that was the constitution and. so in this period we see people talking the instrument, the piece of paper and the constitution as the body of government and over time, particularly after ratification, after the new government set up after the supreme starts interpreting what the constitution means. those two concepts, the piece of paper on which the words are written and the frame of government, the way government begin to merge. and so today i think we think of it as the concept of tution emerged concept. but in the period talking about there, they're still working out. michael klarman would you add to that even a system that doesn't it has a constitution has to have a kind of unwritten constitution, there has to be some set of ground rules that allow you to recognize when, for example, a law has been passed, even in great britain that doesn't have a written the society has to have an understanding that a law requires passage by both houses of parliament and that can be vetoed by the king. so even if you don't hav

this is a section, but you said that the constitution is based on the era of 133 of the constitution, president is responsible for the implementation of the constitution. the president, who cannot be responsible for the implementation of the constitution alone, needs an arm. this arm of the implementation of the constitution in the government is the legal assistant . we were concerned about the implementation of the constitution, which actually created differences in the country, and then it fell asleep . the issue of the implementation of the constitution was almost stopped in the government of the martyred president. by his order, a commission to follow up the implementation of the constitution was formed under the chairmanship of the president himself. this was the first time in the history of the revolution, when the president himself first came to implement the constitution, in the middle of issuing the practical order themselves, you can tell us with our suggestion. what were the most important issues that were followed up in the last 3 years in the framework of monitoring the i

this is a section, but you said that the constitution is based on article 13 of the constitution, and president is responsible for the implementation of the constitution. well, the president. a person who cannot be responsible for the implementation of the constitution needs an arm, this is the arm of the implementation of the constitution in the government of the deputy of law. i should point out here that we were a supervisory board in the past for example, in the government of the previous governments , we had a supervisory board for the implementation of the constitution, which actually created differences in the country, and then it fell asleep . the issue of the implementation of the constitution was almost stopped in the government of the martyred president by his order. it was the first time in the history of the revolution that the president came to implement the constitution first, in the middle of issuing the practical order. with our proposal, can you please tell me the most important issues that were followed up in the last 3 years in the framework of monitoring the imple

this also applies to the powers of the constitutional court.g the constitutional reform, they significantly expanded these powers, including taking into account your proposals. i think that in matters of implementation. position of the fundamental law, the constitutional court must take frankly, unafraid of a leadership position. now it is important to show initiative, to be on the cutting edge of events, to work ahead, in words, society must see the constitutional court in action. the president also drew attention to the fact that formal consideration of constitutional complaints of citizens is unacceptable; they must be given special priority attention. constitutional control should not be an outside observer of the processes taking place in society, do not forget, probably not a single state has actually done how we are regarding the independence of our courts, but you must not forget that you are part of our state, the state structure, if you want, the administrative apparatus, this should not be forgotten in any case, we must be: united as

we consider it in the constitution. we have the word "signature" in the election law, we have the word "sanfiz" which i must say , practically these two are synonyms, which means "sanfiz" it means to sign, it means to implement an act, it is finally legal, the official meaning is to recognize an act that has finally happened. it must be the same. you can see that in the constitution , in article 110, the duties and powers of the leader mentioned in paragraph 9 of article 110 , this matter is mentioned among the duties and powers of the leader in the constitution. in our normal laws, we have the word suspension, so this is one of the processes which must be passed and high credit. in the constitution, we can say that it is dedicated to him. see, in the election law, the beginning of the four-year presidential term is the day of impeachment . you see, until now, we may have used the phrase of the elected president, but from tomorrow, god willing, the issue of impeachment will be discussed by the supreme leader. if the rev

constitution.ritten by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay. theory were later combined into a book called the federalists. because of the authors addressed a wide range of political issues including conflict between the states, taxation and foreign influence, they are still considered vital documents today for understanding the original intent of the constitution. the federalist papers continued to have an impact on the issues of contemporary america. >> welcome to books that shaped america, our c-span series that looks at how books have influenced who we are today. in partnership with the library of congress, this 10 week series looks at different eras, topics and viewpoints. we are glad you are joining us for this walk-through history. tonight, our focus is the federalist, compilation of essays written by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay. essays known today as the federalist papers. our guest this evening is judge gregory maddox and colleen sheehan, politics professor at

