distinguished than i am. i've recently become an adjunct professor at the john marshall law school in atlanta and teach one course a week in constitutional law, but john u-- john yoo has appeared in this form. john is a friend of mine. we disagree on many issues and we actually debate on a fairly regular basis, but i know that individuals among us might agree or disagree with john. it is always a good debate with john because he is, like so many of probably all of the folks you have visiting, very civil but knowledgeable about the issues about which he spoke and i will be touching on a couple of the same issues. perhaps john yoo spoke about presidential power. both from a historical standpoint as well as the

historical standpoint. constitutional issues this evening. let me begin with a reference to a movie. i don't have time to make, to go out to the movies an awful lot that my wife and i went to a movie recently and it was actually a fairly good movie. it came to mind as i was giving some thought at john's-- george's instruction common excuse me, george's instruction for preparing for tonight or go the movie is called the book of eli. i don't know whether any of you all have seen it or go it is at least in atlanta currently out in the theaters, but it is a very interesting movie. the reason i thought of the movie the book of eli is it involves a book of the written word. ..

the subject matter of the book of eli. the movie was not the two dock youments about which i want to center our discussion here this evening but the principle is the same. words have meaning. written words particularly those that are crafted and drafted and rift to -- writ to provide a framework within which our lives of citizens of this great land of ours should operate do have meaning and the documents about which i speak are first and foremost. the constitution of the united states of america including its bill of rights adopted shortly thereafter and the successive

amendments but primarily the amendments incorporated in the bill of rights and the constitution itself as one document. the other that i will refer to this evening that i suspect all of us have at least some passing familiarity with is a collection of pain ergs -- papers that thomas jefferson not one of the authors of these but as one of our founding fathers described a number of times many years later as one of the great bodies of written political thought. in the world. not just in the u.s. but in the world and i speak of the federalist papers and i think frequently about the federalist papers certainly not simply because i teach them and refer to them in my class on constitutional law but because they are so important and so relevant to what goes on in our government today just as they were with regard to things that went on in our government in its very founding days. well over two centuries ago.

and i do lament that so few both my former colleagues as well as those now occupying public office in washington from the highest position namely the president of the united states on down through members of congress and members of the senate and members of the administration and predecessor administrations. this has nothing do with what letter of the alphabet follows one's name. whether it's an r or a d an l or an i. it has everything to do with people in washington in high public office dealing with matters of life-and-death and very survival of our nation. its economy and its social fabric having no more interest in or familiarity with the constitution of the united states. or the federalist papers which add so much to the substance the meat of the words that are in that relatively short document known as the constitution than they do with any other

book that might be in a library. and it's a real shame. i do lament the fact that when we see discussions that pass loosely for a debate in washington or we see presidential debates and i use the word in quotes every four years they are no more like a debate than watching two school kids argue about something on a playground. but when we see these and we see even something which should be as profound and monumental and important as a "state of the union" address by a president deteriorate into nothing than successive repetitive sound bites interrupted by unthinking applause and members of congress bouncing up and down like jumping jacks. you yearn for, at least i yearn for the days back when we had some true substantive discourse some real debates over these issues and we

suffer i think as a nation and as individuals when that is missing. now the constitution itself is relatively short document. the copy that i carry in my folder over there is published by a group out of washington called the cato institutes. there are of course many other number of versions out there but the cato version the constitution itself occupies about 20 pages and about three pages for the bill of rights and ant another dozen or so pages for the remainder of the amendments that have been adopted since the constitution itself was adopted. so a total of about three dozen pages. and yet it is the most profound, most positive framework within which to organize a society and a government and the relationship between the people and the government, between the dpof earned and the government that has ever wherein been written.

