extreme weather and the impact of climate change. washington journal. join the conversation live at 7:00 eastern wednesday morning on c-span, c-span now, or c-span.org. >> tonight, a look at racial gender discrimination in employment. tagger kyiv and other witnesses talk about the merits of diversity, equity, the enforcement of the civil rights act and discrimination in hiring. watch at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or c-span.org. by, -- we are joined by jeffrey rosen, the president of

the national constitution center. thank you for being back. guest: wonderful to be back. host: what was your take on the supreme court's decision? guest: it couldn't be more important. the majority said it is crafting a role for immunity for the ages that is necessary to protect future presidents against political prosecutions by their successors and the defense says this is an invented rule without basis in constitutional text, history or a structure that will imperil democracy in justice jackson's words is a five-alarm fire for the future of america. there are many historic supreme court decisions that it is striking that the majority and the dissent emphasized the historic stakes and have a completely antithetical view of what the constitution requires.

host:host: explain presumptive immunity? guest: it means we presume the president has immunity but can be overcome by showing the act is not official in the majority opinion establishes three categories of immunity. one of absolute immunity for activities at the core of the president's article to function. presumptive immunity for conduct that is at the periphery of those core activities, and third, unofficial ask for which there is no immunity. the defense said it is unclear what the line between these categories is and inviting lower courts to make these determinations, the majority is creating so much confusion that in practice immunity will exist in all categories and the president will be above the law and that is the nature of the dispute. host: what you think the impact will be especially based on what we know about what the founders intended or what we think we know about what the founders

intended for presidential power and checks and balances? guest: it is so important to discuss this as we approach july 4. to figure out with the founders would have intended. the majority disagree about this. both site alexander hamilton, and in particular federal 77 in hamilton's insistence that there should be energy in the executive and the majority sites that to support its conclusion that the president has to have brought immunity or be deterred from vigorously exerting presidential power and the majority quotes hamilton's letters where he talks about the importance that there be unity in the executive and the president be able to act with vigor and dispatch. the defense said they are misreading hamilton and justice sotomayor are quotes to say that the president has to be vigorous

but will be amenable to prosecution and sheet size this meant hamilton assumed the major check on the president would be that like any citizen he would not be above the law and could infect me prosecuted in criminal court. she also quotes other framers of the constitution come in particular james wilson, the guy who came up with the idea that we the people of the united states as a whole is sovereign and also charles pinckney and others who said that they imagine the president would be liable to criminal constitution and justice sotomayor accuses the majority of of being bad originalist and so stairs designed to ensure the president isn't shoulder -- -- and only when they hear about it and she

says they are ignoring tracks in history here. that's what makes it so important and vigorous. host: cap to the present day, the january 6 tribal facts of the lower courts. what does this mean for the judge. what are her options? guest: she has a lot of work to do and has to go through the major categories of conversations or activities in the indictment and on a case-by-case basis decide whether or not the acts were official. the majority opinion says only one category of act's core executive functions and that is the president's conversations with the acting attorney and that the majority says is immune from prosecution but as for the other categories of discussion, in particular the discussions with the vice president in the effort to get mike pence not to certify the election results as well as the conversations with state election officials and the

tweets after january 6. in all of those cases, the judge has to decide whether or not they were core official acts or at the periphery of the court powers. the dissent said there is little guidance in making that determination and the judge is at sea trying to decide whether it was official but has to do all of those activities. and there is another important complication and that is last friday the court in the fisher case now at the scope of a law that makes up two of the four charges against president trump in that january 6 is in the majority in a footnote said that the judge can decide based on that opinion whether or not those two charges can survive. so those are among the things you have to do. host: if you have a question for jeffrey rosen, president and ceo of the national constitution center, you can give us a call. the lines are democrats (202)

