss exactly that, recent and

upcoming supreme court decisions and ethics questions surrounding the court. and later, we'll hear from the american enterprise institute's l levin, who will talk about political division and how the document can be used to restorehose who disagree. we'll be right back. >> this week on the c-span a state work period. the house is in session, working on 2025 federal spending bills for the defense, homelandol c anti-doping agency are taking in advance of the 2024 olympics. and thursday, c-span's campaign 2024 coverage continues with a simulcast of the cnn presidential debate live on c-span2. watch live this week on the c-spanrks or over to espn2.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on demand any time.é] unfiltered view of government.

week featuring leading authors discussing their latest former texas republican senator phil graham and economist di 2024 hyatt prize named "a fatal inheritance" about his family's rare by "wall street journal" health and science reporter. watch book tvnd on c-span2 and find the full schedu watch online any time at booktv.org. >> c-span has an online store. browse throughout our latest collection of products apparel books, home decor, and accessories. there's something forvery c-span fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit opations. shop now or any time at c-spanshop.org.shington journal" continues. host: welcome back.

we're joined now of baltimore school of law professor kim a abc news legal contributor and a former assistant u.s. attorney, and the author of the fort coming power: how the pardon system works and why." thank you so much for joining "washington journal." guest: good morning, great to be here. talk about the supreme court. and before we start talking about specific cases when is the supreme courtinished this term? it seems like they have a lot of cases left on the docket. guest: well, they added another day this week, so we should hear from them wednesday thursday, friday. but as you indicate, there's about a dozen cases still waiting to be delivered, and there's some major issues, not just criminal immunity for donald trump and other presidents, also another could affect hundreds of january 6 insurrectionists who have been convicted for their role on that day, and a handful of cases involving the intersection of the first amendment and social media. so the's a lot coming down. justice alito was not on the

bench for two days last week, so we can speculate. my guess is we'll get it wrapped up this month and maybe it will go into july but that would be unusual. answers from the court. host: you mentioned the january 6. you write in politico magazine that this case could be the sleeping giant case that could upend jack smith's prosecution of pre trump. and i wonder if you can talk a little bit more about that case, whiche immunity case. guest: it has technically to do with donald trump much he's not named in that particular case. but there are four counts in the criminal indictment relating to january two of the four counts fall under a statute that is being challenged in that separate case, the fisher case by a plaintiff, or defendant who's appealed by the name of mr. fisher and he's claiming that that statute, from the sarbanes-oxley act

which was enacted after theron health meltdown, he's saying you can't use that statute to prosecute january 6. there's lots of ways the court could narrow a ruling. it could either side for the government completely, or if it sides for mr. fisher, it could do it in a affect the president, but in theory it could. that's why i say giant. if it could knock out half of the four counts, official investigation and conspiracy to obstruct an official investigation, two of that jack smith's team brought against donald trump, that, of course, would have a big impact on that prosecution that is also being stalled because of the immunity case that the supreme court took up. host: one already been decided was that case the court upheld by 8-1arginfederal law prevents people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders from having firearms. what's the most important thing for folks to know about that ruling in particular? guest: the important thing is that the court, majority seems

to to have pulled back on very broad protections under the second amendment that it handed down a couple of years ago in a case called bruin. traditionally the effectively to say, ok, let's look at the right to bear arms and the right to make sure the public is safe, and we'll make properly made that balance. two years ago in this case, the court structured carry permit law out of new york that was 100 years old and said we have a new test now. we're not going to do that balancing anymore. instead we're going to goto the time of the second amendment, around g say, is there a parallel gun law parallel gun law back then, congress couldn't restrict it today. so lower courts were reallynfused after that and were looking for -- some of the lower courts w mirror image of something when it was muskets, and we certainly didn't have the kind of ar-15 technicall this radio hundredee case the court said no, we didn't

mean that, we mean something sort of substantially similar and the principle behind the gun lawd, and they essentially said, listen, back then there were laws to keep guns away f dangerous people, keeping guns away abusers so they can't murder over 900 women have already been killed b this year a-- by domestic violence abusers this year. essentially we'll see more laws upheld under the second amendment than le understood were constitutional prior to this case. so it's a g for guns rights advocates and for women. he wrote that decision two years ago, so he's been left out in the cold in his very stricken sent reading of second amendment rights. host: chief justice robertsn partner, that individual may consistent with the seco i f threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. now, you brought up something

there about clarence thomas and sort of the interpretation historical precedent and things like that, and there seems to be a bi up between clarence thomas and some of the other conservatives on the court get into that? guest: listeners might have heard of original i am textualism. it's a mythology in that the conservatives have suggested that the best way to read the constitution is to freeze it in time and to not interpret it. and that's re thomas. in justice thomas' defense, he's saying that really means you have to find a law from the time of the ratification of the second amendment in 1791 that bans domestic violence abusers from owning guns. if you're going to be intellectually honest actually have the same thingn that we have now. the majority is kind of moving more towards a progressive approach, which is really the most logical approach.

old it's vague. as i said earlier, the old test wau balance public safety against protections for gun ownership. so the conservatives are saying we're going stick with originalism, but we're not going to look for a mirror image. we're going to instead kind of look at the principles behind the gun law at the time of theing and see if those principles are similar to the stake today. that frankly, is a lot like what more progressive justices are doing or have been doing un the living constitution principle, that that means exercising here in the majority is realizing the stringent reading is not workable. justice jac concurring opinion catalogued a really long footn the lower courts that are really confused since that decision. asking us to be historians. we don't have the expertise in history, in what gun laws looked like then. but honestly, this is the psalm thing the court did in dobbs.