after all, this position is included in the constitution and mentioned. look, i told you that we have several processes after the elections. the first thing we mentioned today was the question of the validity of the election , which was done. to certify and turn this into a document that this election was held, with what quorum, for example, the president is mentioned in that credentials, i don't know the details that are finally mentioned in that credentials, after that we have the discussion of the imposition and then the discussion inauguration finally, according to the constitution, the president has to take this oath in front of the nation, or rather, in front of the representatives of the nation, he must learn about the important things mentioned in this oath that he should guard. for example, the guardian of the constitution should be the guardian of the people's rights. the articles that i mentioned are in detail. now people can refer to us , so in other ways. after all , we may compare the legal systems, there may be some cases, but my opinion is

you have to amend the constitution and you can't amend constitution. so is so that's why we to find these workarounds now. but i do think that that because again, just to go back to the big theme, i believe they were very flexible and very entrepreneurial and forward thinking in their own way. and they would not want us to be so static and frozen. well, this went really fast, but we're already out of time. aj is going to be signing immediately after this in the activity center. encourage all of you to get a copy. it's a book and please join in thanking a j jacobs. thank you, holly and thank you. thank you for the lovely questions and yes, i will. i have several quibblesjanuary . 2021 was a day in american history that we must never

the constitutional court began to accept applications from citizens directly. the history of belarus when... the institution of constitutional complaint has become operational in the country; it is necessary, of course, to go through certain procedures, but the fact is that this is possible when a person is sure that his constitutional rights have been violated. another topic: the president set the task of conducting an audit of the entire legislative systems. decrees, resolutions, acts, documents should not duplicate each other, be huge or difficult to understand. all this, of course, is not simple. katerina krutalevich will try to explain. what's happened? the constitutional court and what the people who work there do, a person who has never gone to court proceedings will, in principle, not know in detail, this is world practice, if you look at the position of the constitutional court in... in general in the entire judicial system, speaking not only about belarus, it’s not just the top, it’s superbody, whose main task was to control that any bill that is form

>> constitutional law was not very well developed.he famous marbury versus madison and dred scott cases, and he had decided not to apply the bill of rights to states after the civil war and would take almost 100 years to do that. so as a result, the constitution wasn't fully worked out. however, this is a period when the supreme court begins to invoke the constitution to strike down economic regulations. maximum wage and minimum our laws, and there is a big debate brewing about whether or not the judges are sustaining their own policy prejudices. host: our partner in this series is the library of congress. the library of congress in 2013 developed a list of 100 books that shaped america, and from that list, these are not the best written, they are not classics, but they are books found on public policy and that's why tonight we are looking at the common law. the original 1881 version of the common-law, the library rights that this book is acknowledged as a classic of american jurisprudence, a concept, the law developed and is interpre

and bills on the subject of constitutional compliance.ew constitution expanded them . in fact, all powers passed through their hands. what is the president waiting for now, more work with people and a revision of legislation. at least, we have provided for everything that you wanted and asked for in the constitution. if they do. there are some other proposals, i think we will find how to solve them, so today i would like to hear how the constitutional court functions, is being restructured, whether the highest bodies of constitutional control are fulfilling the tasks facing it in full, i believe that in matters of implementing the provisions of the fundamental law, the constitutional court needs to take a leadership position frankly, without fear, now it is important to show it. initiative to stay ahead of events, to work ahead of the curve. in words, society must see the constitutional court in action. another important innovation has appeared - the institution of constitutional complaint. this is an initiative of the court itself. citiz

and know that the constitution is being implemented. this was also done in this government during the attack. we can say that this issue was important. in the past , the implementation of the constitution was limited to a series of specific principles, and then they were also controversial. in an era, for example, president based on the opinion of the constitutional monitoring committee, the president warned other authorities and disputes had arisen in the country, the constitution itself is actually a national covenant and should be a center for to become a tool for unity, unfortunately , it had led to a dispute that in this government, the nature of following up on the implementation of the constitution, and the story of the whole country, in fact, by the decree of the president , he became a member of the constitutional follow-up committee . the guard became a member of the executive follow-up committee of the constitution and one of these meetings was chaired by the president himself, one of the meetings was chaired by his first dep

