gñ=ñem

ob. host: what 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? ther thing too. the last person that i brought this issue to was s blumenthal. yes, i will look into it. 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. ke they are casing out everybody's home and all of a sudden athey 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. are handling immigration, particularly what they are doing to help immigrants in their communities. 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 countriess an iinue working on with the biden-harris administration. mayor introduced a resolution at the u.s. conference of calling for federal policymakers to increase efforts to help cities confront their economic developments and demographic challenges by creating a visa. of you signed onto the

resolution that in this resolution would provide a new pathway for skilled immigrants and immigrant entrepreneurs and welcoming commutitagnation or decline. they suggest this would be an opt in policy. mayor johnson launched the asylum-seekers program that will house approximately 800 refugees and migrants currently in denver and they are currently in hotel shelters. another 200 with intensive legal assistance for to six months. it is an incredible program that mayor johnston put together. that legal assistance could help 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 fd coverage of the u.s. conference of mayors conference on oa few comments from social media. donnieio s a ds, andtaxes in the country. it is a joke to live here. no wonder everyone is leaving.truth sayer says the quacommunanothe says, my town has a way of black topping roads andare straining many communities. will the federal government address these issues in ssarymichae 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 forumu e able to call in with whatever your issue is that you want toand the news. our line for republicans is (202) 748-8001. our line for democrats is (202) 748-8000. and independents, (202) 748-8002. and before we move into open

forum, we will get one last call 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 kids, and donald trump running for president. i can't believe the fact that we are that is all i have. thank you. host: ok, so now let's move into open forum and hear what you all havesay about what has been on your mind this next up, we will hear from wayne in minnesota on our line for democrats. good morning wayne. hi there wayne. can you hear me? looks like we have lost wayne. rob in new york city on the line for democrats. caller: good caller: thank you for c-span. i guess i am likeveryon else, obsessed with this -- or a lot ofe obsessed with this

upcoming debate. of course, i am hoping that park. but also i hope it is revealed in the debateboth training and practicing with these debates in private, but i just wrote down a couple ofc topics the former president has been spewing. he is talkhe is talking about hollywood stars. he talks in "silence of the lambs." he is about elvis pressley and his guitar, frank sinatra and i realized he is just an r that is good in front of a tv camera. he is real guide. yes, he has tabout some of the important headlines. but if you him and tried to get to talk about some of these things at any palength, 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' and he doesn't care about. host: i want in more information about that. there is a story thehill.com about republicans urging trump to avoid 20/20 debate pitfalls, saying don't take senate republicans are urging former president trump to avoid a repeat of his much-maligned perf weather to meet onstage thursday for a pivotal moment in their rematch. the 2020 debate performance is g, badgering come and running roughshod over biden and the debate moderator chris wallace as well as the infamous response that the proud boys should stand back and stand by. now republicans are urging him down in the name of presidential success. don't take the bait, said senator johne republican

who is running to become leader next year. demeanor is important. tone i important. i think you can be decisive and se i don't think that will probably play well for him. next up and open forum, we have bob in sacramento, california. hi there, bob. are you with us? dolet's go to lisa in fort myindependents. 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 just turning into a laughing stock in the world an host: so what are you planning to do in november, lisa? caller: i have no idea. host: ok.

caller: i have no idea. i will just wait and see if anot because these two, neither one are not what i would want to run our country right now. host: thank you lisa. next up, we have carrie in fort lauderdale florida, on everyone for democrats. good morning. caller: yes, thank you veryi 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. it is just sad to see how americans are this country is not doing good. world and you will see how america is doing. happy but definitely not happy -- i don' think 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 the criminal that donald j. trump is. i would like to ask them a question. do any of you people let run your personal business? man. he is pitifuit is sad to see him up on that stage struggling like he does. all of his people including his relatives that are going to vote for him you should be ashamed of yourselves because it is elder abuse. so ask yourself that. would you let joe biden business in the mental shape that he isanybody who watches him can see he is sad. it is pitiful what is going on his country. the lies you all have told on

donaldmp, 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 on hi. first i would like to read a headline that encompasses 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 r. fauci, what an incompetent, ignorant man led to covid-19 killings of thousands ofplease, can you summarize it? or i can read the whole thing for you on this phone. host: which article were you referencing? caer: it is the review of dr. fauci's book. host: in what news organization? caller: the "washington post." ok, i will look for that ght now. in the meantime, let's hear 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? caller: yes. hi. i wanted to say that for me personally i can determine based on the history of both candidateswith common sense. it is in front of us and easy to both of them have records now so you choose the one that has represented 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 vote thank you. host: thanks for your call, rebecca. a previous caller was referencing an article in the "washington post," and the headline was trump8p about trump. emails falsely suggesting he could be executed.

it was neither accurate nor subtle. it read, one month until all hell breaks loose, theyto death. message blasted out to his supporters was a reference to the former's sentencing scheduled for july 11 when he faces fines or possible jail time after being convicted on 34 charges of business paid to an adult film star. a death sentence is not under consideration in the case, neither is a guillotine as another fundraising pitch su last week. the incendiary ems are part of a strategy that halo raisefinancially that president biden's campaign opened up in recent months. according to people closeke on 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'syperbolic and inflammatory language. next up, tim is in alekentucky, and our line for republicans. good morning tim.