we're going to go back in time, we're going to become historians and judges. i think what we're seeing with this rahimi case the majority is acknowledging that's not workable, it's 2024, not 1791, and congress' judgment that trademark law justice barrett seemed to take a shot at justice s " for gauging whether a content-based registration abridges the right to free speech." that is wrong twice over. first, could you briefly summarize this case andhis statement by justice barrett stood out so much. guest: comes from an old case, and essentially, and she sayst again in the rahimi

case, if you're going too tradition and history, which piece of history do you pick? if you're going to pick a of history, how many pieces of evidence in that history are enough to create some generalized sense of whether history and traditi went one way or the other? so i think it's sticking with guns for a moment,s think about the hundred year old expel carry law that i mention from the new york state. that's an old lawful it's 100 years years old. the court struck down the permit requirement in new york. somet would say a hunears is a hundred years. and justice thomas said that's not enough. though there are other laws that upheld concealed carry permit restrictions, we're going to pick these other laws and say that's our history and tradition. i think in both of those opinions, justice bare set saying we need to be more careful with this test. we don't really know what the test means, history and tradition, how much history, which parts of history. and again, to my here we are having judges have

to exercise discretion, have to pi choose, have to decide is the test and some might argue, and i think this is in the trade gun cases, some might argue listen, lr for us. congress is accountable to the voters at the polls. if the voters don't like the gun law that congress the voters don't like the trademark law that congress enacted, they can vote new members ong into office. if we let the supreme court do it, th voters, whether you're republican or democrat, you have no say anymore. they'rthere's noticing you can do unless you amend the constitution acknowledging in both of these cases that maybe this is too much power to give the supreme court. there is no black and white test. history and tradition is still not a black and white test. under the separation of powers, maybe the court should start deferring to congress and not striking down laws and let the voters decide which members of congress they want to change the law. host: if you all have ques ms. wehle, give us a call. republicans, 202-748-8001.

democrats, 202-7 independents02-748-800fore we go to calls, i want to talk a bit about some of the ethics questionsro supreme court. we've had plenty of headlines like this one at npr.org justice alito declines to recuse himself in january 6-relate cases. obviously this flag issue that was well covered in the "new york times" and elsewhere. justice alito issued a statement over the flag controversy saying no recusal was neces. here speaking on "washington journal" about this earlier, ethics in public policy centers discussing the recent and the flag in front of his home. here's a portion of those comments. >> the aftermath of this ugly despite, a reporter went down there and determined that this was simple a neighborhood

dispute.d, according to the reporter, that this was a sign of distress, no one back then thought this was a stop the steal. and until two weeks ago, i can't imagine that one person in hundred in this country had any reason to associate an upside-down flag with the sto sale movement. justice alito did not address the point. irrelevant, because whatever mrs. alito meant by it had no bearing on his obligation to sit in this case. and again, you sited the standard for recusal. what comes first is a general obligation to sit, subject to the narrow exception. specifically justice alito's response to the request for him to recuse from some of these cases much a reasonable person who is not motivate by political or ideological court cases would conclude that this event does not meet the standard for accusal. i am therefore duty-bound to

reject your recusal request. and that was written up in axios. is this matter closed, do you think? guest: effectively it might be, because there's no mechanism toreview it. so his point is a factual an argument based on the underlying factual scenario, the relationship between mr. and mrs. alito the neighbor, what do people believe that sign means.ally in law, that kind of thing is resolved at a evidentiary hearing or trial or if you had some kind of an oversight board, they might hear testimony and make a decision as to whether this is something or not that justice alito should recuse himse around. the problem with this is that no accountability mechanism. there's no way to test justice alito's assertions, and because judges, federal judges are there for life, the standard really is not ju conflict, but the appearance of a conflict of interest. if there's even a question, some

would argue, and i would agree that he should recuse himself, because the legitimacy of the court is so important. if ameri the legitimacy of the court, if they don't believe it's neutral,ure is the idea they're going to be apolitical. they don't h worry about being re-elected. but if people just think it's a t based on things like this, then eventually into its outcome, and you could have chaos sut the chief justice roberts he has not stepped take steps publicly to hold justices thomas and alito accountable for very disturbing conflicts of interesthether you think they're factually accurate or not, or rise to the level ofs beside the point. they created chaos, and they besmir the court, and congress could step in, but congress so far hasn't of legislation would rare a super require, could be filibustered by the position that justices thomas and alito really are harming the institution itself and creating a lot of

concern among americans, and it's real and legitimate. host: let's go to your calls now. john is in wisconsin on our line for independents. good mor what's your question? caller: good morning. as a law-abiding citizen and gun owner, and living in the state of wisconsin just on the city of milwaukee, the horrible comment that mr. trump made there's been 10 and killings in the last month in this city milwaukee. when it comes to the supreme court thing, i think it's slippery slope. i mean, domestic abusers still have the right to go in with a baseball bat i mean, do you want to outlaw baseball and things like that, and golfing? because i mhase an illegal gun off the street, which is probably where the majority weapons are, came from right now that i just described ear milwaukee. they're illegal guns. we need to start putting with illegal

guns in jail. and then you're also taking the right away from that person to protect their home and the family that they may have now if it was from a prior marriage or something and one more thing, the goved about was mental fitness. and withyou know, a friend of mine could call up somebo say i think this person is, you know, has a mental issue or something like that, and i think that you should take his guns away, just randomly willy-nilly without really any -- s let kim respond to some of those points you made. guest: i think john's point is really a policy debate as to whether guns should be regular guide this way. and under the question regulate the guns, but who gets to regulate the guns. we have states, state legislators, state judges, sta federal level we've got the

congress, and we've got the supreme court. so here, the domestic ban has been in place since 1994. that was enacted by congress. and essentially the court is saying here, even under the second amendment, you know all of these -- all parts of the constitution you have to balance various interests. but they're essentially sayg we'll defer to congress here. if people want more or less gun regulation, the benefit of having it be in congress is people like john want to have different gun laws one way or the other, they can go to the ballot box in november and have their position. the people then are in power. if runs in and second guesses congress o doesn't second guess congress on that, there's no oversight for the supreme court, y can't vote them out of office, there's no way to have an appeal from them, that needs nine people who are not elected to ultimately the bosses of the country, almost like kings

whether it's first systemment rights, second amendment rights, abortion rights, all of these things, there's a problem letting the supreme court have the ultimate discretion to make policy judgments about what kind of guns we do and do not want. and the second amendment the court makes really clear, is not absolute. there's nothing spl the second amendment that's different than say, the first amendment, where you can't child abuse imagery on your computer. some mht s way, that's part of how i want to express myself. for example, the congress said no, that's illegal that hurts kids. likewise, ngress can say guns hurt people, so we're going to re guns. and agree that it shouldn't be the supreme court to make ultimate decision. host: let's hear next from paul in arizona on our line for democrats. caller: good morning, america. host: good morning. caller: while i was waiting i've been reading up onhe second amendment and the initial thinking of it. was talking about

the originalists and justice thomas. you have to put yourself back in 1791. i mean, the backwoods needed firearms to hunt, to put meat on the table. the shore of america, the coastline, which was developing into towns and cities, the militia wasat that time didn't want a standing army. they saw what happened to standing armies in europe, didn't want one here. but it's mor thing now where, you know, we have half of believes that guns are their legitimate god-given right, and no matter how many bullets it sets out, it still should legal. host: paul, what is your question for kim? caller: my question madison who wrote it, what s 1791 in the minds of these that they felt they this? because at the same time,

england had been having mass shootings, and they were doing away with firearms. host: let's go ahead and thank you for the history, but i'm wondering if you can kim, bring us back to the present with sort of what this means for the conversation moving forward. guest: well, he makes an excellent point in that the the second amendment is not defined. there's no definition. and so an originalist could say arms 1791, arms only means the guns that were avai conservatives have already depart from the that and said, no have modern guns even if you're going back too 1791, and i want to make one additional point. until 2008, in a case called heller that was justice scalia, it was only militias t rights. prior to 2008, the supreme court diderpret the second amendment to protect the individual right to bear arms. even in that case, the court said you can have pistols in your homfor self-defense, but it's really expanded dramatically by this court since