now you work at the constitution center. the national constitution center. is there anything in the constitution that deals with filibuster's? it's absolutely nothing in the constitution that deals with filibuster's but and one thing to constitution says in the article one section 5 or a delegates the rulemaking power of the congress to congress the lex exceptions are there's seven votes. i'd mentioned province previously were two-thirds are required. there's some quorum requirements. and it's interesting argument because people like james madison alexander hamilton, they were all for a majority role and if you think about the filibuster, it's a super majority thing where you need 60 in the old age. you need 67 to proceed on certain types of business. so this is kind of conflict between the concept of what's called majoritarianism where the majority should rule in most cases, but clearly the founders intended for congress to establish their own rules. what is your position as editor-in-chief at the national constitution center? i have a really cool job and i

center, the national constitution center. is there anything in the constitution that deals with filibusters? >> there's absolutely nothing in the constitution that deals with filibusters. the only thing the constitution says in article one, section 5, were delegates the rule-making power, the only exceptions are in the seven votes i mentioned previously were two thirds are required. there are some quorum requirements but it's an interesting argument because people like james madison and alexander hamilton. they were all for a majority rule. if you think about the filibuster, it's a super majority thing. you need 60, 67 to proceed on certain types of business. it's this kind of conflict between majoritarianism where the majority should rule in most cases but clearly they intended for congress to establish their own rules. >> what is your position as editor-in-chief at the national constitution center. >> i have a really cool job and i get to work with the constitution every day and i run a blog called constitution daily which

it is in a different bed of the constitution. the original constitution now. people think that is what it means and just disagree violently. the majority in the slaughterhouse scene privileges and immunities viro narrowly whereas chief justice jace and other dissenters, it is considerably broader and breaches in particular the rights of the butchers in new orleans who wanted to pursue their trade without submitting to the state imposed monopoly. i should note that chase himself doesn't write an opinion. by this time, his health is not good. a couple weeks after that decision, it's announced he was dead of stroke. >> remarkable and so important to emphasize the disagreement of the scope of the immunities clause. i won't eke out too much by summarizing the debate for our friends except to say it is a simple question in constitutional law as walter said. the majority basically read the immunities clause as if it only protected rights that were pre- existing in the federal constitution, whereas the dissenters said no, and includes all of these natural rights that

compromise is built into the constitution and in a way, compromise with evil is built into the constitution because there is no clear sense from the constitution of whether slavery should be allowed or should not be allowed, that members of the founding generation determine what's the only way to put the country together. the creator situate in that i think people still believe today that will because the founders said it can't be wrong and as a result, african-americans have been battling even some of the most fundamental equality before the law and still are. conflict over slavery continues and in 1854, there is more interest in organizing new territory in that former area known as the louisiana purchase and lincoln's rival in illinois, stephen douglass, a democrat, wants to help get this territory organized. and so in 1854, he proposes something comes to be known as the kansas act. what he wants to do apply something called popular sovereignty to this new territory. popular sovereignty actually was something was part of the compromise of 1850 new territory that came in in new mexico and

at a meeting with judges of the constitutional court.lexander lukashenko noted that a detailed conversation is overdue since the last meeting in a similar format, 6 years have passed. at that time, we were just discussing the innovations that would be introduced into the country’s basic law. large-scale work was done, powers were redistributed, it came time to implement them in full. but you must not forget that you are part of our state, the state structure, if you want, the administrative apparatus, this should under no circumstances be forgotten, we must be united as never before in order to withstand and in order to preserve your state, i have nothing to explain to you here, you are no worse than me, you understand, everything that is happening, therefore the constitutional court cannot be isolated, it is necessary to build... from one legal act to another, multiple adjustments are made to the acts, i very often, even today, demand that if we make any significant adjustments, this legal act must be restated, taking into account new c