hi there, tim. can you hear me? caller: yes, ma'am what is on your mind? caller: the whole illegal immigration thing. 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 shortage. and the cost of housing going up. you can't get one. that is all i have. host: thank you for your call. next 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

an have any land anything. i am curious. imagine they are soldierseeing europe again and again and again, and they are coming homezt and being second-class citizens. we just got our freedom 60 years ago. it is amazing. you don't wanto give fyou want an uneven playing field. certain level like they are quasi-slaves. you can put us right back into slavery. do not want to give us any economic power. al complicit. they secretly -- i don't think it along and talk out it privately but everybody is complicit in keeping the afrithey 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, i think we got the idea. let's hear from charles from kentucky on our line for independents. good morning, charles. caller: yes, good morning.

h we are going through a big change, and that is change.org change in health care, and changehealthcarecyberat tack.com. gure out how we are being attacked by china. have a good day and god bless america. host: remi is in baltimore maryland, 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 we are especially when it comes to our inner cities. i want to talk about baltimore for i will let it go at that. the point i am trying to make is

we have those trying to be in leadership a jump to the world. talking to people from other countries, but i a how people feel about the united state 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 our gr and larry hogan -- our governor wes moore and larry hogan. put those two on the ballot and i think yo something you can look forward to. that is my point st: thanks for coming in. gary is in livings 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 rapisthat is a very sad

thing. the other thing is health cayou are talk about $70,000 $40,000. a $70,000 trip. down through the south here, you are just bought, i guess you could cabut the downfall, you pay for the church. they are still out there supporting him. the churches 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 stuff, which is the number of bankruptcies caused 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, nevada, on our line for independents. good 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 up things. my top issue is illegal immigration. my senator her advisor was killed by an illegal immigra. people online when you look that story up they don't mention that. it is just a local story. the new york post covered it shows 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 rom another color. david is in north line for democrats. good morning, david. caller: good morning. ngs are going well. yes, my subject today would be immigration. i am very upset with what is going on with the cntry with our citizens attack , and i just don't see where anyone is doing anything or no one is talking about that. we have people coming into this country at several times and just saying they feel threatened in their, and they are coming here, killing children.

and i just wish we could gmore publicity, get a spotlight on that more because there is a concern that is affecting all of us each and every day. when you country, you expect that country, the government, the first thing that government is supposed to do is protect you. . host: thank you david. previous caller referenced a case in nevada and i fnd aarticle about this from fox news that has been reprinted on yahoo.com. the headline from april of this year, illegal immigrt killed a democratic senator's advisor. an during man who was arrested in connection a two veh advisor to the democratic senator of nevada earlier this month was in the country illegallyving been detained at the border in 2021 and then let go. ms enforcement told fox news

digital. the illegal immigrant was involved in a deadly crash that took the life of kurt englehart on april 6. the collision occurred about five miles south of downtown reno nevada. he was originally charged with a felony been changed to a failing to stop at the scene of an accident. citing the sheriff's officee 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? it is off. caller:it is my first time. host: thanks for calling in. caller: t you. thanks for being there. i was trying to pull up an official ballot, which i think anybody can donty, wherever you live.

the official ballot for the democratic president. i am looking at suffolk co long island. if you look at it, there are other choices. especially marianne williamson. any -- this day andeing a 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 box we really use our voting power to make it even more beautiful here. thank you. host: thanks for your call. gene is in buffalo, new york and our line for republicans. good morning. caller: hello? host: yes, we can hear you. go ahead. caller: ok, i would just likepose a question. if you are a convicted felon, a rapist, and you have nine

bankruptcies including a casino and three failed marriagesow is it possible to run for president? that is all i have. yo 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 courtoh before we have to vote on if he gets elected back into country. the justice 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 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 iscussing the farm bill, which expires in september of 2024, and it has consequences for a lot of lowe elderly, and disabled about snap benefits. they would like to cut them byand then she also talked about 21 million children during the summer get $40 per child increased snap benefits for the

summer months when they arebecause by volunteering in the school, i knew how important breakfast and lunch was served here in michigan. it wit is a federal program, but it is paid for already, and i thought to myself, why do 15 southern states refused this money summer after summer refuse this money summer summer? i saw debbie stabenow say it is an election year and they want those families in those states to suffer 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 be very consequential to a lot of people. and then the other thing she mentioned is there is actually two bills in congress. this i believe. that congress wants to raise their pay. i look forward to c-span showing

the back and forth about whether they deserve a pay r couple days ago, i have one more thing to mention.a gentleman blamed the president out our cost of living allowance and 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. is a very complicated formula, but it has nothing to do with the president. it was a bill that was passed in 1975. host: i do want to follow-up on the story you mentioned about members of congress asking for a pay raise. d a bit. here is a story in the "washington post." do members of congress need a pay r say yes. they have given out raises two staffers and other employees but have not dared to give themselves a adjust for inflation.

and then it said two years ago lawmakers gave out an increase tney 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 pay cut at least in terms of buying pow over the last 15 years particularly given the rapid inflation of theyears in the soaring cost of living in washington. is has sent many lawmakers towards retirement exits over the last decade as they grow

frustrated with the dysfunction inside the capitol and much higher wages in the private sector industry. next up, we have tommy in kentucky on our line for s. caller: well, the reason they don't need no raise is they get cutbacks forgetting the policies for getting the policies passed. money, making the rich people into billionaires that are already withlions so i don't guess they need that much money anymore. andy -- and the maga group stopping anything that biden wants to putte 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 been cut back again for the things he did with under aged children. if you check that, you will find out. it is not becauseeed 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:ually 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 that called earlier, we are out here in vegas, ok? i have been here 51 years. we don't have federal problems out here. we have a week sheriff.

