it's that simple. ..

>> the book "root and branch" profiles charles hamilton houston, the first african-american on the harvard law review and dean of howard university law school. and his student, thurgood marshall, valedictorian of his class in 1933. and future supreme court justice. the two lawyers lead the naacp's legal office in challenging jim crow laws with a focus on school integration. hue-man bookstore in new york city posted the 40 minute talk.

[inaudible] [inaudible] >> remarked after her husband fall from grace, she said we are who we are, because of who we were. and her words betray not only a mature compassion but also speak to a recognition that the past is always with us. and indeed, as william faulkner tells us in his 1950 know bella does, the past is not even past. and in this way we as a nation are who we are. because of who we were. ours is not a nation that hides from its history, or hides its

history from its history books. and indeed, one reason why we can be so proud of who we are is in part because of who we once were. a nation that divided its own citizens by race. "root and branch," charles hamilton houston, thurgood marshall and the struggle to end stroke segregation tells us for how to men, two lawyers help take this country from where we were to where they knew we one day could be. in brown v. board of education malik came about, brown is not a judicial miracle. is not the miracle that is often purported to be. the fact that it was a unanimous decision still stands as something of a judicial miracle. but the supreme court decision in brown v. board of education was the result of careful planning and a careful strategy set forth by charles hamilton

houston and enacted by houston and thurgood marshall. in 1935, walter white, who was the executive secretarsecretary of the naacp, a truly extra great character in his own right, an extraordinary american, in his own right, he asked charles hamilton houston, please devise a strategy by which the naacp could see to be segregated education and transportation in america. houston, who was at the time the most famous african-american lawyer in american history, and certainly the most educated lawyer and african-american lawyer in american history, look at the budget of $10,000 said, mr. white, you need to pick one or the other. so houston and white pic education.

charles hamilton houston was a graduate of washington, d.c., native, graduate of amherst college, graduate at the age of 19. served in the army and went on to harvard law school and he was the first african-american to serve on the harvard law review. he earned a doctor of judicial science from harvard, status they he was at harvard law school and was very famous at this time because he had recently defended a very high profile sensational murder defendant out in rural virginia. eight was widely known by americans across all races and classes at the time. he wanted to attack segregation in a way that, of course, would be successful. the law of the land at the time was plessy v. ferguson, the 19th century supreme court

decision that established the doctrine of separate but equal. and those words never appear in the decision to be sure, but the law was not so long as states, so long as the government provides separate and equal facilities for african-americans and for white americans, the constitution is satisfied. houston could not walk into court and ask a district court judge to overturn separate but equal. it would not work at a district court judge first of all does not have any authority to do so. and secondly, it was the way individuals live their lives. so the question became, how is he going to attack this? and i'd like to just briefly read from, read two paragraphs here at and i say two paragraphs because the legal strategy was so brilliant in its simplicity that can be summarized in a very short number of words.

a lawyer's case is his ship. his win is the law but he must put to his command. gifted attorneys and sometimes persuade courts to extend existing law, but rarely to reverse it. while often heralded as a reversal of long-standing jurisprudence, the supreme court's decision in the case is gathered as brown v. board of education, was in fact an extension of the court earlier decisions. brown expanded existing law, and the ship by charles houston 20 years earlier had reached short. in 1935 the wind blew steadily in the opposite direction. separate but equal schools and buildings were constitutionally permissible under the supreme court's plessy v. ferguson decision. to challenge plessis, to set sail into the wind, would be the mission of a doomed fool. so when walter white asked houston to present a plan by

which the naacp could launch a sustained legal campaign to end segregation, houston chartered a novel force. to defeat the law of separate but equal, he would argue for the enforcement of separate but equal. in southern states he would argue that segregation mandates needed to be met. he would seek to end segregation scourge by arguing for its promise. so he was a strategist. if you as a state say that we are secretary are black and white citizens, houston said that's fine, we're not going to challenge that right now. but what we will say is that you need to have these facilities need to be separate and they need to be equal. and they started in the law schools. first, houston hires thurgood marshall, who was his favorite student at howard law school. marshall graduated valedictorian of his class at howard law