748-8000, republicans, (202) 748-8001, an independents (202) 748-8002. regarding the other cases against trump in georgia in the mar-a-lago case in florida, how does this affect those? guest: in each of those cases there will have to be a determination about whether or not the president is being charged on the basis of official act or acts at the core of his power and he will move to have total immunity found and had the charges dismissed accordingly and the judges in those cases will have to make a fact-based determination on whether those were official acts. host: as far as official or unofficial, is it always the court in which core and how is that decided and can everything

get appeal? guest: another great question. the defense says this has one clear effect, to empower courts to diminish the power of congress to regulate the executive the ability of courts to decide and dds in each of these cases, trial courts will make the determinations in each could be appealed in each could ultimately be decided by the supreme court. host: there is a reporting that mr. trump's lawyers have moved to overturn the manhattan conviction based on this ruling. is that possible? guest: my understanding of this is that, to the degree he was paying hush money to stormy, none of those acts could be considered anywhere near at the core of his executive functions.

therefore my sense is that those charges will not succeed but the judge will have to worry on them. host: we will take some -- will have to make a decision on them. host: let's take a call from florida. caller: i wanted to talk about how barack obama could benefit from this ruling because we know there was an american citizen who was assassinated by barack obama without due process. it was an american citizen in against the law put he is the president, right. we need to start being real about what we are talking about instead of being hyperbolic. we are ruining the country by not being honest with one another. ignorance comes from the greek word ignore and we are ignoring the stuff we should be paying attention to.

host: what do you think. guest: very good point that the biggest beneficiaries of this decision will be former presidents and president obama cannot be prosecuted for stuff he did in office and president biden if he ends up being reelected will not be able to be prosecuted by his successor. now the dissent notes the example you gave of the drone strike and even under existing law there is no question that ordering drone strikes as the core of the president's article to power and therefore he would not have been able to have been prosecuted on the basis of drone strikes even for this opinion but no question at all the whole decision is that presidents shouldn't be deterred from vizard -- vigorously using their article to power in the biggest beneficiaries of this today will be former presidents in the

united states. host: even before this he said president obama could not have been prosecuted for that drone strike. guest: that is correct. there is no existing criminal statute that would cover president's exercise of his responsibility in the military and that was the point of the dissent. host: richard in louisville, kentucky, the publican. caller: hello -- republican. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: i am not a constitutional lawyer but in listening that everything that has been happening and i listened to john roberts with the scope of this ruling is for the ages. everyone keeps saying it is about donald trump. donald trump just so happens to be in the position that he was

president of the united states and he was the one who asked the supreme court to rule on some of the things that he did as president of the united states. and they come back and said this is for all presidents, past and future. so if i'm in a young woman and growing in through college and proceed with my life, run for office, am a congresswoman and become governor and then become -- decide to become president of the united states. if i didn't have immunity to protect me that says you run the strongest country in the world and sometimes you have to do things like. am i protected? john roberts and the supreme court said, yes, you are. that is, i wanted to hear.

host: can you explain any -- amy coney barrett's lines she was drawing? guest: i want c-span viewers to read the decisions and the center they are written for americans and you can make up your own mind. she said the following, she doesn't agree with creating a brd new presumption of immunity for the president. she would have taken a different approach and asked two questions, does the criminal statute at issue apply to the president's actions and second if it does apply, what applying it to the president unduly imputed on executive functions and in the case we have been discussing with the drone strike, she would have concerned -- decided that the murder wouldn't be in at and they

wouldn't move forward with any prosecution on that but she disagreed with the idea that conversations with executive officials could not be introduced to prove criminal offenses and she gave the example of bribery and said if the president corruptly took money in exchange for a bribe, it would certainly be appropriate to introduce conversations with other executive officials to prove motive and she found out reason to exclude as the majority would have done in more broadly she challenged the whole idea of thinking of this as a form of immunity rather than a fact that the criminal laws cannot be applied in ways that unduly intrude on the president's function and she said that it is striking that the majority of the court rejected her approach and it is conceivable there may have been a moderate consensus