just like anywhere else weak sheriff, a week countycommissioner beholden to the las vegas county court so they plundered the treasury just to repair roads i was in bail bonds for years. they removed a policy so anytime a person who was not supposed to be -- one of the problemss not just illegal immigration but illegal employment, so if there is peopl get work, they will not come here. it is a major problem. 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 . n going on and we are really losing our neighborhoods. that is my ok, thank you, sal. next up is james in akron, ohio on our line for

please please turn down juror tv. caller: that bothers me, ich i'm 76 years old, first of all. and every 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 wrong with him. he's too he would, he's this, he's that, he's that, and nobody wants problem. now, one other thing, i did like what the lady was saying the red states, where they are denying all 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 be a time limit. they should not be able to take on a case and hang in there for six months. they should have 30 days to figure this thing out, say what they're going to say. if they can't do it 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 any case. host: that's actually a perfectwm segue to our next segment because we're going to wrap up>i en forum. up on "washington journal," we're going hear from university of balti 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 yuval levin, who will talk about political division and how the document can be used to restoremong those 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, homeland security, and stateormer anti-doping agency c.e.og what measures the world

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-span networks or on c-span now. also, head over to espn2.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on demand any time. unfiltered view of government. weekends featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. former texas republican senator phil graham and economist discuss theirwithe 2024 hyatt prize namedar "a fatal inheritance" about his family's rare medical history with cancer. he's interviewed by "wall street journal" health and science reporter. watch book tv every weekend on c-span2 and find the full schedule on your program guide watch

online any time at booktv.org. >> c-span online store. browse throughout our latest collection of products apparel books, home decor, and accessories. there's something for every c-span fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now or any time at c-spanshop.org.>> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we're joined now of baltimore school of law professor kimo a abc news legal contributor and a former attorney, and the author of the fort coming book "pardon power: how the pardon system works and why." thank you so much for joining "washington journal." guest: good morning, great to be here. host:ere to talk about the supreme court. and before we start talking about specific cases when is

the supreme court finished this term? it seems like they have a lot ofse 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,4kh-

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 himself around.

the problem with this is that there is no accountability mechanism. there's no way to alito's assertions, and because life, the standard really is not just a conflict, but the appearance of a conflict of interest. if there's even a question, some would argue, and i would agree that he shouldhimself, because the legitimacy of the court is so important. if americans don't buy into the legitimacy of the court, if they don't believe it's neutral, tenure is the idea they're going to be apolitical. they don't have to worry about being re-elected. but if people just think it's a politica nto its outcome, and you could have chaos resulting. but the chief justice roberts he has not stepped up to do anything to really take steps publicly to hold justices thomas and alito accountable for very disturbing conflicts of interest w not, or rise to the level of

recusal, tha created chaos, and they besmirched the legitimacy of the court, and congress could step in, but congress so far hasn't either, becausd of legislation would rare a super require, could be filibustered by the- position that justices thomas and alito really are 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 morning john. what's your question? caller: good morning. thanks for taking mcall. as a law-abiding citizen gun owner, and living in the state of wisconsin city of milwaukee, the horrible comment that mr. trump made there's been 10 shootings and killings in the last month in this city of milwaukee. when it comes to the supreme court thing, i think it's a slippery slippery slope. i mean, domestic a

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 mean, they should purchase an illegal gun off the street, which is probably where the majority weapons are, came from right now that i just described earlier, that have been d t milwaukee. they're illegal guns. we need to start putting people who commit crimes with illegal guns in jail. and then you're also takingthat person to protect their home and the family that they may have now if it was from a prior marriage or something like that. and one more thing, the government talked about was mental fitness. and with you know, a friend of mine could call up somebody say i this person is, you know, has a mental that, and i think that you should take his guns away, just randomly willy-nilly without really any -- host: let's let kim respond to

some of those points you made. guest: i think john's point is really a policyas to whether guns should be regular guide this way. and undery the constitution, the questions le regulate the guns, but who gets to regulate the guns. hav legislators, state judges, state 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 send amendment, you know all of these -- all parts of the constitution you havevarious interests. but they're essentially saying we'll defer to congress here. if people want more or less gun regulation, the benefit of having it be in congress is that people like john want to have different gun laws one way or the other, they can go to the ballot box in november and elect

have their position. the people then are in power. if the supreme court runs in and second guesses congress on thisngress on that, there's no oversight for the supreme court, you 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, immigration all of these things, there's a problem letting the supreme court have the ultimate dire t guns we do and do not want. and the second amendment the court makes really clear, is not absolute. there's nothing special the second amendment that's different than say, the first amendment, where you can't hold child abuse imagery on your computer. some might say i'm speaking that way, that's part of how i want to express myself. for example, theno, that's illegal that hurts kids. likewise, cong guns hurt people, so we're going to

restrain ultimate decision. host: let's hear next from paul in for democrats. caller: good morning, america. host: good morning. caller:i've been reading up on the second amendment and the initial thinking of it. she was talking about the originalistsum and justice thomas. you have to put yourself back in 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 was needed because america at that time didn't want a standing army. they saw what happened to standing armies in europe, and they knew they didn't want one here. but it's morphed into this thing now where, you know, we have half of america that believes