school, and came to work for the naacp, and they went to work on this mission of desegregation, desegregation schools. they started in the law schools. why? because every judge has gone to law school. and the judges do not need to rely so much on an expert witness to tell them what separates one law school from another. what makes this law school better than that law school. and they start in maryland. where thurgood marshall was bored and were thurgood marshall wanted to attend law school, but could not. he in fact did not apply to the university of maryland law school because the university of maryland school did not accept black students. now that he was an attorney with the naacp working with charlie houston, mr. marshall said we will see about that. they filed suit on behalf of donald murray, a young student, and amherst grad, and the sign of a prominent baltimore failure.

they filed suit against the university of maryland, and the case was being so hopeless by black marylanders and white folks paid it no mind in maryland, that no one showed up to watch the case. no one except thurgood marshall's father, willie, who would've been there if there had been a hit-and-run trial. their argument was simple. the university of maryland is obligated under plessy v. ferguson to provide separate but equal law schools. the university of maryland provides the university of maryland for its white students. maryland provide no law school for its black students. they don't have one. so and he'll maryland builds a law school for its black students, and builds an equal law school for its black students, maryland must allow its black applicants who are qualified to attend the university of maryland.

houston and marshall assured the trial judge we're not asking you to overturn plessy. we are asking you to enforce plessy v. ferguson. you have to make this separate but equal, but there is a separate school, your honor. and they put on the witnesses who agreed with the simple fact that there was a law school for negro student in maryland? know there's a. thank you so much that is there a law school for white students? yes there is. thank you. the only way to equalize them was to allow black students into the university of maryland. until and unless and until mount is able to build his law school for its black students, to the shock of everyone, including houston and marshall, the trial judge issued his ruling from the bench. and said you know, you're right. there is no law school for black students, the law is very clear on this point. and, therefore, mr. murray, you're admitted to the university of maryland law school. the appeals went on and went through, and houston and marshall prevailed.

and donald burr graduate from the university of maryland law school, and three years and had a very long and successful career in baltimore. and other african-americans went to the universe up to law school after that. and keep in mind, we're talking about 1936. 1936 this is happening. it was truly an amazing accomplishment and an amazing development. african-americans were so excited by it, they thought that segregation was going to men in short order that charlie houston had to write an editorial in the widely read naacp newspaper, the crisis, he wrote an entry called don't shout too soon. because there was so much euphoria in the black community, and charlie houston knew there was a long road ahead. a new it would be sometime before african-americans would be able to apply to law schools, colleges, and indeed one day, even go to elementary schools of their own choosing.

so he said, shout if you want, but don't shout too soon. he knew that they needed better president. the maryland case was only good law in milk that they did not go to the supreme court of the united states. they needed federal president. and they found it in missouri. a few years later. lloyd gaines, and other promising young man, pledged university of missouri law school. again we see they're still loss goes. he apply to the university of missouri and the university of missouri denied his application on account of his race. and said missouri has a policy where we will contribute to your tuition at an out of state school because we don't allow missouri black citizens to go to the university of missouri law school. lloyd gaines -- charles houston and thurgood marshall took on lloyd davis case. in this case made its way to the supreme court of the united states. they could finally put their strategy to the test of saying to the justices, there is no law

school for black students. so there is no separate but equal. we don't even reach the question of equality because there's no separate. there's nothing there. there's nowhere for them to go. because this is a personal right, the 14th amendment is a personal right that each individual, each american citizen enjoys, you have to remedy it immediately. and the only way to remedy that is to allow our client, mr. gaines, to attend the university of missouri law school. the justices agreed. they said it is a personal right, the 14th amendment, and he should be allowed to attend the university of missouri law school. and in a mysterious development, mr. gaines, the plaintiff, disappeared in to this day no one, there is no record, no one, not even his own family knows what happens to. some say he was of course murdered and buried. others say he went to teach english in mexico.