>> i have a cool job and i get to work on the constitution every day and i run constitution daily which we have had in some form for about 10 years i've been editor of that blog for the past eight and half years since i joined. we have about 500,000 monthly readers and talk a lot about history and current topics. there's products i write for it and i do other stuff and i'm involved with a lot of digital work we do. we have extensional digital education organization. live classes we do and podcasts and videos. a lot of fun stuff. >> here at c-span we often turn to the national constitution center for its experts and scott bomboy, the editor in chief at the ncc joins us to talk about the filibuster. we appreciate your time. >>> if you're enjoying american history tv sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen to receive weekly highlights of upcoming programs like lectures and history, american artifacts, the presidency and more. sign up for the eight htv newsletter today and be sure to watch american history tv every weekend or anytime online at c- span.org/history. >>> wee

again, constitution be damned.t is that president biden himself came to office and stood up a commission to investigate whether to change the supreme court. this morning the president thanked this commission for its insightful analysis that supposedly informed his reform prop proposals. never mind now, never mind that this commission, cochaired by one of his closest political confidantes, didn't actually recommend that he do anything. on the contrary. it explained in detail the challenges posed by hare-brained idea like term limits. as one member noted, quote, we ought to be really careful about tinkering with the supreme court, because you don't know what the consequences could be. why is the biden-harris administration so willing to put the crown jewel of our system of government, the independent judiciary, to the torch? because it stands in their way. don't take my word for it. they're running ads about it, pictures of the justices on screen. one commercial intones that the supreme court has made the president a

and our constitutional system. in case law dating back to the early republic. the chief justice's opinion reflects all of that. the only thing that is unprecedented that we are dealing with in america today is this unprecedented campaign of lawfare. these completely unlawful attempts to prosecute a former president, including in this case for his official acts in office. that has never happened before in american history. a good reason why it hasn't happened before in american history. i hope to god that after the supreme court's opinion today we won't have to deal with this endless cycle of political recrimination and prosecution that i think could undermine the fop rick of the republic. it is a great day for the constitution. a great day for the separation of powers and a great day for president trump. i am disappointed by the tone of the dissents' opinion but it is a dissent and majority opinion is strong and decisive. >> sandra: thank you very much, will. good to get your voice in here. doug collins joining us

the constitution. that's that's what i do at my level. all i have to go on is appropriate. what is appropriate? well, you have to read the supreme court's five or six decisions to understand what it is. i did that in shelby county, and i actually thought the case was quite easy. in the 15th amendment. this is what the supreme court has said about about the 15th amendment. what what the court has said is that when congress we added the 15th amendment to the constitution, we dramatically changed the relationship between the federal government and the states. and congress gave the congress new authority over the states to prevent it. no states from discriminating on the basis of race. and it used a very general term like appropriate legislation. and what the supreme court had said about that for decades is it's up to congress. the courts have to respect congress judgment about this. the courts have to respect congress's assessment of the problem and its about what kind of legislation is appropriate. and e

that is why it ended up in the constitution. nothing like that ended up in president and that is because one of the chief concerns of the framers was th of presidential misconduct. they labored over this. they adopted an impeachment structure that separated removal frice as a political remedy from criminal prosecution. this departed from the british model. itish model was you get impeached and criminally ecuted and convicted in the same proceeding. the framers did not want that. they wanted a political remedy in case a president was engaging in conduct that ened the nation. he could be removed. he can't be prosecuted as a g president. that has been -standing justice department position. >> you dispute propositions that a formsident has some form of immunity, but as i understand your argument, you do recognize that a former president has a f special protection, namely that statutes that are alline -- applicable to everybody must be interpre differently under some circumstances when a to a former president. isn't that true? >> it

he is under a constitutional obligation where he is supposed to be ithful to the laws and the constitution and making a mistake is not what lands you in there has been some talk about the statutes issued in case. i think they are fai described as staengaging in conspiracieefraud the united stewith respect to one of the most important functions, namely the certification of the next president. >> i don't want to dispute that particular application of that 371 conspiracy to defraud the united states, but would you not agree that tha peculiarly open-ended statutory prohibition? that fnder that provision under like most other fraud ovions doesn't require any impairment of a property interest? >> it is designed to protect the functions of thed states government and it is difficult to thinkmore critical function than rtification of who won the election. >> i'm not discussing the partul facts of this case but it applies to any fraud that interferes seriously with any government operation. >> what the government needs to is an intent to impede, interfere, or defeat a lawful governmental function by