as i mentioned i was over in europe last week in the u.k. and had an opportunity during the program that i was involved with over there to leaf through a document that had been given to me and it is the european version of our constitution the thing is and i don't recall exactly but several hundred pages long. and i daresay that those who allow themselves or permit themselves to be governed by a document with that sort of gratuitous detail in it trying to catalog everything that its drafters could think of that might come before the european gov everyoning body -- governing body will be doomed to however many years they con sent to serve under such a document will be doomed to arguing over what those words mean. now, with our constitution certainly we have and thankfully we have had over the years

some outstanding debates both in the legal arena in decisions rendered by our supreme court and other so-called article three or federal courts as well as certainly debates over momentous legislation over the course of our history not much of that goes on nowadays but for those of us as students of history and public policy over the course of our nation's history we're well familiar with these debates and those of us who are students of law very familiar of course with the momentous decisions that have been had. but where you have and i was struck by this for example in the most recent presidential address to the congress when president obama delivered his "state of the union address" just a few short weeks ago and he took the not unheard of but the unusual step of referring to a specific supreme court decision during his "state of the

union". now there's nothing wrong with that. i'd be delight forward president to actually be aware of a supreme court decision if in fact that chief executive that president did not deliberately and very clearly mischaracterize for political reasons to score political points mischaracterize the position. the opinion of the supreme court to which he referred the case at hand was a case involving our federal campaign laws. the case was called citizens united. versus the federal election commission. the citizens united is an organization in washington, d.c. a conservative orient of public interest organization and the case that had resulted in this very important supreme court decision of which president obama referred during his "state of the union address" basically had found

constitutional defects and flaws in some provisions of the campaign finance law that senator mccain had championed and the law which bears his name the mccain-feingold federal bipartisan campaign reform act. the president deliberately mischaracterized the decision was not held accountable for doing so as a matter of fact was applauded by members of his party there present in the house chamber listening to the "state of the union" and what happened after that was particularly distressing because you had sitting directly in front of the president much as you all are here in the house chamber as the president was delivering his "state of the union address" you had seated there i forget whether it was all or most of the supreme court justices the justices of the united states supreme court and the president

mischaracterized this citizens united case as opening the floodgates to campaign, corporations buying elections and giving money to candidates the case of course had nothing to do with donations by corporations. it had simply to do with whether or not corporations should continue to enjoy as they have pursuant to laws in this country and cases in this country for many, many decades. first amendment rights to express their views and to pay money for advertising it had nothing to do with corporations contributing directly to candidates. that remains against the federal law. but the president saw an opportunity to throw out a sound bite there to beat up on corporations and to do it directly as the supreme court justices were sitting there in front of them i thought was in bad taste. made worse by what happened next and that is what appeared to be all the democratic members of the

senate and the house that were there. stood and they didn't year but through their clapping basically that's what they were doing. looking at and clapping at the supreme court justices. mimicking the president's criticism of them. this tells us several things. one that those who occupy high office in our land continue to have little regard for the accuracy or the truth of cases that come out of the highest court in the land. supreme court. they have little understanding of the issues involved and even less concern for using those decisions in ways that are productive as opposed to simply storeing a temporary political advantage through throwing out a court decision as a sound bite. and members of the congress those who stood and applaud basically figuratively yearing the supreme court as

the justices were sitting there have sim larry -- similarly displayed very little regard for the propriety of the occasion and certainly the importance and professionalism whether one agreece or disagrees with the court decision is not the point. one needs to do so based on facts not on mischaracterization and to do so in a civil and appropriate way. yet h is about as -- yet this is about as close as we come in washington these days to anything that even approaches at least a reference to or a discussion of important substantive issues. we see precious little of that i do applaud the president and i hope that he continues for example to do what he did. i think it was a few days after that. i don't recall the sequence of events but the president went to the republican caucus beginning of each session of the congress the

democrats go off and have their caucus somewhere for a weekend and the republicans do the same. there was an effort long, long ago in a different era entirely when i served in the congress where there was an effort for about three sessions to have bipartisan retreats. revolutionary idea at the time unfortunately neither the leadership of the republican or the democratic parties continued the effort had they done so i think that we would have at least a more civil less rank rouse and slightly more substantive series of policy debates in washington than we've had since. but unfortunately that series of bipartisan retreats did not take hold back in the late 1990s and we now reverted to the democrats going off and doing their caucus at the beginning of each session of the congress. the republicans go off and do theirs and there is absolutely no cross pollen