around an approach like the one she suggested but her conservative colleagues wanted to take a broader approach and it was the nature of the disagreement. host: next call a democrat in -- on the democrats line. caller: yesterday it was unfortunate that we find ourselves here. on the supreme court decision on donald trump that presidents should have some type of immunity is going to give them access to do what they want to do. i don't think there is any reason for any president to think about going through his job other than doing what he is

advised to do. in this case, it is now time to the supreme court. it is just leverage for them to do what they want to do. get in the office and the right thing. that is all. host: there have been callers that have made the point that this means that president biden can just rest former president trump, his whole family and say he is a threat to democracy and put him in prison and do whatever he wants. is that true? host: the caller's point is when the justice sotomayor made. she said to agree the president is deterred in the president not

participating in criminal acts and you don't want to ignore that. the majority takes a different view and is very concerned with the idea of president biden trying to prosecute president trump for future president trump in the second term prosecuting president biden. that is the main reason they have recognized a new form of immunity for former president's that is what is novel about this decision. it is not a question of immunity from prosecute them for sitting president in office, that was something no one ever challenge that this is the first time it is immunity for former presidents that has been created and has been created so that while presidents are in office they want to be afraid of future prosecutions once they are out of office and that is the nature of the discussions. host: here and in -- karam in

illinois. caller: to the previous point, you are just saying this applied to presidents out of office. it doesn't apply for actions out of the office, like having documents in your garage or in your state that you are not have classified documents. and while you were running in cases like the stormy daniel cases. is it before or after or just only drink the president. how does this positively and negatively affect all the cases that donald trump has? guest: two great questions. it does apply to proving alleged criminal activity that took place before you came to office or after you came to office. you are not immunized for things you did before or after but

won't be able to introduce conversations you had while you were in office in order to prove the subsequent actions. that is the nature of the dispute in the january 6 case, can his conversations with his attorney general arrest present b -- or vice president be introduced to show what he did during or after the election. that is the nature of the dispute and the dissent makes -- said it just makes it harder to prove the previous or subsequent actions if you can't note anything he did in office to prove a motive. and how does it apply to the other cases? my sense is that in each of them president trump will move to dismiss the cases claiming they are based on immunized conduct in the judges will have to decide whether or not the kind of was immunized or not. host: the key decision last week overturning the chevron doctrine. can you explain what that is and

what does it mean that it is overturned? guest: another usually important decision also written by john roberts and the gun control was also. chevron was a decision that was in place for almost four years and held that when the reviewing records are looking at regulations that administration industries like environmental and securities, they have to ask questions. first, did congress clearly on the issue in question. if it did speak clearly then the matter of the court has to enforce what congress wanted but if congress' intent is ambiguous according to chevron, courts defer to the administrative agency. there is an environmental issue and it was ambiguous, the court should defer as long as the regulation was reasonable. this decision last week

overturned chevron and said that there should not be a presumption of deference in the face of ambiguous statutory language but instead courts should decide for themselves whether or not the regulation is consistent with the statutory text. they can take the administrator's views into account but have to exercise their own independent judgment and the majority said this is consistent with principles of separation of powers which shouldn't unduly exalt executive deference and also the text of the administrative seizure act that was passed what to do when looking at regulations. viewers have to read this decisions. the dissent by justice kagan said this would fundamentally transform the administrative state and exult judges at the expense of the executive rate and justice kagan said judges are not experts in questions like environmental policy or

security regulation and it is a failure of humility to exercise their own independent judgment in a related case. a year or so ago she said now the court is in charge of all environmental policy and climate change and that is scary with the words cu's because she suggested the judges were experts. host: she said the court is making itself into the administrative czar. guest: strong language and vividly chosen. she is concerned that the power is aggregating decisions that are best left to politically accountable officials. she wrote an important article she was a vessel -- professor endorsing the idea of a vigorous executive but saying that means every time a president wins election they should be able to appoint agency administrators who refract -- reflect the policy views he was