islam and the original constitution fourth. the constitution is the second duty of monitoring the elections of the presidential election, the election of the islamic council, the assembly of experts, the leadership, who asked the guardian council to interpret whether this is the case. esthawabist supervision or survey the jurists explained before us that the esthawabist supervision of the research institute of this council also has an important role in the investigation and decisions as a research and research arm. a law may have a thousand articles. all this text is read on the council stage. each and every word is read, and secondly, before an order is entered into the meeting, several expert reviews are done on it. also, the guardian council itself has a research center , the guardian council has a jurisprudential assembly, which is attended by a number of nobles and scholars in qom. do not turn on it is not possible for the guardian council to make a decision on a text in a resolution, therefore, where the guardian council

that we kind of put band-aids on the constitution. yeah. or in video games, you know, the young people say patches, you know, that it's different fixes like we did in the senate and other things. and so why can't we come up with something like that for the electoral? well, it's interesting because i mean, we started off talking mentioned that we that the colonies were under an unwritten constitution. and there's a debate all the time about what is better to have unwritten constitution. i mean, it's written the britain british constitution is written, but it's written in a lot of different places. and the advantage might be of changing things, of of evolving over time, as opposed to a written document that people come to fetishize almost as a sacred text. so basically, reform, not abolition, because that's not likely to happen. you know, one thing that annette mentioned that i think is really important and we've kind of like danced around the edges of it, but and i know that there's a question on this in the polls, but a lot of these reforms

a host of the podcast -- constitution. the author of several important books including words that made us. wait to have you here in person. you are someone under whom many of our constitutional scholars and legal minds and supreme court justices have read or studied from. to have you take a strong position on this reinforces the idea that many of us nonlawyers have that this felt weird and run. >> one of the worst decisions in all of constitutional history. and since you mentioned, my students, i am proud you have one of them on earlier kermit roosevelt. also had a graphic from another one, william bode. william is a federal society superstar. he clerked for john roberts. he is conservative, the most cited person by the court itself under age 50. he is the former teaching assistant of mine. very proud of him and very critical of this case in the new york times. i would encourage your audience to read that one. --, one of my other protigis, clerked for thomas and the chief justice, also i think one of the five most cited pe

on the appointments clause in the constitution.nd place ago massive gag order on donald trump and said wait a minute, i'm not so sure about that and i have to look at it and it's the manhattan courthouse and the star chamber but it's not. then she says the court of the trial and it was evidentiary and the judge of the trial and senior status in washington dc ruled that attorney client privilege information that donald trump shared with his lead council. violating the crime fraud exception and can't use your attorney to conspire to commit a crime. i need to review that because i can't act based on what another trial lawyer said on the jurisdiction and the case that should never have been brought and jack the ripper smith brought it again and grand jury in washington dc and i got to look at that too. pushing the biden nomination and attacking anybody who was challenged his lack of sense. now is trying to push them out and he's constantly attacking this judge cannon as nbc and cnn lying and lying and lying to you for years about joe b

therefore, it is illegal as far as this constitution violation is concerned. and i think people danger pads are really wake up and call all the government to take the right measure. rather than being hijacked onto the bandwagon of the united states in its pursuit of geo political. ready all minutes people are at the countries in the world. they do not want to be dominated. if japan says it wants to be dominated by the united states, which bomb the to city is with nuclear weapons. be my guest. now you talked about china, russian relations, china and russia, share 4300 killed because long of folder and the border has to be peaceful ever since. 1991 when russia became independent. and we treasure this piece. i've tried quality of cooperation along the china, russian border, and we consider this trunk real peaceful baldor as one of the most important to us all. overall, your ration stability and china and russia are dealing with each other as normal neighbors. countries which want to promote each of those business and trading relations. charlotte does not recogniz