2008. i agree, there's asunderstanding somehow and a mythology that the second amendment has this umbrella right that supersedes other interests and rights i it's just not true historically, and it's not true under the case henry in georgia on our line for republicans. question? hi there henry. can you hear us? we'll try to get henry back later. next up, we'll hear from huntersville, north carolina, on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning, thank taking my call. my is, if every current legal issue that the judges are handling is subject to a history and tradition test, is every ling on something that was ruled on long ago, and if it's never been ruled on does current and new issues get added to the history and tradition list for ruling? when does history and tradition

get updated? that's my question. thank you. host: thanks for your call. guest: it's an excellent question. i think the answer is probably not, never. and the big question really isurt takes this history and tradition test and expands it beyond the two places they really emphasized it, which is gun rights and abortionnd tradition and extend it to to contraception? do you take history and tradition and extend it to medical independence, the ability to make your own decisions about your healthcare? we don't know, but a major shift in interpretation of the constitution. up is rick in new york on our line for independents. good morning, . caller: hi. yes, thank you very much for taking my call. i c-span, and i'm really happy you're talking about ethichcs urn, we're seeing thedegradation within all of our of government certainly

in the congress, certainly the supreme court and presidency before this president, of course. so i've heard many times that the former president trump has asked president biden to take drug test before this debate coming up. i would he wholeheartedly accept that challenge on one condion. and do you have any questions about the you have any questicaller: i did. i would like to know if the supreme court and the president during the debate can take polygraphs while they are speaking? that is a useful tool -- host: that. guest: someone would either have to do ittarily, which is what the sitting president would have to do, or if it comes to having the supreme court justices take polygraphs or some other kind of ethic standard, it would have to come to the u.s. congress.

they're not going to do it independently on their own. i think there are good arguments -- i have a new column next week politico on one way that congress could rein in a way that is consistent with conservative thinking under constitution. we will have to see. host: springfield massachusetts, the line for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. thank you to your guest for informing us about these ethics questions. main concern is gun safety. standpoint what we can do t address -- better treatment of gun safety by the supreme court. what can citizens do? what can the legal profession do to make sure we are addressing this life-and-death problem? host: thank you for your question, matthew. guest: i think that we will see more of a sh litigation. i think that lawyers are going

to, that want gun safety, are going to start walking through the door that was reasonably opened to protect gun laws as they exist. ile you can use baseball bats, knives, the problem with guns right now is suicide. you're more likely to have a death in your family if you have a gun in your house for self-defense by virtue of suicide then you will your family from an intruder. the chances of death with the higher than the chances of death with some other kind of weapon. thi've written about is the united states congress has enacted powerful immunity laws for gun manufacturers. they cannot be sued. ammunitions manufacturers cannot be sued. we saw this with tobacco. once lawsuits started happening then corporations, corporations, their profit margins safe -- or in this case, tobao. i would argue that allowing lawsuits to force these gun

manufacturers to make their guns using technology using more safe would take it out of the hands of congress, out of the handsthe supreme court, and let the markets adjust it. tinker with the immunity law thatcomes to dangerous objects. host: mor republicans good morning, rick. caller: i believe the reason the supreme court is given lifetime terms is s -- is because liberal socialist college professors can't challenge everything they do. constitution. people just can't get on -- especially a lawyer, to get on there and besmirch the supreme court. c-span has hit a new low. thank you. host: what about the idea -- go ahead. guest: the constitution exists to ptect eve times that conservatives have been very upset with the supreme court over the years.

my v i like to think of the constitution like a over a very dangerous river. sometimes there are cops in blue uniforms in charge, sometimes cops in red uniforms directing traffic and in charge. if the bridge falls, the constitution itself no longer protects everyone, everyone falls into the water. the re the structure needs to be so that everyone has protections against an overbearing government. you will have leaders that you don't like. the constitution is there to make sure that we the an inverted triangle, the power narrows down to individual judges and electeda monarchy is that someone has all the feel. my concern with the supreme court and the other political things happening is that we are flipping that triangle. we are going to a monarchy again

where the winners and losers get rights based on someone having unaccountable per. it is the structure and not the politics thatotivates hoboken, new jersey on the line for independents. what is your question? caller: thank you for taking my call. i agree with what she is saying but is, it is not just the supreme court. it is the whole gove de-legitimized. if you speak out against anything you will you will be weaponized with words. it is not just the supreme court -- i mean, thomas has taken $4 million the last few years inial interests, right. if you speak out against anythingf you say i don't want weapons going to israel or weaponized. you will be attacked. go to court. most people don't have the money to run for office.

congress right now, she is saying go vote and make congress help out, congress has been corrupted. i think maybe two people in congress don't take money from special interests. special interests and specialwhatever -- are basically you can't speak out, you can't run for office unless you are backed b them. host: it is interesting that you mention that. it was a supreme court decision that actually allowed more corporate money and special interest money into congress correct? guest: i did a column on this last week. i write about this if want to look at my work. instagram @kimwehle and there is a link tree to all of tharticles. i don't mean to suggest that congress is theme together and take back their government through every possible lever. sure the supreme court struck down the voting section 5 --

effectively struck thatmaking it easier for states to keep legitimate voters from the ballot. edison's united basically gave corporations knowledge that they have first amendment rights like living breathing people. they can spend unlimited amounts on ads as long as they do not directly coordinate with candidates. like the caller and myself, i don't haveake out ads or flood the internet. my voice is drowned out.i can only give $3300 to any particular candidate. if you can do it under the guise of the first amendment as a corporation, it is now protected under the constitution and there is nothing that congress can do about it thanks to the supreme court. i don't he easy answers. a few years ago i was definitely more positive. but i am also a mother and i think that we have to protect and f f for our kids. the last point that i want to make is i think on theing vilified