that guns are their legitimate god-given right, matter how many bullets it sets out, it paul, what is your question for kim? caller: my question is madison who wrote it, what was in 1791 in the minds of these that they felt they this? because at the same time, shootings, and they were doing away with firearms. st: let's go ahead and thank you for the history, but i'm wondering if you can back to the present with sort of what this means for the conversation moving forward. guest: well, he makes an excellent point in that thems in the second amendment is not defined. there's no definition. and so an originalist could say arms if we're goin 1791, arms only means the guns that were available in conservatives have already depart from the that and said, no, we can h going back too 1791, and i want to make one additional point. until 2008, in a case called

heller that wasy justice scalia, it was only militias that had n rights. prior to 2008, the supreme court did not interpret the second amendment to protect the individual rig to bear arms. even in that case, the court said you can have pistols in your home for self-defense, but it's really expanded dramatically 2008. i agree, there's a misunderstanding somehow and a mythology that the second amendment has this umbrella right that supersedes other interests and rights in the constibqtion. it's just not true historically, and it's not true under the case law of the supreme court. host: henry in georgia on our line for republicans. good morning. what's your 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 question is, if every current

gal issue that the judges are handling is subject to a history and tradition test, is every ruling based on something that was ruled on long ago, and if it's never been ruled on before, then when does current and new issues get added to the history and tradition list for ruling? when does history 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 is the court takes this history and tradition test and expands it beyond the two places they really emphasized it, which is gun rights and abortion ritory and tradition and extend it to marriage? yd it 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 it is a major shift in interpretation of the constitution. host: next up is rick in new york on our line for independents. good morning, rick. caller: hi. you very much for taking my call. i love c-span, and i'm really happy you're talking about ethics. urn, we're seeing the degradation within all of our bodies of government certainly in the congres in the supreme court and even in 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 sugge he wholeheartedly accept that challenge on one condition.

host: and do you have any questions about the you have any questions about the supremecaller: i did. i 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: let's get your thoug that. guest: someone would either have to do it voluntarily, which is what the sitting president would have to do, 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. ot going to do it independently on their own. i think ther arguments -- i have a new column next week in politico on one way that congress could rein in the 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. my main concern is gun safety. i would like to know from hestandpoint what we can do to address treatment of gun safety by the supreme court. an citizens do? what can the legal profession do to make sure we are addin: thank you for your i think that we will see more of a shift in litigation. i think that lawyers are going to want gun safety, are going to start walking through the door that was reasonably opened to protect gun laws as they exist. whil 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

ch higher than the chances of death with some other kind of weapon. the other th that i'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 required them safe -- or in this case, tobacco. 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 hands of the supreme court, and let the markets adjust it. at tinker with the immunity law that it comes to dangerous objects. host: matthews, nor 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 . c-span has hit a new low. thank you. host: what about the idea -- go ahead. guest: the constitution exists to protect everyone. there have been times that conservatives have been very upset with the supreme court over the years. my view i like to think of the constitution like a bridge over a very dangerous river. sometimes 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,to the water.

the republicans the structure needs to be maintained 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 people, an inverted triangle, the people are in charge and the power narrows down to individual judges and elected officials. a monarchy is that someone has all the power and doles it 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 power. it is the structure and not the politics that motivates me as a law professor. host: hoboken, new jersey on the line for independents. what is your question? caller: thank you for taking myi agree

with what she is saying but the problem is, it is not just the supreme court. it is the whole government that hasn ded. if you speak out against anything you will be demonized.you will be weaponized with words. -- taken $4 million the last few years in special interests, right. if you speak out against anythingwant weapons going to israel or t weaponized. you will be attacked. most people don't have the money to go to court. most people don't have the money to run for offic right now, she is saying go vote and out, congress has been corrupted. think maybe two people in congress don't take money from special interests. special interests and special -- whatever -- are basically takg you can't speak out, you can't

run for office unless you are backed by them. st: it is interesting that you mention a supreme court decision that actually allowed more corporate money into congress correct? guest:olumn on this last week. i write about this if people want to look at my work. instagram @kimwehle and there is a link tree to all of articles. i don't mean to suggest that congress is the answer. i mean to come together and take back their government through every possible lever. sure the supreme court struck he voting section 5 -- effectively struck that down,making it easier for states to keep legitimate voters from the ballot. edison's united basically gave corporations knowledge that they nt rights like living people. they can spendng as they do not directly coordinate with candidates. like the caller and myself, i

don't have billions of ddlars to take 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 andess can do about it thanks to the supreme court. i don't have years ago i was definitely more positive. but i am also a mother and i think that we have to protect and fight for our rights for our kids. the last point that i want to make is i think on the idea of being vilified online, the misinformation spreading online, the algorithmst feed different news into each one of our phones under the guise of nebiases, this has been a huge problem. the framers rejected direct democry where you count all the votes because they were worried about bad information people voting against their interests based on lies. they could not have this is a real

problem. we have to go back t a sick education and teaching and learning how to sort garbage basic education and teaching and learning how to sort garbage from good information. it's very easy to make bad that information. host: president trump on the campaign trail has pledged to pardon january 6 rioters. he is facing pressure to name names of speyou 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 stue it into english. the pardon powers come up. we have not just donald trump that the presidents have used the terests to protect themselves. there is a bidebatehimself.commit a bunch of crimes in the oval

office, name whoever, joe shmo commits a bunch of crimes in the ns himself on the way out and now you have a crime spree in the oval office because the president has more power than anyone in the p the fbi, the cia, the military. if they c using that power we are in big trouble. i argue that just lik the second amendment the pardon power is not absolute. people think tha i unlimited and presidents can pardon any federal crime. at's not true. i debunk that and i say this like otherconstitution, you have to reasonably balance it against the interests of the people and protecting against the 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 voters to decide, is this the kind of thing that we want the pardon powerthat would be different than a self-pardon.