there are a number of rumors about it. but no one knows to this day. but finally, the naacp and houston and marshall has some federal president. that said if there is no other school for them to go to you have to let them go here. oklahoma wasn't having it. oklahoma said we'll care what the supreme court of the united states is. we do not allow negroes to attend the university of oklahoma law school, and that's that. houston took up the case of a young very talented young woman, very bright and gifted young woman, took that case back to the supreme court. by now we're up to 1948. this record is getting irritated at the "washington post" described as a hazing. they said the justices insulated a hazing up on the council, the lawyers, for the university of oklahoma asking why does this woman have to come all the way here to go to this law school, when we issued this opinion 10

years ago? we told you, you have to let her go. and you're back you're saying no? they decided that, the justice of course decided you need to allow her into the transixty. here's what oklahoma did. they allowed her into the classroom, she had to sit in the back of the class beneath a huge banner that said, but student section. she had to eat at a table, it was only for her, that said, dining section. and in the library there was only one table she could sit at. there was a covered student section in the library. this was noxious, but it was stepping exact into, i don't want to say track, but it was a trap laid by houston and marshall. because now they could move into the intangibles. and say, okay, we have an individual, and ago, in the classroom. she can hear every word said by the professor. she can take all the notes and

she wants to take, but she's under this banner, literally this banner, a badge saying that she is different than the other students. they decide now is time to turn them into the wind and a tag plessy v. ferguson. and say that separate cannot be equal. they get their case with an excellent plan, a 68 year old man. mr. gorn was at the university of oklahoma, now we have a 60 year-old man in a classroom with 20, 21 year old students, and he has to sit there. he went to school every day in a suit by the way, and he has to sit there and he called it humiliating to sit beneath this banner, to have to eat at this one table, at this specified time he was allowed to eat. he said it's humiliating and it's hard for me to do my work at that case, along with another case out of texas, those cases

troubled forth to the supreme court. and on april 4, 1950, the anniversary is coming up. on april 4, 1950, the justices heard oral arguments, and this time thurgood marshall asked the justices to overturn plessy. he said separate cannot be equal. the justices unanimously said you're right, sweat, mr. swisher be allowed to attend the university of texas. mr. mccord, university vocal, taken advantage of standing above this man, college student section, take that banner down. that offends the constitution. but mr. marshall, we decline to reach the question of overturning plessy v. ferguson. we're not going to overturn it. and they don't say just yet, but marshall noted after the decision came down, he said this is a decision complete with

roadwork. this was 1950, the path had been set. the foundation had been sent, and everybody knew it. in texas, in 1950, the texas legislature appropriated $3 million to build a law school for black students because the attorney general of texas said once the defeat segregation in these graduate schools, they are coming for elementary schools. thurgood marshall into the university of texas at it this is no secret. this is what i've been trying to do all this time. there was a huge rally, and an integrated rally in fact and when marshall finished the care by clapton was very excited and a white student was a student leader got up and took the mic about and thank mr. marshall for coming and said, i have a big announcement to make. today, we have signed the papers and it's official but we now have an naacp chapter at an all white university of texas. and the whole place went crazy and no one could hear what the young man said after that.

it was no secret that they were going to attack segregation. they just did it slowly and took some time to come by the time they got to 1950, they had the precedent. because what we have now is an adult, how can adults sitting in a classroom, how can a state, a state is not allowed to sit an adult in a classroom beneath a banner that says college student section, but a state is allowed to sit thousands of children in a building across the street for colored children. you can't have both. the constitution cannot allow both. no logical document can allow both. so the court had been painted into a corner. at this point. and it took time, it took years, it took plaintiffs putting their lives and livelihood on the line to get there.