, the fourth principle of the constitution.ouncil to explain whether this monitoring is an investigation or a survey. they realized that supervision is good. the research institute of this council , as a scientific, research and research arm, has an important role in examination and decisions. a law may have a thousand articles. all this text is read in the council scene, every single word is read. secondly, before an order enters the meeting, it is an expert. many things are done on it, and the guardian council itself has a research center gedeh research, the guardian council has a jurisprudential assembly, which has a number of scholars and scholars present in qom to examine the issues, and if necessary , other experts are invited from the officials responsible for implementing the sub-law , meaning that until an issue is not clarified in a text in a resolution it is not possible for the guardian council to make a decision, therefore, where the guardian council decides that text from the aspects that concern it , i.e. the com

is the wealth attacks constitutional? to answer that question we are honored to have three great legal minds with us this evening. debating in a preposition professor david dean emeritus and professor of law and economics at columbia law school professor read professor of law and politics at yale university. for we hear from them i have the pleasure of introducing our moderator this evening karen snow will formally introduce our debaters and set the scene for our discussion. karin's snow is a council of the law firm of vincent. after graduating from harvard law school she clerked for the honorable jennifer walker elrod u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit. she previously served u.s. department of justice including as council and chief of staff and the environment of natural resources division. she also served as senior counsel and office of the associate attorney general oversees all civil litigation on behalf of the united states. she also is a lecturer at the wharton school without further ado please join me in w

i mentioned the pessimistic constitution in japan. let me ask us why japan does have this pessimistic constitution because they own collision. literally surrender. it was forced upon japan and japan is prohibited from launching any war of aggression inc. perpetuity. so don't think about tinkering with the constitution because no one will allow that. countries like china will never allow japan to reconstitute is constitution to enable laws of aggression by japan. again, in this part of the world, japan should permanent, they remain as a passerby, as the country, as the conditions upon which japan unconditionally surrender back in 1945 feel rich. if the united states urges japan in the wrong direction, the united states will be held responsible at japan. it follows the jeff jeff us, leadership de venturing out of its country with its military troops. it will again the growth waves as such. look of the united nations chopped up. there are provisions to prevent japan and germany, which condition unconditionally. so right under the loved t

it's part of our state constitution. i was very much part of a constitutional amendment that protected the ability for the sportsmen in wisconsin and the tradition that is pretty strong here. they are very concerned about the legislative agenda. next year what should they expect to see from the house? >> one, we need to focus on this year. it's going to come from having an expanded majority in the house, control of the senate and donald trump back in the white house. we are all looking forward to that but we have to get their first into something we have to address in the room is there's over 10 million hunters and gun owners in the country that are not registered to vote. they are not registered to vote and so that is a missed opportunity for us to make sure that we are actually doing the work to securere that victory because we cannot turn the corner into january and start talking about how we are going to do national reciprocity if we don't have the vote. so i think our first job is not necessarily having the legislat

trump today calling it a big win for our constitution and democracy. and now demanding all cases against him be dropped. the biden campaign warning the court, quote, just handed donald trump the keys to a dictatorship. justice sonia sotomayor delivering a blistering dissent, writing the decision makes a mockery of the constitution and system of government. abc's senior national correspondent terry moran leads us off from the supreme court. >> reporter: at the supreme court today, a landmark decision that dramatically enhances the power of the presidency and makes it much harder to prosecute donald trump. at stake, whether the federal criminal case against trump for his alleged conspiracy to overthrow the 2020 election, including january 6th, would go forward. trump claiming as a former president, he could not be prosecuted, absolute immunity for any official acts taken while in office. and he argues everything he did then was official. chief justice john roberts writing for the court's 6-3 conservative majority, gave trump much of what he sought. first

laws of islam and the constitution is the fourth principle of the constitution. the second duty is to monitor the elections. the presidential election, the election of the islamic council, the assembly of experts, the leaders who asked the guardian council to interpret whether this supervision is an evaluation or a survey. decisions. a law may have a thousand articles. all this text is read on the council stage. each word is read. secondly , before an order is entered into the meeting, several expert reviews are done on it. both the guardian council itself has a research center. research group of the guardian council. it has a jurisprudence council. that a number of nobles and scholars are present in qom to examine the issues , and if necessary, other experts , officials of the subordinates are invited, meaning that until an issue is clarified in a text, in a resolution , it is possible for the guardian council to make a decision. therefore, there is no place where the guardian council he decides to clarify that text for himself from the aspects that are related