gui a self-pardon should be unconstitutional because that would iany accountability for committing crimes for their own self -- which is not ok. host: loretta, democrats line, good morning. caller: kim, that was a perfect seit is regarding the immunity part of this, the case with trump. what in the world could the of? insurrection is not part of the president's duty. i don'twhat it looks like to me is that they set up their own catch and kill. ses that they know they can do nothing about. it's beginning to show, especially with trump but it has spilleover areas.

you look at what's going on intrump stole our secret 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 want to talk about the immunity case? guest: i agree with the caller. this should be easy. let the trial decide if donald trump is guilty. in theory, the idea that presidents can incite rebellions against the government is somehow iunizthe court not only took that easy case, but expanded the problem. we are not just going and if those actions in theory, would be protected from immunity. 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 power than it should. it should be narrowing the papers

wrote that -- if we give anyone power and they don't have any checks and balances, if z%there are no tickets for speeding you will keep blowing through the speed limit. ihink that is what we are seeing on the supreme court. there needs to be a disincentive to start 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. host: on thendents. go ahead virginia. please turn down the volume on your tv. i have a question regarding the gune discussing earlier regarding -- i think she stated something about 50% of the killings are suicides. gun owners having them in their

home, a pistol, or whatever. i understood that it was an likely? the wife? i'm rious what the correct answer was. i did not know 50% were suicides. i stand corrected if so. guest: 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 se to suicide and they get a hold of the gun there is almost a 100% chance of success. if they are forced to use some other mechanism higher likelihood they will not succeed in and will survive. people think that i need so that i can shoot an intruder if needed, but the chances of that are much, much lower than someone you care about getting a hold of the gun and hurting themselves. tragedy is in having the gun in your home it is more

statistically likely than protecting your family. domestichundred 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 nco 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 afterear. 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 le the author of a forthcoming bookhow the pardon power works and why." thank you and thank you to all of the caller host: next, we

will be joined levin to discuss how the framers of the constitution dealt with political division and how their documents can be used to restore civility among those who disagree. we will hear more from you in the open forum. you can call in now. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000 independents. we will be back. ♪ >> as we look forward to the 2024 presidentialqy debate, doing c-span as we revisit landmark monald trump and former vice president joe biden, providing a unique opportunity to examine the policies and personalities that shaped the 2020 election. create

hard, hard good jobs by making sure the r 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 first 2020 debamonday 9:00 p.m. eastern the 2020 campaign season on c-span or online at c-span.orgtch the 2024 cnn presidential 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 kicking off august 19. for an uninterrupted unfiltered glimpse of democracy atthe republican and democratic national convention live this summer o 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 coverage for 45 years. here is a highlight from a key moment. [applause] ♪ [applause] >> c-span, powered by>> "washington

journal" continues. host: welcome back. we are in open forum to hear your thoughts aboutt 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 city missoon their agenda, among other things, topics related to education. during a senate hearing about publ 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] >> as we consider challenges facing public school teachers today, there is one statistic the most. the majority of american parents do not want their children t mother, a korean immigrant, was one of those parents. grow up to be a doctor or lawyer. when i worked up the courage to let my mother know i would be a public school teacher, she asked, dr. teacher?

i said no, ele teacher. i don't want to read into the record what my mother said after that, but she was upset. not because she did not respect teachers. in korea tea hold high esteem and receive high pay and respect. that is what my mom wanted for her son. that is and lawyers receive in the united states. that is what i want for every public school teacher in this country. high pay prestige, respect. used to be able to raise a family on a teacher's salary. now the on way i'm able to be a public school teacher is because my wife makes more money than me. i appreciate the attention that the chairman brought to acts. the number one reason that we havetalking about root causes like senator cassidy mentioned, the number one reason teachers leave the profession is the pay. the parents don't want their children to become teachers is pay. the number to addressing the issues we face must be increasing teacher . in teachers, prestige is rooted in relationships and there is no relationship more important than the ones that we

build with our students and their families. when i became a teacher, i knew that i wanted to plant deep roots and teach in one school and ildtionships with parents for 30 years. host: that' go to the topics that are important to you. branar on the line for republicans. good morning. please, be sure to turn down the volume on your tv. i'm not on your screen on television. host: go ahead, brandon. what is your point for open forum? ller: open up my point from arkansas. the way you guys are running smut on me on television, they are doing the same thing in ads. that i for mutiny. do you guys admit that? ho: i don't really know what you are referencing, brandon. let's go to patricia in memphis tennessee on the line for democrcaller: good morning. i look at c-span almost every

morning. i hear everybody speaking about thent biden and president trump and how country. what i can't understand is, why is everybody giving cong a pass when they are the lawmakers of this country? republicans have control of the senate 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. i don't understand is they want the president to run the country and have a bunch of executive orders like trump did when he was in office. then, they want to force biden ch 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 democrats and republicans? you need to focus on the lawmakers inthey are the house of representatives and that is all i have to say. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i am concerned about the supreme court. i wholeheartedly believe that's important. that is what i would like to say. the supreme court this, the supreme cour that, i think the most important because of all of the different special terest groups. i don't know if you switched away from the supreme court, butthat is how i feel. i feel it is very important and we really need that. host: what do you think the supreme court needs to be doing differently? 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. host: thank you, john. next is james in san diego on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. are you there? host: i am here. goodngcaller: i have three points for c-span "washington journal." number one, you have a lady 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, notthe supreme court's hands. number two, every time we talk out immigration everyone fails to mention hr-2. laws start in the house of representatives and the senate. the house of representatives hras