elected to put in place and that it is a failure of democracy. the judges to substitute their own understanding of complicated regulatory policies for those of politically accountable officials. another huge separation of power and opinion. it is interesting in both the immunity and the administrative decision, the dissenters are accusing the majority of exalting judges of being judicial supremacists and increasing judicial power at the expense of the president in the case of chevron and congress and the president in case of the immunity. host: what do you think of the long-term impact practically for the american public of the chevron decision? guest: the majority and dissent disagree about this. the majority says this isn't going to be a big change but in practice chevron already had been guided by the supreme court for lower courts for the past decade or so. judges have been increasingly

exercising independent review and they will do that. the dissent that it is a fundamental challenge to the essence of the fate of the regulatory estate and since the new deal era in the 1930's, the regulatory estate had gotten lots of deference after 1937 when the supreme court got out of the business of striking down administrative decisions by applying skeptical scrutiny. the court said this would both turn judges into administrative czars and also basically drive a stake through the heart of the administrative state. host: let's talk to cheryl in holly hill, florida, republican. caller: thanks for having me on. first of all, the ruling was absolutely probably the best that could have come out of this and it protects all presidents, not just trump. this attack on the supreme court for their ruling by the left is

ignorant and very dangerous. in to hear that from by himself on the world stage is unbelievable for a man who has done nothing but break the rules and spit in their face directly and bragged about it with regard to the student loan debt that he transferred onto the backs of hard-working americans and opening the border and putting national security directly at risk directly violated of office. how many times you can't even count but it is dangerous to be saying that all of the sudden, commonsense sense thrown out the window and it is ignorant for people to say this stuff. there is no common sense in this country whatsoever anymore. and you even said it, the immunity ruling was meant to

historically protect sitting presidents from prosecution even after they left office, which is post office is previous presidents. and they should be protected from community and should be prosecuted for things they did in office. biden is a very, very dangerous man to say the things he is saying to the world. host: comment? guest: is a very important, that the nonpartisan legitimacy of the rule is what we are seeing. and we are seeing a tax on that both after president trump when he attacked the prosecution and by president biden when he criticized this decision although he did not criticize the genesee -- the legitimacy of

the court but said he strongly disagreed with it. it is a good point that all elected officials need to be mindful with presidential decision and from court last week cited lincoln's refusal to accept the finality of the dred scott decision as a justification for overturning precedent. his presence to them they have said but he tried to argue to overturn. criticism is fine but attacking the legitimacy of rule of law is more troubling. host: warren is a democrat in arkansas. caller: good morning. i want to make a statement to

conservatives. i am 89 the conservatives screwed up the civil rights deal, they screwed up the voting rights deal and now they have a up the supreme court and the president where president biden had trump put out precedent is in place in case happened to a president. she is qualified and able to take over and run this country. trust is not the ability to run

government. it is not a businessman, he is in business. he buys them run some into ground and takes the money and from and it runs. host: any comment on the ballot cases? that was the case that was cited a while ago about trump being on the ballot because of the 14th amendment. guest: another hugely important case because the first impression was that the court never ruled on section three before and that is another case where the majority and dissent are strongly disagreeing about original understanding. the majority held that the 14th amendment section three is not self and congress has to act

before a candidate can be disqualified and cited as a precedent. justice chase' holdings during the civil war that held congress has to act or former insurrectionist can be disqualified. and dissent said you are making this up that there is nothing that suggests that congress has to act first and in a related case during the civil war, the chief justice seemed to suggest that section three was self-executing and no congressional action was necessary and therefore the 37 if you are expanding judicial power at the expense of the history of the amendment. host: gilbert in toledo, ohio, independent. caller: i stayed up late last

night listening to the constitutional lawyer and teacher and he is basically saying the same thing your guest is saying, very nice guest. i have one question, who gets to decide on all of this? is it the supreme court, person to people did not elect? is that the people who are going to decide? and i looked at these people who have been taking bribes and money, millions and millions of dollars and they got to rule on this. i just can't understand why they got to rule on this when they are clearly trying to, i would say overthrow the government. that is what i am looking at. i don't know how you are seeing it.