but finally, after 1950, going into brown, they had the issue square before. if you are not allowed to have a 68 year old man in the same classroom, that he can be set up because of his race, how can you allow thousands of children to be set off in different buildings because of their race? the court was a corner. to close, i would like to leave you with the thought that i was left with after spending four years researching and writing "root and branch." and that is that over the past decade or so we have heard a great deal about activist judges. the phrase has been used so often by the right and the left that at this point it's almost bereft of meaning. at this point in activist judges a judge's opinion happen not to like. and i was bit on some occasions the course of our nation's history has been changed by

activists judges. on every occasion, however, every single time, the course of our nations history has been changed by activists citizens. and often, these citizens are working with activists lawyers. 35 of the 5 55 funding fathers were activists lawyers. who gathered with their fellow citizens and were so enraged at the treatment they received that they formed a new nation that these activists citizens, like lloyd gaines, like ada louis, like george mclaurin, activists citizens are the many women who help make this country great because they believed in the country more than their country believed in them. and they joined with charles hamilton houston and thurgood marshall and together they defeated staggering odds. so sometimes when i hear this

talk about activist judges, i think it's giving the judges a little too much credit. the structural beauty of the legal strategy that houston and marshall put into place was its false modesty. it stained patients. they chipped away at the doctrine of separate but equal by asking only that the doctrine of separate but equal be enforced. because they knew it couldn't. they knew that separate could never be equal. and history, time and justice has them right. there's an airport now named in baltimore, named after thurgood marshall, and there are a number of schools named after charles hamilton houston, but the true monuments of their labor are the lies that you and i are able to leave unsaid lead each day. because each day that we are

able to gather as we are here this evening, each day that we can come under one roof, regardless of our race, regardlesregardless of our gender, regardless of our religion, each one of those days is both a testament and a celebration of the outstanding work in the battles fought and won by these two great americans. thank you. [applause] [inaudible] >> i'm sorry? >> who's going to take a 40 acres and a new? >> take up? >> they took up the cause to desegregate. there's always a bit of discussion among folk that don't

bring that up. you will never get that. and you think, well, okay. but there is efforts to bring forth legal action. and i was following one case about five years ago, a local lawyer had taken eight the dna of blacks and had filed a case on that merit. so, how do you see that discussion legally? and i understand, someone says to me commerce, representative conners continues to put forth. something within the congress to smack so you're referring to a reparations? >> yes. >> as i see that going forth, the word reparations has been turned into something of a toxic word. but i see progress being made on

that front, on individual channels. an example i will give you is the recent settlement of african-american farmers that the department of agriculture just signed, secretary of department of agriculture, under president obama's administration, $1.6 billion. president bush was not moving for it on that. in the new administration did move forward on that. and so no one would call that reparations that they wouldn't put that word attached to it, but what it is, is a whole lot of taxpayer dollars to correct a wrong that was inflicted upon thousands of african-american farmers over the period of years. so as i see that developing, i see it being done in, not limited, but very just great ways individual. so agriculture in this way, and go after education in another

way. that's how i see that progressing. and i don't think anyone will put the word reparations on it because it makes it much more difficult to move through the legislation, but yes, congressman conyers has been doing a good deal of work on that out of michigan. >> iges you the old colloquial position of 40 acres and a mule. reparations is a little too sophisticated for me. the other point that is servicing is what constitutes an african-american wax i mean, yesterday, front page, and it has come up repeatedly when the president was running for office, that he dodged questions about mixed marriages and mixed-race, you know, and all that. so what constitutes an african-american now? if one wants to pursue the

thought. .ne[inaudible] >> you raise a good point as far as what constitutes an african-american. mrs. teresa heinz kerry raise a great deal of fear when she declared herself an african-american. in fact, she is african and lives in america. i see it as referring to black americans, race, it's an extension of afro-american, which interestingly it is a term that thurgood marshall refuse to use in the last three or four years of his life. even through the '80s he was to referring to he was to called african-americans negroes, and insisted on calling, if you talk to refer to african-americans as negroes. i think it is an evolving question. but i think african-americans