online, the misinformation spreading online, the algorithms that feed different news into each one of our phones under the guise of ne that is tailored to our biases, this has been a huge problem. the framers rejected direc all the votes because they were worried about bad informati people voting against their interests based on lies. they could not have imagined this. this is a real problem. we have to go back to a sick education and teaching and learning how to sort garbage -- back to basic educationng and learning how to sort garbage from good information. it's very easy to make ba information. president trump on the campaign trail has pledged to pardon january 6 rioters. he is facing pressure to name names of specific people he would pardon. you have a forthcoming book, pardon power, how the pardon

system works and why. can you tell us about the book and why you want to put this out now? guest: the publisher asked me to write it because i have a series on civics education. i take the complex constitutional stuff and translate it into english. the pardon powers come up. weave not just donald trump that the presidents have used the pardon power for their own special interests to protect themselves. theredebate as to whether a president could pardon h of crimes in the oval office, name whoever, joe shmo commits a bunch of crimes in the himself on the way out and now you have a crime spre president has more power than anyone in the planet. they control the fbi, the cia, the military. if they can commit crimes using that power we are in big trouble. i argue that just> like the second amendment the pardon power is not unlimited and presidents can pardon any federal crime.ue. i debunk that and i say this

like otherconstitution, you have to reasonably balance it against the erests of the people and protecting against the two powerful government. of donald trump were to win the white house again, if he pardoned the january 6 insurrectionists, that would be within the scope of his power under the pardon clause. and then it would be up to the votecide, is this the kind of thing that we want the pardzon powerthat would be different than a self-pardon. i argue that a self-pardon should be unconstitutional because that would insulate presidents from any accountability for committing crimes for theirwn interest in office, which is not ocala k. -- which is not ok. host: loretta, democrats line, good morning. caller: kim, that was a perfect segue to my question. it is regarding the immunity part of this, the case with trump. what in the world

supreme court be thinking of? insurrection ipresident's duty. i don't understand. what it looks like to me is that they set up their own catch and kill. they set up cases that they know they can do nothing about. it beginning to show, trump areas. you look at what'trump stole our secret documents. what the hell is they thinking about? we don't even know what he did with the ones he had. host: we are running a little low on time. you wanttahe immunity case? guest: i agree with the caller. this should be easy. let the trial decide i guilty. in theory, the idea that

presidents can incite rebellions against the government is somehowthe court not only took that easy case, but expanded the problem. were not just to look at january 6 and if those actions in theory, would bprotecteity. we will legislate a constitutional standard. again, i think that the court is getting ahead of its skies ands -- of its skis and taking more should. it should be narrowing these questions. james madison and the federal papers wrote that -- if we give anyone power and they don't have any checks and balances, if there are no tickets for speeding you will keep blowing through the speed limit. it is what we are seeing on the supreme court. there needs totart being kings and queens. i think it's very disturbing that the court has decided to manufacture immunity, whatever flavor it is.

if it goes beyond january 6, which it sounds like the court is going to do, that is expanding the belt and suspenders of the president in a way that whether you are republican or democrat can come back to bite the american people.. go ahead virginia. please turn down the volume on your tv. caller: i have a question regarding the gun -- we were discussing earlier regarding -- i think she stated something about 50% of the killings are suicides. gun owners having th in their home, a pistol, or whatever. i understood that it was ely? the wife? er was. i did not know 50% werei stand corrected if so. guest: i don't have the actual statistical numbers, that i have interviewed experts on gun safety who said that in terms of the numbers if you have a gun in your home you are actually making your family less safe. if someone is prone to suicide and they get a hold of the

there is almost a 100% chance of success. if they are forced to use some other mechanism there is a much higher likelihood they will not succeed in death and will survive. people think t my guns so that i can shoot an intruder needed, but the chances of that are much, much lower someone you care about getting a hold of the gun and hurting tragedy is in having the gun in your h it is more statistically likely than protecting your family. domestic abusers nine hundred 50-something so far this year murders from people who are domestic abusers. yes, to keep them out of the hands of domestic abusers in order to protect women, primarily, from that kind of outcome. host: some numbers that i could quickly find on this issue from the pew research center looking at data from 2021. suicides accounted for more than half of u.s. gun deaths in 2021,

54%. that lines up with the statistic year after that is all of the time that we have for this segment, but thank you so much to kim wehle baltimore school of law professor and abc news lega the author of a forthcominok "pardon power: how the pardon power works and why." thank you for your time. guest: thank you and thank you to all of the callers. host: next, we will be joined by yuval levin to discuss how the framers of the constitution dealt with political divi can be used to restore civilitywho disagree. we will hear more from you in the open forum. yourepublicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000 independents, (202) 748-8002. we will be back. ♪

as we look forward to the 2024 presidential debate, doing c-span as we revisit landmark moments from a 2020 debate between president donald trump and former vice president joe biden, providing a unique opportunity to examine the policies and personalities that shaped the 2020 election. >> we can create hard, hard good jobs by making suenvironment is clean and we all are in better shape. >> there's never been an administration or president who has done more than i've done a period of 3.5 years. >> tune in for their monday 9:00 p.m. eastern for the second presidential debate of the 2020 campaign season on c-span or online at c-span.org the debate simulcast on thursday on c-span2.

>> tune into c-span's live coverage ofnational political convention starting with the republican's four-day event in milwaukee on july 15. catch the democrats as they convene in chicago kickingff august 19. stay connected to c-span for an uninterrupted unfiltered glimpse of democracy a work. watch the republican and democratic national convention live this summer on c-span, c-span now our free mobile video app, and online at c-span.org. c-span your unfiltered view of politics powered by cable. >> c-span has been delivering unfiltered congressional co f here is a highlight from a key moment. [applause]

♪ [applause] >> c-spa p by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we are in open forum to hear your thoughts about what is going on in the news and public life in the united states. the u.s. conference of mayors is meeting this weekend in kansas cion their agenda, among other things, topics related to educatio hearing about public schools, utah teacher

john author spoke about concerns he had about the teaching profession. here is a portion of that from last week. [video clip] >> consider challenges facing public school teachers today, there is one the most. the majority of american parents do not want their children to become teachers. my mother, a korean immigrant, was one of those parents. she wanted me to grow up to be a doctor or lawyer. when i worked up the courage tolet my mother know i would be a public school teacher, she asked, di saidacher. i don't want to read into the record what my mother said after that, but she waset. not because she did not respect teachers. korea teachers hold high esteem and receive high pay and respect. that is what my mom wanted for her son. that is what doctors and lawyers receive in the united states. that is what i want for every ool teacher in this country. high payused to be able to raise a family on a teacher's salary.