so i think that's an example of how you get a major change in constitutional law or statement about constitutional principle because you have doubts and you're not certain about what the answer should be and i think he carried that through in in other aspects of his judicial career, you know one thing when he would hold jury trials or write opinions. especially as a circuit judge he would often say yeah. i'm not sure if i'm right. i've done the best i can. this is the conclusion i've come to but maybe i'm wrong. you know and and you don't really hear any people saying that nowadays, i mean really anywhere in the judiciary. i think it's kind of a refreshing thing and and reflects kind of well on his sort of sensibility as a judge that he probably, you know carried over perhaps you carried it over from wilson. i can't say completely fascinating what a wonderful discovery of bush road, washington and changing his mind and you really have emphasized the importance of core field and coriell. so i'm going to read the central paragraph that was quoted so often during the debates over the 14th amendment a

this constitution of the united. so they think they're it according to law and what others think, that's not going to affect them as much, in my opinion, is if i sit down or have you tried writing book? oh, all right. but if you sit down and i try put on paper what i think i've learned over 40 years about how you go about interpreting these statutes in these phrases, the constitution, you want an example. that would be great. no, i'll give you an example first. what's the job? what's the job? the best i read on what's the job of? an appellate court judge within a french newspaper area to discuss with someone. i read a french newspaper, it said. and is when i'm talking to a bunch of high school students or fifth graders, even better with fifth graders, i say in that article, it's a high school biology teacher was traveling from not to paris on the train and he had next to him a basket and in the basket there were 20 live snails. what's that the conductor would have you bought a ticket for the snails. and that is what.

thats why it ended up in the constitution.ng like that ended up in -- in the constitution for th presidents, and that's because one of the chief conce the framers was the risk of presidential misconduct. they labored over this. they adopted an impeachment structat separated removal from office as a political rerom criminal prosecution. this departed from thesh model. the british modeyou get impeached and criminally prosecuted and convicted in the same proceeding. the framers did not want that. theyd a political remedy in case a president was engaging onduct that endangered the nation. he could be removed. he can't be prosecuted while he's a sittesident. that's been the longstanding justice department position. justice mr. dreeben, you dispute the proposition that a former president has some form of immunity. mr. dreeben: mm-hmm. ste alito: but, as i understand your argument, u recognize that a former president has a form ospial protection, namely, that statutes that are applicable to everybody muinterpreted differently under s

the constitutional sovereign power of the people to create the country, to write the constitution flowedat is the core job of the president? to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. that is it. if the president doesn't take care that the laws are faithfully executed, get rid of him. >> i overslept. >> can i use your phone to call julie? you found me on the day that i am really angry. my phone isn't working. i'm taking the dogs for a walk. my phone died. >> good morning. there goes the quiet. >> you stop that attitude. i am so upset right now. the president was engaged in all kinds of corruption and he just gave the finger to the separation of powers and congress and the oversight role. there was great frustration building up. there was a very strong sense in the country and our caucus that we needed to formalize it into an impeachment inquiry or investigation. i think the democratic leadership was nervous about the politics of it. some of our members started to say he is not worth it. the question is whether the constitution is worth it and whether the country is worth it. but

four states had already ratified the constitution. it's also important to know that you didn't need 13 states to ratify this new constitu, you just needed nine. so four had already ratified and on the day the massachusetts convention was to. connecticut also ratified. so now you are more halfway to the required states ratify before massachusetts has a chance to weigh in. federalists are the name given to the men who supported the constitution and they are excited that the states have already ratified but nervous massachusetts. this political cartoon appears in the massachusetts and it would be revised each state approved. so can see where we are in the approval process connecticut has just built one of these five federal pillars. if you can see that this is a federalist without knowing anything else, because look where the pillar from massachusetts is coming. it is coming from the heavens, hoping that massachusetts, too, will comprise of these federal pillars. but hancock's home state is not simply another state. it is considered a sw

at is why it ended up in the constitution. the constitution for the in president and thatcause one of the chief concerns of the framers was the risk of presidentialnduct. they labored over this. they adon impeachment structure that separated removal from office as a political me from criminal prosecution. this departed from the british del. the british model was you ge impeached and criminally prosecuted and convicted i the framers did not want that. they wanted a politicady in case a president was engaging in conduct that endangered the nation. he could be re he can't be prosecuted as a sitting president. that has been a long-standing justice department position. >> you dispute propositions that a former president has some form of immunity, but as i understand rgument, you do recognize that a former president has a form of special protection, mely that statutes that are alkaline -- applicable to everybody must be interpreted differently under some circumstances when applied to a former president. isn't that true? >> it is tru