is, i like the term. it's the one i use. [inaudible] . . is fellow students called him turkey. dean houston was so tough and so

rigorous on his students that his students called him not to his face, called him iron shoes. so there were two very different kinds of individuals and when they met they immediately took to each other. in part because marshall was extremely gifted lawyer and a gifted students. marshall's class started with 36 students and only six of those graduated. houston was working him very hard at howard law school at that time. marshall by virtue of his rank and first in his class after two years was able to get a job working in the library and for the first time he worked alongside houston and that's really when their relationship took off. marshall later justice marshall in his 80s would reputedly say everything i learned about the law i learned from charlie houston and it was something that bothered justice marshall deeply that more people didn't

know about charles hamilton houston and his contributions and he would speak of him unprompted at every given the opportunity. to the people who would know what this man did and what he sacrifice and i also became very good the friends, but it was certainly a case of opposites attract. they ended up traveling together throughout the south on a road trips, working cases together, obviously working successfully but the relationship was a teacher students coming to came mentor, mentee, and at the end became very very close friends. marshall was one of mr. goossens pallbearers, but he could not speak and refused to speak to the media about mr. huston for some time after his son's death because it was so emotional for him. it was such an emotional event. losing houston as such a young age. he was only 54 when he passed

away and it was very difficult for marshall. >> i heard a statement which really puzzled, but then it was so clear when they say like all the work that thurgood marshall did and all the laws that he supposedly passed in help for together and then somebody said, you know what, all he did they put it to the point where not to the army backed up ever he pushed it wouldn't mean nothing because the people who rebelled against its and when they told me how much that military plays a part to in making sure that these laws are passed because of not the people that didn't want to do it wouldn't have done it

had not the military there. so tell me how ironic that is for someone to have such a large large degree and put things together, how they version organize and constructs, only to find out that had not been the military behind it would have been -- it wouldn't have gone any place. >> to bring up an excellent point that because the supreme court to issue these rulings and laid out the law did not mean that people woke up one day and decided to follow them. we all know that did not happen and it did take the army, the 87 airborne which president eisenhower sent to little rock, arkansas years after brown v. board of education. but is not marshall's job, not the supreme court's job to enforce the law. the branches of government, the

legislative, judiciary and the executive branch, and the executive branch president executes the loss, puts them to force and make sure that people follow them. and that's why eisenhower was forced to act. he did not want to act, he was not happy about the brown decision at all. and, in fact, the white house press secretary refused to comment on the brown v. board of education decision. the only other major official who refused to comment was the governor of mississippi. those are the two people refuse to comment on brown v. board of education. the president wasn't happy but as the years went on he realized there was a great deal of resistance, rebellion in some places, and he had to execute the law. so he did send in the military. it was very sad, no one was happy that that had to happen. but, yes, he had to use the military on u.s. soil to enforce the law. >> [inaudible] what does that

mean when people organize the keener do something write anything the accords are supposedly the say so or the government or never but when the government itself as fighting you, where does that leave to particular individuals that say we won but then again we didn't win because had not had -- you know, it's almost like you were so insignificant that in spite of the logic, the truth, and the fairness and the moral less of pushing a certain agenda that will bring about equality to a group of people and yet to suit is not real because what would happen now even now if all of a sudden if the military or the army or what not is really holding this together from a group of people there may be

more in the position to take back what ever rights that other people may have and for them -- so to me that's like i'm walking on thin ice. knowing just that all these so-called laws that have been put down the only reason why they're here is because the military backing it up. and what would happen -- i'm not really -- >> that's all we have though. the military would back it up but we have -- there are laws were people follow them because there are consequences if you break them. so i see it the flip side of what you're presenting, i see it as something of a comfort. a weary covered and i understand your uneasiness about that at the end of the day the law will be enforced and that's what happens with little rock and that's what happens when they bring -- >> this is what i'm saying.

even though it may be a force but every time somebody sees a loophole to get someone coming to get my brother, to shoot him 50 times or to deny some of a certain type of rights, you know. so i'm saying the moral listed in carry over, and it didn't faze into humanity, to a degree. it is more or less like somebody took a shot at you. >> right there are 300 million people in this country and some of them are not on the straight and narrow. and some of them don't care what the law is. and some of those people who don't care what the law is in the past have been governors. that's part of the price we pay a living in a free society.