now the only way i'm able to be a public school teacher is because mythan me. i appreciate the attention that the chairman broughto this issue through the pay teachers acts. the number one reason that we have to appreciate when we are talking about root causes like senatonumber one reason teachers leave the profession is the pay. thets don't want their children to become teachers is pay. the to addressing the issues we face must be increasing teacher salaries. in teachers, prestige is rooted in relationships athere is no relationship more important than the ones that we ild with our students and their families. when i became a teacher, i knew that i w roots and teach in one school anips with parents for 30 years. host: go to the topics that are important to you. brandon is in arkansas on the line for republicans. good morning. please, be sure to turn down the volume on your tv. caller: i'm not on your screen

on television. host: go ahead, brandon. what is your point for open forum? open up my point from arkansas. smut on me on television, they are doing the same thing in ad for mutiny. do you guys admit that? host: i don't really know what you are referencing, brandon. let's go to patricia in memphis tennessee on the line for deer: good morning. i look at c-span almost every morning. i hear everybody speaking about the president biden and president trump and how they are running the country. what i can't understa is, why is everybody giving congress a pass when they are the lawmakers of this country? republicans have control of the te and the house of

representatives -- well, four years for the house representatives and now they have control of the house of representatives even though the democrats have the congress. they had the president at one time't understand is they want the president to run the country executive orders like trump did when he was in office. then, they want to force biden to do a whole bunch of executive orders to run the country especially immigration. everyone talks about immigration. immigration. ok, why is it that congress cannot make the laws to correct these things instead of us throwing mud at each other? democrats and republicans? you need to focus on the they are the house of representatives and the senate. that is all i have to say. host: john in florida on the line for independents. good morning.

caller: good mning. i am concerned about the supreme court. i wholeheartedly believe that'mportant. that is what i would like to say. the supreme court this, the supreme court that, i thinkost important because of all of the different special interest groups. i don't know if you switched away from the supreme court, t that is how i feel. i feel it is very important and we really need that. ho what do you think the supreme court needs to be doing differently? or do you think they are doing their jobs as they should? caller: just fine. they are a group of people elected from the people and they are pretty good bunch of people. i think they are doing just great. st thank you, john. next is james in san diego on the line for republicans.

caller: good morning. are you there? host: i am here. go morning, jacaller: i have three points for c-span "washington journal." number one, you have a lady speaking about giving everything back to the people from the supreme court. well, that is what the supreme court did with abortion. why are the people not making decisions on that part? it is in the people's hands, the supreme court's hands. number two, every time we talk about immigration everyone fails to mention hr-2. laws start in the house of representatives and the senate. the house of representatives pass hr-2 about immigration. the senate has had that in their lap for over three and a half years, but the majority leader in the senate won't bring it to the floor fornumber three who is really in arge of law enforcement in the district of columbia? it is now the president ofthe district of columbia has its own governing powers.

in addition, they have the capitol police managed by the house of representatives, the speaker of the house of representatives. there is also a district of columbia which is under an army general area. why don't we get someone to tell us who is really in charge of law enforcement in the districtthank you very much. i appreciate your time. have a great day. host: illinois on the line for democrats. good morning. good morning, adele. can you hear us? let's t michael in garner north carolina on the line for independents. good morning, michael. caller: good morning. i wanted to let you know -- in the constitution. to start locally to get rid of both parties basically. host: jules in st. louis

missouri. good morning. caller: good morning. i hope that you can hear me ok. there should be no problem with the second amendment as it turned out in all of these mass killings and stuff. the problem with the way that they interpreted it. the first part of it is the clause on why it is written. written -- to have a way to defend the country because there wano army. the prefatory clauseasical by the militia act. there were two of them written in 1792. it is for all white between the ages of and 45 to defend the country in case of foreign invasion, civil insurrection, or indian uprising. if they want to go back and look

the problem as i said before is that they only go by the operative clause. there are two clauses to the second amendment. i encour to check that host: thank you for your call. vincent is in florida on our dependent lying. -- line. caller:ro you a little history. i am a retired admiral law-enforcement enforcement officer from the department of homeland security. this administration is talking about the next administration wanting to be dictators. well here are a few points for you all. first, patrolling individuals into this country --es to do that. if there is a family emergency where someone i

death and an individual can be paroled in. the other is that the government will use an individual in a court case in a witness. what this administration has done is paroled thousands of people in with no pretense for either of them. that isnumber two, immigration asylum. if you are claiming asylum, do it in the first country that you leave and enter. do not cross the class hundred of thousands of countries to the third is, this administration is defying supreme court law as far as paying off student debt. yes, other student -- other administrations have paid off student debt. thank you, vincent. onicans this morning.

>> when we listened to barack obama run for president, he talked about he wanted to change the way america was laid out. we elected him. we did not listen. what they will see, some of these ladies up in michigan -- they not like the way the country was formed old white men who made the laws and they thought that this culture should be canceled. hence the culture -- cancel culture. they spoke about that. that is what is going on today. it is not that they want millions of more people to vote democrats. they want millions more brown people to vote different kind of government other than a government made by a bunch of

old, white men. i do not know what form of socialism exactly that they wind, but they do not want the government that this country was founded on. it is not millions more to vote for is millions more people to come here and have a different kind government and country than what was founded upon. to me, this is readily apparent. host: dayton, ohio on our line for democrats. caller: thank you for c-spathey keep talking about president trump but isn't a certain amount of h money going to his defense funds? so now the money is going for his reelection. th congress -- they do nothing for the u.s.

i have been up on capitol hill. thank you for c-span. host: henry is in cleveland mississippi. good morning. can you turn down the volume on your tv? i am doing great. what is your comment? caller: i keep hearing everybody talking about all the today. if we go back to -- host: henry, i needed to turn the volume down on your tv and we will come back to you. a caller f caller: myomments are two topics. the lady that was talking about the supreme court -- she was

right on point. most people do not understand the founding of the supreme court or even what the purpose is. they have overstepped their bounds in a lot of ways. not a king, but the leader of the country. they look at themselves as the leader. once we hammer something down you have to stick with it. on what is coming up, it is good that you can mute from speaking. w too much trump rallies. they always show when he is talking stupid stuff. they never show a segment where he is saying something interesting or good for the country.