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 for a vote.number three who is really incharge of law enforcement in the district of columbia? it is now the president of the the 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 district of cthank you very much. i appreciate your time. have a great day. host: illinois on morning. good morning, adele. let's try 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. it is written -- to have a way to defend the country because there was nothe prefatory clause basicallyd by the militia act. written in 1792. it is for all white males

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 at the history and tradition let them mess with that. the problem as i said before is that they only go by the operative clause. auses to the second amendment. eryone to check that host: thank you for your call. vincent is in florida on our dependent lying. -- line. caller: 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 -- there are only two circumstances to do that. one is if there is a family emergency where someone is near death and an paroled in. the other is that the government will use an individual in a court case in a witness. what this admidone 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 law as far as paying off student debt.

yes, other student -- other administrations have paid off student debt. thank you, vincent. onrepublicans this morning. >> when we listened to barack obama run for president, he talked about how he wanted to change the way was laid out. we elected him. we did not listen. what they will see, some of th up in michigan -- they not like the way the country was formed old white mthis culture should be canceled. hence the culture -- cancel culture. they spoke about that. that is what is going on today.

p?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 kind of 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 of government and country what was founded upon. to me, this is readily apparent. host: dayto, ohio on our line for democrats. caller: thank you for c-sn. they keep talking about presidentmp but isn't a certain amount of his money going to his defense funds? so now the money is going for

his reelection. the dohing congress -- they do nothing for the.s. i have been up on capitol hill. thank you for c-span. host: henry is in cleveland missisd9ppi.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. back to -- host: henry, i needed to turn the volume down on your tv and we will come back to you. a caller.

caller: mytopics. the lady that was talking about the supreme court -- she was righ on point. most people do not understand the founding of the supreme court or even what the purpose is. they have overstepped their boundsnot a king, but the leader of the country. they look at themselves as the leader. once we hammer something downu have to stick with it. on what is coming up, it is good that you can mute from speaking. they show 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 th it is always something stupid about this where that. it is very immature. i do n understand. if y segment of his rally, show where he is trying to mapositive. but when he is up there rambling on and talking, why even show that?it does not make any sense. we need positive messages were interesting, knowledgeable ssages. thank you. host: good morning. caller: good morning. we are living in very strange times. in 2024, trump changed the game. if you commit a crime -- run for

president. that way get a get out of jail free card. another thing, showing you what times we are livinin. talking about gaza and guns. u know we have as many people killed with guns every year that are killed in gaza? the number one killer of is gun violence. 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 caller: i would like to remind all the veterans out there that

trump is a draft dodger. he had 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 dos llarthat is way more money than most people make in this country. it would just cost thepayers way more money. host: ok. thank you, david. on our line for independent. caller: i have a couple questions regarding the supreme court. the first is a sign of distress

throughout history. january 6 -- maybe you can answer that from the perspective. the second question is, the justice's wife -- criticism for that. what other positions require thatis 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. caller: good morning. i would just like to talk about all thes that were happening with fentanyl.

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

they are just really weak right now. days? come on, people. we have to wake up and get this money stopped. there is no way. they say social security is going to run out years. it isre like four to five years, if we do not turn this around. we plenty of money coming in. almost $8 trillion coming in this country that should be properly. if for spent way it is supposed to be spent this problem. host: l8x kathy is on the line for democrats. go ahead. : 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 thest: we are running low onfolks get to that themselves. caller:comment, how he so obliterated the united states of america and he is running for president. felon. host: on the line for independent, go ahead craig. caller: thank you for taking my call. if joe biden wants to win debates 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. do is study the british pt how they behave because that is the only way he will be able to call trump out and hold his feet to the fire.

you for taking my call. host: that is all the time we ment 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 tse wwe will be right back. >> on thursday, tune into the debate live on c-span two. 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

get your reaction. the cnn presidential debate simulcast on c-span two, c-span now or online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of ti q 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. 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 canh÷isall of our free podcasts online. >>st: welcome back. . how the constitu nation and could again. tell us about your book and why you chose to write this now. guest: that might be the easiest

question. we are living in a time where we are easily divided. you can see it in our politics and polarization. you can it. the question 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 does not mean agreeing to everything. that is powerfullyi think weitution about how to be a unified by.we have a lot to learn from the constitution about how politic a lot of what has gone wrong is 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 constitution. host: le's read and accept where you say, but how can peoplees workconsmuch of what is

mysterious and frabout the system now is the function of being an some 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 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 size, what a group of people does is to disagree. not going away. the question is how we work together. unity does not mean thinking alike. it means acting together. e to find ways to think

together. 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 you livrse free society, you have toit is not that we disagree to much but that we disagree too little. a lot of people who are very involved 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 hate together. at the center are mechanisms of n, competition andately, there is not a solution to didisagreements. we have lost the sense that it

is what congress is for. sometimes it does requireoing back to the origins. do because the problem they wanted to solve is our problem. it is how does a host: can you give some concrete examples? almost we learning how to disagree with one another. guest: exactly. at it does is compel competing factions. this is what is frustrating to a lot of americans. different from most of them democracies in the world. at parliamentary systems, a lot of what they do is empower. the power in the system until the next election or until you lose parliament.