nation. there's no effort to talk these issues outside of the halls of the congress or the committee meetings which do not lend themselves to substantive debate and continual debait but the -- debate but the president didding is something highly unusual and i commend him for it. i think after the "state of the union" but might have been right before. he went to the republican retreat and actually spoke to and with and took questions from the republicans. now, both sides did an awful lot of posturing. unfortunately the whole program was televised. it probably would have been a little better if they had both the televised part and a portion of the program that was not publicized so that there was some effort to actually engage in debate as opposed to making -- creating sound bites for the camera but if in fact the president continues that

effort and is serious about it i think it will help immensely but he didn't can't do it himself. going to take an awful lot of work and conscious effort to break the part san ship that we have in washington that is born of and facilitated by what we in this country have allowed to become a monopoly two party system. that centers around one party being in charge. one party not being in charge one party controlling the leaveers of power and one party not controlling anything except whatever time they can rest from what is now the ash or thes of public debate that is the cable network. whatever time they can rest from that. i am afraid that as long as we continue down the path of providing two parties and two parties only clothed with the aura of legitimacy that are enabled by a series of campaign laws and laws at

the states that frees out come petition. that frees out -- freezes out pen debate. we see this every four years in the fact that the so-called presidential and vice presidential debates, not debatess but that's what they call them. deal with two parties and two parties only. unless as we saw the last i guess about 18 years ago. when ross perot was allowed to participate in the 1992 presidential debate. he was not allowed to participate but for the fact that the republican campaign of president, then president bush seeking reelection decided in a very ill-advised political decision decided that if they had ross perot as part of the debated in 1992 as against then candidate bill clinton that it would help mr. bush. as it turned out it didn't.

it was a bad calculation on their part but had not the bush campaign insisted that mr. perot be admitted to the debate. he would not have been. and since then we have not had either of the two major party monopoly party candidates or campaigns that have felt sufficiently tlestened or -- threatened or se sig enough can't advantage to see something other societies do as a matter of course and that is to believe that more ideas, more voices particularly in a campaign for the highest off the land is better rather than fewer and more limited voices and we have not had any openness whatsoever. and consequently we get what we get. we get for example six hours of debates in the last presidential campaign in which the following word was mentioned by my count one time. the word was the constitution. it was mentioned one time in passing. i think by senator biden in

the vice presidential debate there. is no discussion in these campaigns or in these so-called debates of the constitution of such things as the federalist papers. now i grants you there are many more exciting tree tease out there and books out there and pamphlets out there than the federalist papers and i'm not saying those out to provide the only vehicle through which these issues are discussed but returning to them understanding them. simply being familiar with them. being familiar with the tremendous eloquence of a james madison when he says if men were angels no government would be necessary if angels were to govern men neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. but of course as he also realized men are not angels. we are not governed by angels and he admonished us in the very next paragraph, the very next sentence as a matter of fact it is as much a job of government to

provide a governing framework within which freedom can operate among the citizenry as it is to govern the govern. the government exists to keep the government within bounds and to make sure that it abides by what the constitution requires of the president obama yet is very often ignored and that is to make sure that the laws be faithfully executed. let me conclude with a reference to my good friend john. when john and i debated last which was about a week and a half ago in chicago and he may have touched on this issue when he appeared before you all i think about a month ago george he talks about the importance for presidents in his view to serve as a strong commander-in-chief to not be anchored to old traditions and to the views of the day.