it is always something stupid about this where that. it is very immature. i do notnderstand. if you are going to show a segment of his rally, show where he is trying to make something positive. but when he is up there rambling on and talking, why even show that?it does not make any sense. need positive messages were interesting, knowledgeable . thank you. host: good morning. caller: good morning. we are living in very strange times. i 2024, trump changed the game. if you commit a crime -- run for president.

that way you get a get out of jail free card. another thing, showing you what times we are livin. g intalking about gaza and guns. you know we have as many people killed with guns every in gaza? the number one killer of is gun violence. host: mary is in charlestown, west virginia. in morning. caller: we had the holocaust of the jewish people -- they were not allowed to have a gun. host: richard is in milwaukee wisconsin. good morning. caller: i would like to remind

all the veterans out there that a draft dodger. he had his feet were bad. i do not know why would they -- why they would want to vote for trump because he is a draft dodger. host: on our line for democrats good morning david. caller: yes. i do not think hunter should get i heard they were already making 174,000 dollars year. that is way more money than most people make in this country. it would just cost the taxpayers way more money. host: ok. thank you, david. on our line for independent. caller: i have a couple

questions regarding the supreme court. isn of distress throughout history. january 6 -- maybe you can answer that from the perspective. the second question is, the ju wife -- criticism for that. what other positions require that his wife subjugate her individual liberties and rights to his career? thank you. host: i cannot answer on behalf of our guys, but i want to point out that he writes pretty extensively on these topics. let's go to david in alexandria, indiana. good morning. 'l3caller: good morning. i would just like to talk about all the deaths at were

happening with fentanyl. i have lost four family members. i'm sure there are a lot of other lost family members to fentanyl. are you with me now? host: yes. i'm sorry for your losses. please continue. : we definitely have a lawless country in this town that we have here. you can go around here with expired plate, two years expired plates and nobody gets pulled over for anything. we are a lawless country here. we do not have much crime because we are small town here but it is that we cannot go on the this, you know? the republicans -- they are not

enough for the republican in congress. they areright now. $1 trillion every hundred days? come on, people. have to wake up and get this money stopped. there is no way. they say social security is going to run out in 20 years. it is not going to take 10 years. it is more like fr five years, if we do not turn this around. we have plenty of money coming in. almost $8 trillion coming in country that should be ly. if for spent way it is supposed to be spent you would not have this problem. host: kathy is on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning.

i was reading washington post and there was a review about dr. fauci's book and i would really appreciate if you could read the we are running low on time, ilfolks get to that themselves. caller:comment, how he soerated the united states of america and he is running for president. a felon. host: on the line for independent, go ahead craig. caller: thank you for taking my call. if joe biden wants to come he needs to start with the british parliament. and look at the way that they be each other. trump is going to try to talk over him. what he need do is study the british parliament andow they behave because that is the only way he will be able to call out and

hold his feet to the fire. you for taking my call. host: that is all the time we have for that segment but coming up next on washington institute will join us to discuss how the framers of the constitution dealt with political division and how that document can be used to restore civility among thowe will be right back. >> on thursday, tune into the presidential debate live on c-span two. watch as the nominees face-off as they try to earn your vote ahead of the general election in november. our coverage begins with a preview of what is to come.

following the debate, stay lit c-span as we take your calls and get your reaction. the presidential debate simulcast on c-span two, c-span now or online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics.we down with the author of raking barriers with. >> april 4, 1968. did they stay open? >> they were allowed to stay open. they came and wanted everything closed. that uprising took place with curfew for three nights.

>> there is a good space and place for them to feel safe. to talk, to eat, to socialize. chicago -->>< wert -- >> that is tonight at 8:00 eastern. you can listen to q and day and all of our free podcasts online. >> welcome back. the ar guest authoran covenant. how the constitutionon and could again.

tell us about your and why you chose to write this now. guest: that might be the easiest question. we are living in a time where we e easily divided. you can see it in our politics and polarization. you can see it. the question we had to ask ourselves is how we can be a more unified society. it is crucial to start from the premise that being more unified agreeing to everything. that is powerfully implicit. i think we have a lot to learn from the constitution about how to be a unified by. we have a lot to learn from the constitution about how politics should work. a lot of what has gone wrongs a kind of breakdown of the constitutional ordercould recover, if we understand how it is meant to work and what kind of unity it is. the book tries to bav

inuc constitution. host: let' accept where you say, but how can people act tworkti timuch of what is mysterious and the system now is the function of being an ansome of our most divisive debates are whether we need to ask that question and if so, how he should answer it. getting this fundamental question of what unity means. it has at its core an idea of unity that might be a bit unfamiliar to us. in some ways that is the natural way to think about what unity would mean. often what they are saying is that if everybody agreed with me things great. that's true, but we are a free society. if you ever worked with any group of people of any of people does is to disagree. disagreement is not going away.

the question is together. unity does not mean thinking alike. it means acting together. ind ways to think there are ways of acting together, even when we do not think alike. it puts them into competition with each other, into negotiation with each other in such a way that free society, you have to feel foit is not that we disagree too much but that we disagree too little. a lot of people who are in politics spend very little time engaged with people that they disagree with. we spend most of the time with people that we agree with, talking that the people we hate together. at the center are mec competition and ultimately, there is not a solution to

digreement. there is a way of working out disagreements. we have lost the sense that it is what congress is for. sometimes it does require going origins. trying to see what they were trying to do because the problem problem. it is how does a host: can you give some concrete examples? almost we learning how to disagree with onanotguest: exactly. it does is compel competing factions. what is frustrating to a lot of americans. different from most of them democracies in the world. if you look at parliamentary systems, a lot of what they do is empower.

wer in the system until the next election or until yourliament. what you win when you win an ection is a seat at the table and what happens at negotiation and bargaining. no one election gives everybody the power. it requires majorities to grow beforebe in power. there are moments when you need a majority in the house and maybe even in some of the state 's. it is hard to achieve. order to make dramatic and meaningful change happened you need majority that is durable over time and broad. at the center of that is a kind of contradiction. only majority rule is a legitimate way to use power. we do not have to look hard to know that majority rule can be very dangerous.

that majorities can be oppressive of minorities. our system does that by requiring majorities to be persuasive, requiring them to grow before they can have real power. a president will sit and think, why do i have to talk to these peoples there is a way. in order to achieve anything you have to negotiate, bargain and figure it out. host: something else is what successful government looks like. you discussed in this book how it has changed in th of what good government looks like. a lot of time -- guest: times, the criticism is that it is a relwhen the world was less complicated, before modern technology.