what you win when you win an election 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 before they can be in power. d a majority in the house 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 rulete way to use power. we do not have to look hard to know that majority rule can be very dangerous. 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 in th and think, why do i have to talk to these people? says 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 the terms of what good government looks like. a lot of time -- guest: a lotf times, the criticism is that it is a relic. when the world was less complicated, before modern technology. but the fundamental problem that they need to solve is still the basic challenge together in a gym

it way. the american government has found modernize and step up the challenges. being president now is much more complicated than when james madison was president. disaster, the hurt -- the horrible earthquake in missouri happened. found after it happened. all he could do was say, i hope they are o 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 is preciselbecause our system is set up to facilitate tiation and bargaining that can ally -- that can allow a diverse society that it is capable of stepping up to new challenges. i thed models for dealing with

proble we have to throw this thing away and that majorities do what they want. that temptation is always there. but the insight offered the system is that everybody eventually finds himself there. what it would be like to behere and why we do not simply allow them to travel over everything that we do. host:. over the separation ofow a presidente ort program 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 crucial to nature of our system is that we

have a constitutio 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 threatening 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 system has to be the way by which they advance their 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 no longer have something

that gives us a predictable and functional politics, then they will have a harder time. host: you suggest that we look at the constitution as a unity framework. guest: it means that we know how to disagree constructively. we h a process federalism and the courts, all offering as ways to address r 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. we have forgotten how to disagree with eachn+erare bad at now. i think the constitution host: we

taking your calls. do not forget that you can also text us. please be sure tnawe are also on and facebook. on our lien for democrats. caller:caller: good morning. so far as found this to be very interesting. as he is proposing way to achieve a better ocome 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 not know what the facts are or they simply ignore what the facts are.

how can you have constructive engagement and disagreem group is arguing about facts and policies to be made on those facts and the other group disregards facts when it does not fit their preconceived narrative of what they want to achieve? thank you for taking my call. guest: thatimportant question. it is important to recognize that we all ha tprm. we live in a complicated world. all of us, in oneon that is not quite right. theot to resolve what was right but to figure outit often means giving a little to one side to get a little on the other side. that kind of negotiation is a way to work through disagreements. it is crucial to see that we cannot just be nicer to each othe. it means that we see our

cs mood of addressing public problems. not always agree with what the problems are. it is to negotiate with people who have a similar understanding of it. the challenge thating what your priorities are , making sure they are advanced. that is fundamentally the work legislation at the center of it is the venue where that kind of negotiation, engagement and bargaining has to happen. the most broken congress. the piece that the most attention is the legislative range. that incentives start. host: have written before the problem when it comes to congress these days. television played a part in deforming the institution's work.

÷guest: i am ai have always loved c-span. would not say that it is c-span that has broken anything. the fact that congress is televised has changed the institution. what it means to put legislativenegotiations, it is -- there is no way around it. i was engaged with of that is television. some of that is social media. they are facing -- what happen is negotiation with bathey sealed the windows.

they can raise issues. ultimately held accountable for not so much on the floor but commit some way. i do not think it is c-span that has created the problem. thct that they understand themselves to be performing for cameras means that the real woof bargaining does not happen in areas. it happens in leadership offices. thatof the important work happens because that is 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 creating, in addition to what committees do, some space for business sessions

where they cany bargaining that is not televised. i think it is important to recognize that the basic character requires a of privacy, even if it requires a great deal of transparency. recognizing that is one way to power committee. the core work of the institution has to happence-to-face 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. the problem that resultsmembers come to think that bargaining with the other side is a sig weakness or a failure of nerve. bargaining with the other side is their job.

if that is not theob that they want to do than being a member of congress is not the job that they want to do. electoral incentives and all kinds of political cultures have to be realigned in a way that helps th see their work. that has to be thehost: james is on our lien for independents. caller: i have up couple points. the constitution, as i have read it seems like it is more relevant towards politicians than it is the people at large. the document more relevant to the people at large is the declaration of independence. the other thing i would like to say is that us divided cannot stand. the division of these political parties, if they keep having these divisions and

the republic will crumble. what is missing is compromise. 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 th with creating incens moment, they face a series of incentives that pull the other way. when they think of their voters, they think of or partisan. voters who often want to see their members express their own frustration.

the structure itself is now much more centralized than it needs to be. there is much less cross partis. members of the parties doe each other enough. they do not view one another across the changed by relatively mundane of the insights is the structure that shapes political culture. this is in terms of political life. allowing committee to matter. if an allowrswere they due as important. helping members feel that they are the ones engaged is

absolutely essential. otherwise they feel like they are actors on a stage. host: explain when you y est: this is something that a number of legislators do. especially the northeast. whenhrough committee with at least one vote from minority, it gets floor time. it is determined entirely by party leaders. only the items that are on the agleader is likely to get on the floor. or it but if the speaker says this is not what i want to do this year, it simply does not mattecongress has put much more power in the hands of the process. it intensified in 1990's and all the more so in this century members expect their leaders to provide to avoid hard vote so that they do not have to

take uncomfo for at election time. what it means is you do not deal with bills across -- across party lines. letting them have some control 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 the committee work be the actual policy work. on that side, i think congress has a lot toearn. host: on the line for republicans. good morning. i wanted to say that originally the generation all had theame to keep the country going but you do in today's environment when the government keeps growing and growing? don't we need congress to get out of everyone's way?