>> i have sort of a walking question. plessey versus ferguson was pass well after the 14th and 15th amendments that sort of insured person also writes. how much of the legal strategy for houston in hamilton was built around the nature of plessey and the sort of a repressive nature of that decision that was taking away rights than nominally insisted? >> plessey was the big mountain and that they had to climb. the means by which they were going to get there, the means by which they got there was the 14th amendment which guaranteed -- said that no state shall violate the rights of individual and that's an awful pair raising of the 14th amendment. but it was the means i think almost like the climbers boots that they had to climb over plassey. a plessey was a big mountain that they had to get over and the question was when today go

right at it. when they went around it and shipped out and expose it for the fallacy that it was. and once it was exposed as fallacy by the same court they realize in houston -- marshall wrote in a letter use in saying that i think we should challenge plessey now for the reason why and part was because we're not went to get a court this good and another what they had president truman in office and said president truman will enforce with the supreme court says. as if to be proven right few years later we had eisenhower took great deal of doing for his administration to enforce the law. so the 14th amendment was the means by which they had to jump over or tear down plessey versus ferguson and the district of columbia they had to do to the fifth amendment because the rules of washington d.c. including our taxation without representation.

>> hello, lou thank you for coming to harlem. what we would like to ask is today what you think is the state ever judiciary today? the naacp and other civil-rights organizations are still fighting hard for all minorities on all fronts so reducing free stand today? >> part of my being a lawyer but that's how i determine if i had a senator i would live in washington d.c. but if i had a senator is how i would determine my presidential vote is based on judges because of these judges, article three federal judges are appointed for life, and i think the state of the judiciary right now is it's hard to move -- change from a right to left or even from left to right because everything stops in the senate. so it's a political issue of

confirmation. i think that certain -- there's been a great deal of progress made in judiciary so much by the time thurgood marshall was nominated by johnson or even being backed by the time he is nominated by john f. kennedy to be a federal appellate judge in new york and the second circuit court of appeals, by then in the short time senator cannot just go on the floor and say we can't have a negro being the appellate judge for the second circuit. so they picked other means, subterfuges by which they wanted to attack him and some of them, some were legitimate disagreements with the way that he likely would interpret the law and others were just because they didn't like him as a civil-rights lawyer and they didn't like the civil-rights. as the judiciary is constantly evolving but moves very, very slowly. but when someone is there that

man or woman is on the bench and the federal court on the bench for life so it's very important and as a priority for any president democrat or republican, a priority for them. i think the last president bush did in outstanding job of shipping the federal judiciary to what he wanted to be and what his constituents wanted backcourts to represent. i think he did an outstanding job of that. he got very few of roadblocks along the way. i think it's a model this president to emulate. hopefully. >> now like to thank the bookstore again for having me and think he wall fur leaving work early to come now to talk with me about this. thank you. [applause] >> this event is hosted by human

bookstore in new york city. for more information and a visit to human bookstore.com. ladies and gentlemen, welcome to we are delighted to see you all here at the embassy and a special welcome to harold evans and tina brown.

we at the embassy are delighted to be participating in the launch of perry's book, my paper chase: true stories of venice times peer the book covers and i started reading, it covers a huge amount of ground from harris childhood in northern england and for a time you read notice you were living in eccles a few hundred yards from where julia to later grew up in clinton. then on to professional career as a journalist, editor, publisher and author. but this isn't just another autobiography, this is also a biography of the newspaper industry, have many many significant decades. and the book describes one that almost industrial process of producing a newspaper when is really the best part of the last of the century.