but the fundamental problem that theyd solve is still the basic challengegether in a gym it way. government has found ways to modernize and step up the challenges. being president now is much more complicated than when james madison was president. disaster, the ppened. found out three weeks after it happened. all he could do was say, i hope they are ok. that is not what being president with everything that happens in the world now. constantly under pressure to deal with a very complicated modern reality. it iprec up to facilitate n and bargaining that can ally -- that can allow a diverse society that it is capable of stepping

up to new challenges. i think the constitution offers talented models for dealing with problems. we have to throw this thing away and that majorities do what they want. that temptation is always there. but the insight offered at the beginning of the system is that everybody eventually finds himself there. think about what it would be like to be why we do not simply allow them to travel over everything that we do. host: . e ohe over the separation of powa pres dmbrogram without requiring proper appropriations. the people involved treat the government as a means to a policy and at the expense of its character or limits. this happens a lot. guest: all things that have happened in the last five years.

they happen all the time. but is crre of our system is that we have a constitution that stands apart somewhat. the purpose of politics is often to advance policy objective. that is what it is all about. but it understands the government and keeps them from :pthreatening basic rights and the capacity of our society that hangs together. when their work towards policy goals runs into the system officers have to realize that structure has to prevail. that is the role of the courts in our system. it is a truth that many have to recognize. that the structure of our system has to be the way byr policy objectives. once you say his goal is more

important, i will break into this purpose, than ever -- anybody could break. your successors will do it. once we have something that gives us a predictable and functional politics, then they will have a harderhost: you suggest at that we look at the constitution as a unity framework. what do you mean by that? guest: means that we know how to disagree constructively. we have a process federalism and the courts, all offering as ways to address our problems and to allow our selves to be a society, even though we are immensely diverse. that is what we have forgotten to do. you can say, these people do not know how to agree with each other. it is the opposite. zfwe have forgotten how to

disagree with eachd at now. i think the con)stitution as one way to learn that. host: we are taking your calls. do not forget that you can also text uplease be sure to include your weon our lien for democrats. caller:caller: good morning. so far as found this to be very intereas he is proposing, one way to achieve a better outcome in all of these debates is for people to engage with each. even though they disagree.

problems that ice is that you have people that you often disagree with that are so low information that they do no are or they simply ignore what the facts are. how can you have constructive engagement and disagre group is arguing about facts and policies to be made on those facts and the other group disregards facts wn it does not fit their preconceived narrative of what they want to achieve? thank you for taking my call. guest: that is a very important question. it is important to recognize that we all have this problem. we live in a complicated world. all of us, in onet is not quite right. resolve what was right but to figure out ways of acting together. it often means giving a little to one side to get a little on the other side. tat kind of negotiation is a way to work through disagreements.

it is crucial to seet we cannot just be nicer to each other. it means that we see our mood of addressing public problems. we do not always agree with what the problems are. it is to negotiate with people who have a similar understanding of i the challenge that we face. knowing what your priorities are , making sure they are advanced. that is fundamentally the w legislation at the center of congress. it is the venue where that kind of negotiation, engagement and bargaining has to happen. the most brokenress. the piece that the most attention is the legislative range. that incentives start. host: speaking of congress, you

have written before about the problem when it comes to congress these days. television played a part in work. guest: i am ai have always loved c-span. i would not say that it is c-span that has broken anything. the fact that congress is televised has changed the institution. wh it means to put llanegotiations, it -- there is no way around it. i was engaged with congress for more than 25 years. some of that is television. some of that is social media. they are facing -- what has to

happen is negotiation with rgaining. they sealed the windows. they can raise issues. ultimately held accountable for not so much on the floor but committee work h some way. i do not think it is c-span that has created the problem. that they understand themselves to be performing for cameras means that the reaof bargaining does not happen in areas. it happens in leadership offices. th important work happens because that is almost the only space

now where members are not performing for a public audience online or on television. there has to be some work to create spaces to deal with each other in private. it means creat do, some space for business sessions where they can bargaining that is not televised. iize that the basic character requires a certain amount of privacy, even if it requires a great deal of transparency. recognizing that is one power committee. core work of the institution has to happenface negotiation among members. right does not happen enough. they define success- -- it is not ultimately how our congress can function. we have to change the incentives they face.

that is their core work. problem that resultss come to think that bargaining with the other side is a sign of weakness or a failure of nerve. bargaining with the other side is their job. if that is not the job that they want to do than being a member of congress is not the job that they welectoral incentives and all kinds of political cultures have to be realigned in a way that help see their work. that has to be thehost: james is on our lien for independents. caller: i couple points. the constitution, as i have read it seems like its more relevant towards politicians than it is the people at large. the document more large is the declaration of independence.

the other thing i would like to say t a house divided cannot stand. the division of these political parties,f they keep having these divisions and the republic what is missing is compromise. that is what is missing from the debates. these people will not compromise. it is my way or the highway. there should be some kind of compromise. host: how do you incentivize that? guest: i agree with him. i think the challenge with creating incentives is that at the moment, they face a series of incentives that pull the other way. when they think or partisan.

voters who often want to see their members express their own frustration. the stru the institution itself is now mh moreneeds to be. there is much less crossmembers of the parties do other enough. they do not view one another across the changed by relatively mundane reform. one of the i is the structure that shapes political culture. this is in terms of political life. allowing committee to matter. if an allowwere they due as

help feel that they are the onesaged is ssential. otherwise they feel like they are actors on a stage. host: can you explain when you say allowing the committee to control the floor? guest: this is something thatnumber of legislators do. especially the northeast. when a bill gets through committee with at least one vote from minority, its floor time. it is determined entonly the items that are on the leader is likely to get on the floor. they can build a coalition for it but if the speaker says this is not what i want to do this year, it simcongress has put much more power in the of the process.