how about going back to principles? guest: i would say the founding generation was also verydivided. we think of them as being of one mind, but if you look at the convention, james madison took very detailed notes online. they are very interesting. it shows intense division it is a patchwork of compromises. but certainly had a sense of national purpose may sense that they were one people that needed to work together. that is something that we have less o 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 negotiation and congress. o take on that work, towards the right or the left will members to be engaged and if memsmaller government can prioritize that and think about what they are willing to give likely to get there. >> wesley is in martinsburg south carolina. good morning. caller: thank you. were you working for a republican or a democrat? that is kind of a rhetorical question. reason i ask is because he keeps saying congress. theris congress. it is the republican congress. this is explained in a good book . you talk about congress in a way

where you would not have the house from the semi pushed a dilemma. they pay -- i am not paid us anything. i wish you would say more. i -- if you are a democrat -- host: let's let him on. guest: firf am a republican. i worked for newt gingrich and i worked for the committee feorge w. bush years. the book that you mentionedit book. everybody should need it, but i think that they start their story little bit. i think a lot of it began in the 19th and.

the centralization of power in leadership 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 overcomethat centralization became very to members of congress. it allows them to have the agenda managed for that is bipartisan. you saw that under the strong leadership of nancy pelosi and. it is something that leaders do for their members. a lot of the cultural problems there are differences between the parties. republicans in congress have been more of a broken party. they have had a harder time

organizing themselves. i think that is absolutely but ultimately, changes in congress have to be bipartisan. the striking thing is that they are 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 transform social media all of it is very imporit is very hard to achieve getting 218 people to agree is much more achievable. in a sense, it is a place to , thinking about how to change political culture. good morning, leonard. caer: when these people cannot agree on a bill, when they go

into it to talk about it, one thing is to add other bills to the amendment that they are talking about so that they can bring 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 stuf there they do not even know what they are voting about. that, to me should be changed. it should be the bill that they are talking about. host: the point that leonard makes is an important one. these omnibus passages were different bills are packaged together is its own kind of compromise. guest: that is true. i think it gets into another that we have gotten into a little bit. a lot of it is put by

leadership. mbers. at the end of the year, were not much gote with a need to pass a budget and a desire to pass a number of things. "aey will put it into one big piece members pam sunday two hours to it and there is no actual way to do that. r÷ a dysfunctional legislative process, but what makes it tendency to pack together different ideas to pass the bill. but it's cross the domains of licy, whhip can do. they do not really theme. it is a a committee productiety of different pieces is a successful legislative it is a way to build a coalition.

th 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: republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. we are talking about the constitution. you know who is killing that? look -- 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 everything thank

you veuch. host: maybe would like to money in politics. guest:n a broader sense i would say something as well. i was a congressional staffer and a white house staffer. one thing i learned is to be very skeptical of any theory of lyrical change that says one person is behind and moving all the pieces. that is is -- there is no one in charge. one thing you learn whe politics close up is that it is messier than you imagine and it does involve people using pressure. there is no one set of people for a big pile of money at they believe that they are doing they might be wrong, 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. i think it is important to think about the kinds of influences powerful or wealthy people can have over politics. money does not matter nearly as much. not on the left or the right. the politicians we are talking about are doing what they ultimately think is right and what they their voters want them to do. it is important to not think that there is a conspiracy that is really driving it. set is not how big decisions are made. host: judy isindependents. caller: i was going to say that i think the republicans get a pretty bad rap when it comes to the bill that they discoage or that they let pass. somebody already mentioned those that are thrownnto a package and we cannot pass anything because it is loadedand too many ideas

going aland then, the democrats that are already down be down on them. it is all lies. media is all lies. that is all i guest: i think both parties get rap. it is certainly true republicans often stop things because they think they are bad ideas 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 had of the 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 themn opportunity to change how the institution works and to address the problems it faces in

a constructive way. there are people in both parties that are willing to engage in that work and thos be performing in a circus. way that they are rewarded for the work that 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 to yo about the role of leadership and controlling legislation. the argument tha members should take the reins back to themselves. i wondered what you thought of the book or what recommendations, in addition to members taking control voting

to take control, that you would recommend. guest: i love that book and i lear lot. it is true. we share a vision for what it would take congress to improve itself. 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. youcentralization and more effiif 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. that is what forces members to work together. filibuster for people who want to see more legislation move.

all of the bipartisan legislation, all o 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 reforms, a lot of those ideas in my new book as are ultimately about how to create incentives for members to deal with each other, to deal with people that they disagree rather than to treat them as targets for criticism. host: i will take one quety 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 inc structure, but the other thing i would say is citizens who are watching and

understand that ultimately, we are going to disagree, that no solution can begin by getting rid of the people that you disagree with. let those citizens organize their own expectation and reward politicians who are willing to engage in functional , representing them appropriatelylife. the most effective on that front. itoubility. the first word of the constitution is we. the responsibility for making it 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. book, american

covenantthank you so much for your time. you to everyone who called in today on washingtonwe will be back tomorrow morning and we look forward to hearing from you as well. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, ntent and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

to temporarily protect undocumented children and young adults from being deported.