all of that in one way has vanished but the book is decidedly not an obituary for printing journalism. mark twain said amnon and then as revenues paper and show always try to do right in the goods so that god will not make the one. [laughter] harold evans is 14 year tenure as editor of the sunday times and then for a year as the editor of the daily times of london. he produced a work of really extraordinary high standards. 2001 journalists named him the greatest british newspaper editor of all time. [laughter] he championed the when yesterday's review of the book in the new york times called a crusading style of journalism in which he anticipates afflicted the guilty and champion the innocents. and people of my generation who got interested in national and

international politics very often did so because of the sunday times because of its player, cultural leadership and its investigative zeal. but this is also a transatlantic story, harold evans and his first encounter with americans i read the other day was during the second world war in manchester and his polish ship in 1966 and began a lifelong association. tnt now live here for 30 years. although teenine doesn't remember it we were her contemporaries at oxford and she has the knack of stopping the traffic there just as she's done here since. here's american career took him to u.s. news and world report to come another top publication to random house and from publishing to writing including the award winning american century appear in very you harry and tina are american citizens and awfully that against you. [laughter]

but two retain mr. nearly close links with the uk. this embassy and i wish the book every success, it's a remarkable story so ladies and gentlemen will come mr. harold evans. [applause] >> i can't be elevated so i have to lower this. and thank you so much for those excellent words. it is always good to come back to britain which is where we are. the british territory you understand. [laughter] and not to go to the formality of proving who i am which is what happens, of course, when you go through any security. in this -- he is so lucky because this is true. the juliet lived very close to been and he's lucky because we never matched. [laughter] because who knows, tina, what

would have happened if i met the gorgeous julia became as scientists and like me ended up in the united states. tonight really should be a celebration, not of me frankly, but of reporting. when that's what my book is about. it's about what newspapers can achieve a, not what an editor can achieve. but of what the reporters on the ground can achieve. that's what i am particularly honored tonight to have been bradley here who represents journalism at its best in many other excellent reporters here. and also glad, of course, that we're here with a synthesis i think of remarkable quality about what's best going on at the moment. biggest you people apart from me to read every newspaper every day.

and so the week per rise that synthesis and guidance so celebrating reporting means and to a which all of us know reporting is, as was said cannon news is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress. [laughter] everything else is advertising. [laughter] and, in fact, of course, those of you know the truth of that. but i would like to say one of the reasons when i was writing this book wasn't -- i did get nostalgic and what i've written when especially in these times when people are questioning print. and what they might do. when i was able to achieve not by me but by these reporter so when we were campaigning to these victims who were born without arms and very often without arms and legs on

government approved prescription swinging and the we won the great battle against the trunk companies and still by the way to citizenship and so i don't know that's going to make life difficult for me now, but we are able to do that because the reporters in question actually studied the chemistry of the drug and i remember going along to the offices of the inside repressing the molecular structure and frankly nobody had done it. nobody looked at how the disaster occurred. ralph nader was a tremendous support in that campaign and a lot of people supported in all these campaigns. the dc-10 disaster, the largest air crash in the world at the time. congress began to investigate so the truth about what happened to treat a terrible disaster was

left to the press and i'm proud of what the reporters on that particular story did. or take another one i am sure he never knew -- exposing the great cover up and the damage he did in in the lives that he lost it was extremely tricky. i want to say again that was a question of reporting. now, slate reporting is very important and investigative journalism is only an aspect of it but it's difficult former and in the sunday times we found a team must agree to do it. one of the things i'm proud that the paper achieved was to bring some kind of understanding that of the history in the currencies of what was happening in northern ireland and john berry who is here tonight and the head of the inside team, and his team working to some of the most