that's an example of how you get a major change in constitutional law or a statement about constitutional principle because you have doubts. and you are not certain about what the answers should be. i think you carry that through. in other aspects of his judicial career, when he was on jury trials or write opinions, especially as a circuit judge, he would often say, i'm not sure if i'm right. i've done the best i can. this is the conclusion i've come to. but maybe i'm wrong. and you don't really hear any people saying that nowadays. or really anywhere in the judiciary. i think it's kind of a refreshing thing. it reflects kind of well on his sensibility as a judge that he probably carried over. perhaps carried over from wilson. i can't say. >> really fascinating. what a wonderful discovery of him changing his mind. and you have emphasized the importance. so going to read this simple paragraph that was quoted so often during the debates over the 14th amendment, as you describe in your book on john bingham, james madison and the 14th amendment. and then in a moment i'm going to ask you all w

on the appointments clause in the constitution.lace ago massive gag order on donald trump and said wait a minute, i'm not so sure about that and i have to look at it and it's the manhattan courthouse and the star chamber but it's not. then she says the court of the trial and it was evidentiary and the judge of the trial and senior status in washington dc ruled that attorney client privilege information that donald trump shared with his lead council. violating the crime fraud exception and can't use your attorney to conspire to commit a crime. i need to review that because i can't act based on what another trial lawyer said on the jurisdiction and the case that should never have been brought and jack the ripper smith brought it again and grand jury in washington dc and i got to look at that too. pushing the biden nomination and attacking anybody who was challenged his lack of sense. now is trying to push them out and he's constantly attacking this judge cannon as nbc and cnn lying and lying and lying to you for years about joe biden

i think this is a moment where the constitution-- our constitutional doctrine we might think of animus. 18 sfats in the last three years implemented bans on gender affirming care for minors and some of them increasingly for adults in some meaningful ways. these are really attacks on the most vulnerable people, people most of us don't know in an area where there's no a lot of public knowledge and with really nasty statements about these individuals and a total rejection of medical standards of care for the treatment of minors who are struggling with gender dysphoria. and this is actually taking what was the abortion playbook and moving it into other areas and targeting still more vulnerable people. >> okay. we could keep going, but we want to make sure that we bring in topics of interest to you all. there are people with microphones, i believe, and i would ask that when they come to you, you tell us who you are and you keep your question relatively short. i see someone right here. >> bob from washington d.c. you haven't mentioned anything about the com stock act and the consequences tha

you know the national constitution center grant a constitutional laughing project and little team [ inaudible ] there really is widespread support bipartisan across the country for the only thing it would take the constitutional amendment. that is the bottom line with our system, it is so hard to amend the constitution, even the best practices do seem to favor term limits, they will be very hard to actually embrace. >> obviously, and this is why we keep going back to expansion of the court, which both of you warn, mike is a problem now, might create a problem later. is there some middle ground? constitutional amendments are a great topical question to have, they are really hard to do, which is why we have not seen one in a very long time. >> i think the bare minimum we could look at is a binding code of ethics on the supreme court. the same ethical rules that apply to every federal judge and indeed apply to members of congress as well. it is important to recognize that the articles of impeachment that we introduced my representative of cardio carcass are not of a decision she disagreed with.

it's very much a part of the constitutional amendment that protects the ability for sportsmen to hunt in wisconsin. it's a tradition that strong. >> uscca has -- and gun owners are very concerned about the legislative agenda. congresswoman cammack what should they expect to see from the house? >> one, we need to focus on this. we are excited to look ahead of what's going to come from having an expanded majority in the house, control of the senate and of course donald j. in the white house. we are all looking forward to that but we have to get there first and something we need to address in the room is that there are over 10 million hunters and gun owners in the country that are not registered to vote. they are not registered to vote so that is a missed opportunity for us as advocates to make sure that we are actually doing the work to secure that victory. we cannot turn the corner into january and start talking about how we are going to do national reciprocity if we don't have the votes. really our first job is not necessarily having the legislative agenda laid out which of course we