it intensifi 1990's and all the more so in this century members expect their leaders to provide them -- to avoid hard vote so that they do not have to take uncomfortable votes that they have to answer for at election time. le over the agenda is absolutely essential. the work has to happen at the individual level and leaders should not be doing it. congress is 535 people. it is essential that the committee work be the actual policy work. on that side, i think congress has a lot to learn. host: the line for republicans. good morning. caller: i wanted to say that originally the founding generation all had the same to

keep the country going but in today's environment when the government keeps growing and don't we need congress to get out of everyone's way? it is not practical. how about going back to principles? guest: i would say the founding generation was also very divided. we think of them as being of one mind, but if you look at the convention, james madisonk very detailed notes online. they are very interesting. it shows intse divion and disagreement. it is a patchwork of compromises. but certainly had a sense of purpose may sense that they were one people that needed that is something that we have less of now and will need to recover. the experience is one way to

recover it. getting congress out of people's way is also a policy process. if we want things to change, if we want a smaller, more limited government, that has to be achieved by negotiation and congress. on that work, towards the right or the left will require members to be engaged and if members who want a smaller government can prioritize that and think about what they are willinto give up in return, they are more likely to get there. >> wesley is in martinsbu south carolina. good morning. caller: thank you. were you working for a republican or a democrat? that is kind of a rhetorical question. the reason i ask is because he

keeps saying congress. there is no congress. it is the republican congress. this is explained in a good book you talk about way where you would not have the house from the semi cab pushed a dilemma. th pay -- i am not paid us anything. i wish youay more. i -- if you are a democrat--st: let's let him on. guest: first of all, i am a republican. i worked for newt gingrich i worked for george w. bush years. the book that you mentioned, it

is a worthwhile book. everybody should need it, but i think that they start their story little bit. think a lot of it began in the 19thship and in the 19th these for understandable reasons. of democrats entered the house and were shaded by the leadership of their own party. they centralize power in the hands of this. to overcome those chairman. that centralization became very to members of congress. it allows them to have the agenda manthat is bipartisan. you saw that under the strong leadership of nancy pelosi and mcconnell and. it is something that leaders do rs. a lot of the cultural problems

there are differences between thearrepublicans in congress have en more of a broken party. they have had a harder time organizing themselves. i think that is absolutely right but ultimately, changes in congress havto be bipartisan. the striking thing achievable. all it takes is for a majority of the house to month the change in order for it to happen. unlike a lot of other changes maybe we want to transform social media. all of it is verytant. it is very hard to getting 218 people to agree is much more achievable. in a sense, it is a place to , thinking about how to change political culture.

host: good morning, leonard. caller: when these people cannot agree on a bill, when they go it, one s to add other bills to the amendment that they ar that they can bring in to go for the bill that they are trying to get. and when they get through -- there were so many pages. they cannot really read them all, so a lot of it is, some of the stuff in there they do not even know what they are voting that, to me should be changed. it should be the bill that they are talking about. host: the point that leonard important one. these omnibus passages were

differens ckaged together is its own kind of compromise. guest: that is true. i think it getst we have gotten into a little bit. a lot of it is put together by leadership. it is not exactly negotiated by members. at the end of the ye done with a need to pass audget and a desire to pass a number of things. they will put it into one members pam sunday twod there is no actual way to do that. that is a dysfunctional legislative process, but what makes it dysfunctional is not the tendency to pack together different ideas to pass the bill. but it's cross the domains of can do. they do not really have a theme.

it is a breakdown of the problem. a committee product that combines a variety of different pieces is a suessful legislative project. it is a way to build a coalition. complicated, but the members who produce a know it very well. other members have time to track it and understand it. i think that is very different from the omnibus legislation. the problem with those bills is decision-making. host: on the line for republicans. good morning. caller:ñ< good morning. we are talking about the constitution. you know who is killing that? look -- now he wants to buy all of the radio stations.

fcc is trying to fast-track. do you think will happen to our freedom of speech? these are billionaires that come in and buy off everything thank you very much. host: maybe wouldaddress the role of money in politics. guest: broader sense i would say something as well. was a congressional staffer and a white house staffer. thing i learned is to be very skeptical of any theory of lyrical change that says one person is behind this and moving all the pieces. i not how the system works. it is- there is no one in charge. one thing you learnpolitics close up is that it is involve people using pressure. there is no one set of people

for a big pile of money at the end of it all. they believe that they are doing the best thing for the country. they might be that they do believe they are doing the right thing for the country. ultimately, they disagree what the right thing for the country might be. it is important to think about the kinds of influences that particularly powerful or wealthy people can have over politics. money does not matter nearly as much. . the politiciansin doing what they ultimately think is right and what they think their voters want them to do. it important to not think that there is a conspiracy that is really driving it. set is not how big decisions are made. host: judy is on the line for independents. caller: i was going to say that i think the s to the bill that they discourage or

that they let passsomebody already mentioned those that are thrown into a package and we cannot pass anything because it is loaded with pork andat once. and then, the democrats that are already downwn on them. it is all li.media is all lies. that is all i had to say. guest: ihink both parties get a bad rap. it is certainly, not only that republicans often stop things because they think and that is what they should be doing if they think they are bad ideas they have turned their attention to congressional reform. the kind created by the fights that they have example has been used by some members to change the structure in the house.

those check -- that way of using leverage is very important to understand. they should see that it gives them an opportunity to change how the institution works and to addres faces in a constructive way. are people in both parties that are willing to engage in that work and those who really do want to be performing circus. they change the way that they are r they wanted do. host: on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: about a year ago, i read a book called why congress. the authors seemed to be making an argument based similar yours about the role of leadershiplegislation. the argument that members should

take the reins back to themselves. i wondered what you thought of the or what recommendations, in addition to members taking control voting to take control, that you would recommend. guest: that is a wonderful book. i love that it is true. we take congress to improve itself. at the corner of that vision, at the heart of that is that the purpose of congress is to facilitate cross bargaining and negotiation. what it is pass major legislation. tend to argue for more centralizationif you believe that what they are failing to do is to facilitate cross partisan bargaining to let politics work, then in a way you want more.

that is what forces members to work together. the filibuster want to see more legislation move. all of the bipartisan legislation, all of it has basically been a function of the filibuster because members have to work together, so in the end they do. thinking about how to advance re, a lot of those ideas in my new book as well are ultimately about how to create nt other, to deal with people that they disagree rather to treat them as targets for criticism. host:stion n national divorce discussion of red states separating from blue states. guest: there are members of congress to take it as their prerogative to participate in that.

it requires changing incentives and political structure, but the other thing i would says that it is vital that american citizens who are watching and understand that ultimatel disagree, that no solution can begin by getting rid of the people that you disagree with. let those citizens organize their own expectations and reward politicians who are willing to engage in functional politics, representing them appropriately in our political life. the most effective on that front. . the first word of the constitution is we. the responsibility for making it work is not just other people's problems. it begins with us. engaged and active members of

our community. we have to ask, what can i do? host: thank you for your time. author of the new book, american covenant. thank you so much for your time. and thank you to everyone who called in today on washington journal. we will be back tomorrow morning and we again as well. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

♪ ho: goodning. sunday, june 23, 2024. this weekend, the u.s. missouri. at the gathering of hundreds of mayors from cities across the