pitiful circumstances ever produced a fantastic book and report called perspective. when i was prosecuted by the i.r.a. of which i was for suggesting some of the members for stealing money, i had to go to belfast and it must unfortunately the guys that are escorting me took a wrong turn and they said get down you are in danger. so i got down but it reminded me of what the reporters on the spot for doing every day. so that's what we're here to celebrate tonight. just the time and i've seen it happen more and more when a really good reporting is being squeezed out of existence, often by meatheads i call them, people would think newspapers are great to make money as it was is intending lager, and just know that a reporter or a newspaper would do it so i think we have

to keep reminding everybody that journalism is not dead. the delivery vehicle would change and so it must change, so that's very important and have always been very grateful that my publishers gave me this time to try and set out what a newspaper can do. not just the sunday times, but could newspapers into everywhere. we have here tonight is very distinguished indian editor who i knew in the 1960's and he went back to bankroll and created a most wonderful publishing empire, television and investigation who so it was central to the conflict of indian democracy, it is the press. the when we adjourned tonight let's drink to reporting and thank you very much, indeed, for all of you for coming tonight. [applause] thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> this was a portion of the booktv program. you can do the entire program and many other booktv programs online. q2 booktv.org. type the name of the author were booked into the search area and the upper left-hand corner of the page. select the watch link. now you can view the entire program. he might also explore the recently on booktv box with a featured video box to find a recent and future programs. >> we're here at the sea pak conference talking with bob who has written a book about the supreme court called the dirty dozen. attitude started on this project? >> mccaul author and i became convinced that the supreme court has effectively amended the constitution except has of quality and a process as outlined in a constitution which requires congress to propose

amendments and then the state to ratify the amendments and instead the court through a series of decisions which have had destructive implications as through the back door rewritten the constitution and made into something it was not intended to be. >> wish to say is the most egregious example of this? >> we outlined 12 cases, they're all pretty egregious. it's hard to figure on one is more than the others. i guess if i have my vote it would be the 1942 case wicker the silber which was the regulation of interstate commerce and it held that mr. kilborn who operated it form within one state and did not engage in commerce and all the breeds and eight weeks, not to bind the wheat and growing instead and now and by eating everything he grew in not selling its non-binding not selling men's he had an impact on the supply and demand of weeds and interstate market and therefore the federal government could step in.

that opened up with the flood gates through which the regulatory states is ready to pour and regulate anything and everything under the rubric in the commerce clause. >> has there been any kind of have come from your writing this book or a reaction that you didn't expect? >> there have been very positive developments. one which is one of the cases in the book united states vs. miller which is about the second amendment, the u.s. supreme court in june of 2008 after the book was written changed the entire jurisprudence of the second amendment and held that the washington dc gun ban was unconstitutional and that, indeed, the second amendment secures individual right to keep and bear arms within the home for purposes of self-defense even if not related to service in the militia. the second major development occurred a couple weeks ago. the u.s. supreme court in a case called citizens united versus

fcc has overturned two very draconian petitions in the mccain feingold campaign reform act. that is a major step forward, i can claim that the book was responsible for this to possible of the elements but i hope at least we provided some of the intellectual ambition. >> did you analyze the cases only where did you also talk to judges and lawyers and writing the book? >> well, i have over the years talk to many judges and many lawyers so we did analyze the cases. by regional selection was in part based upon a poll that we took about 75 other legal scholars including judges and lawyers and asked them what they thought were the dozen or so worst supreme court cases since the new deal. the words down by their determination that we were at least guided by their determination. >> you have a project you're working on? >> i have lots of projects but they do not include another book

by projects include running the board of directors at the cato institute and serving on another board including the institute for justice and the george mason law school and the federalist society. these take a good bit of time as does public speaking and writing much shorter pieces, opposite articles for magazines and la reviews. >> grassley whether you're currently reading? >> and for a leading the biography of ayn-rand call the goddess of the markets and is quite a good book. i am enthusiastic reader of the ayn-rand writings and this is one more in the series, and finding a very enjoyable. >> thank you very much for your time. >> amity shlaes de syndicated columnist for bloomberg and dean baker, co-director of center for economic policy research discuss the current economic situation. this hourlong program whi