lawrence tribe said it and this gentleman said it. it is very dangerous they are doing. in the women on the supreme court who are smarter than the men, our voice and echoing this. i would just like to know what this man thinks. guest: the question you identify, who decides? that is one of the central questions in these supreme court decisions. should it be the people of the united states to their elected representatives, should it be the president representing people or congress or should it be judges. in all of these cases, the liberal dissenters are claiming that the court is wrongly aggregating power for itself and making federal judges the last word in deciding and in that sense diverting or

second-guessing the democratic process. it was exact charge the conservatives made during the morning and burger era that liberal judges were subverting the decisions and exalting their own power and how the tables are turned. i appreciate your nice words. i am trying to describe the arguments on both sides because that is my job at the national constitution center and i do want to make a plug c-span viewers for the amazing interactive constitution that the constitution center has. we have some of the greatest server and liberal scholars in america to write about the constitution, describing what they agree about and disagree about so that is been, the people, can decide. if you click on the habeas corpus clause, you will see justice amy connie barrett and others about what they agree and disagree about. it is marvelous and

extraordinarily rich and important resource page you can go to any of the articles we are talking about and read the essays and the primary text associated with them and watch the videos and listen to the podcasts so that you can make up your mind because in the end, we, the people have to decide. host: independence day is the day after tomorrow. i wanted to touch on your most recent book which is called "the pursuit of happiness." what did the founders mean by the pursuit of happiness and why do you think they put that in? guest: this was the most meaningful project covid error i have engaged in wanted to figure out what thomas jefferson in the founders had in mind -- covid era i have engaged in and wanted to figure out what thomas jefferson in the founders -- and the founders had in mind. the section on ethics, there are

philosophers and then enlightenment philosophers and when i read the books, i was first that all of them contained the phrase "the pursuit of happiness and they find that is not feeling good but being good. not the pursuit of immediate pleasure but long-term virtue. by virtue they meant self-improvement, character improvement, being your best self and overcoming your unreasonable actions and emotions like anger, jealousy and fears you can achieve calm tranquility that allows each of us to be our best self. it was a transformative experience for me to recognize the close connection the founder c between personal government -- the founders saw between personal government and professional and through self-improvement they think the republic will fall in the brooks

profile for all of the founders, franklin, adams, abigail adams, lesser-known great founders like phyllis wheatley, the first black poet and warren and james wilson and asked how did they apply this in their lives. they struggled constantly with anxiety, self-doubt, wondering if they were using their industry enough. but what is so sorry about them is what readers they were. i had fallen out of the habit in doing daily reading and inspired by jefferson's schedule, i read for two hours every morning and watch the sunrise the sonnets summing up what i learned and have tried to keep that habit of the meeting ever since now when i wake up rule that i am not allowed to browse or serve until i have done my reading and it is amazing how much greeting you can do when you do it every morning and i am so grateful to the founders for having inspired this.

host: max is in maryland, republican. caller: this was an interesting discussion and was breezed over quite quickly to points that were at the crux of this decision made by the supreme court. what was asked was good the current president detain the former and current political rival of the current president and be immune for those things after he was out of office, regardless of how it unfolds. he could under the auspice of protecting democracy for preserving democracy will lock up a political enemy. you could in this instance do that. on top of that, that if you don't agree with somebody and you believe there is a danger to democracy that you can don't attack them as long as they are offshore and not in the united

states. guest: you're so right that the focus of the majority opinion is the danger a former president might be prosecuted by a vindictive sitting president. that is what the immunity is designed to prevent. it is the sitting president who controls prosecutions and the fear that those vengeful prosecutions might deter you know former president while he is in office is the focus of the majority's concern. in the drone strike example is also one that the descent -- the sense -- dissents used. that is the nature of the dispute. host: jeffrey rosen national constitution president and ceo in the offer of the book "the pursuit of happiness."