to john and a paraphrase certainly. those presidents that he believes are the best and the greatest among our history are those that took that one clause in the constitution that the president serves as commander in chief and pushed it as far and as many directions as possible. that is great and bold leadership. i disagree. what i would like to see us gage our presidents by is not how great a commander-in-chief they can be that is an important job of the president but not the most important one. the most important job of that president is the fact that it is their explicit responsibility to see that the laws be faithfully executed. and that means as to them as well. so that is the hallmark the criteria i use when i look across the great history of our land and the presidents the men that have occupyed that office and other offices and it leaves me

wanting. because we don't see that anymore. we see it even references to it so infrequently so i appreciate george and the membership of the commonwealth club of california inviting me back once again to discuss these issues. i just wish there were commonwealth clubs of california all across this country and cities and communities large and small so these issues did receive the conscious treatment and debate that they do here. it helps our country immensely. what are doing is in great tradition of our founding fathers and i appreciate as a citizen of george i appreciate what you all do here and i appreciate the opportunity to once again be with you this evening. thank you. [applause] >> our thanks to bob barr former u.s. congressman and former libertarian party candidate for president.

it's now time for our audience question period and mr. barr we have quite a number of questions as you can see so we're going try to get to a good smattering of them. they break down into several categories. questions about the federalists. questions about political issues in general and questions about yourself. so we'll try to cover a few of everything. let me start with a question about the federalists. this is a question that asks are politicians just simply much more ignorant today than they used to be? is that why they can't concentrate on the writings of the federalists and harkin back to what was originally intended? >> that's certainly part of it. i have to tell you i can -- i served on three different committees when i was in the congress the judiciary the government reform and the financial services. the judiciary committee and i think our counterpart over on the senate side the same would hold we did have in fact very regular very good

debates and the members of the judiciary committee with very, very few exceptions on both sides of the aisle so to speak were familiar with the constitution. they did read the laws and understand what we were debating. but that is -- that membership is the exception rather than the rule for the congress as a whole. there is very, very little interest in realliensing the -- really understanding the constitution much less the federalist papers. many pieces of legislation particularly those that are fairly lengthy but not only that are lengthy most pieces of legislation are never read by members of the house or the senate and i'm not saying that before a member votes on every piece of legislation that they have to read every word. they'd be doing nothing up there except reading but they ought to at least be familiar with it. for hef on's sakes that's why you have a staff up there. use the staff to actually read, brief you sit down with you and go over this

stuff. wouldn't take any more time than it takes to attend a couple of receptions generally. but its ignorance, its lack of understanding of the history the meaning of the constitution the meaning of our government and also i think george has to do with the way technology drives so much of our debates not just our debates in the congress we see it as i say what's come to be to me what has come to me to be a completely worthless exercise and that is sitting through a state of the union address. i hated the thought of going there because there's no substance. just one sound bite after a sound bite after a sound bite interrupted by people bouncing up and down with unthinking applause. but the media feeds into that as well. back in the days some of you all here may remember as i do when the evening news was a half hour. on abc, nbc or cbs and that

was the benefit to that to having those short focused news programs was they were focused. the networks and the producers for those programs had to sift through a huge amount of information and one can disagree certainly with the particular stories they might have selected but generally speak they prioritized those thangss were important and they articulated them with 24/7 programming now you don't have that prioritization. you have 24/7 babbling. whatever might be the, you know somebody chasing the americans' appetite for watching police cars chase pick-up trucks through pomona or through atlanta is utterly insatiable yet every time there's one of these things we have it on on the news over and over and over again.

there's no real debate or understanding or prioritization of what is important or not. the media 24/7 cable feeds into that and we see that reflected also in the congress and a lot of it has to do with the structure of our system where one party is in absolute control. one party isn't and everything centers around party not ideas. >> here's a question that follows up on your comment about the media asking whether the media not only exhibit sound bites but in effect reduces people's attention span and reduce their desire for knowledge of the depth that you're speaking about. >> it strikes me every time and i have to admit i watch very little cable anymore. i get most of what i digest every day in terms of news from calling articles and pulling articles off the internet from the news services and the internet versions of the newspapers and so forth but all you

have to do is just watch one of these so-called news programs and it's like so many even of the magazines used to be could pick up "time" magazine and would actually read one or two columns. now it is hard to find the substance there because there is five or six or ten different things on every page and it's the same electronically with the news. you can't just have the news there. you have to have the news and then you have to have that ticker across the bottom and then you have to have a banner over on one side talking about something different. and some guy advertising for some upcoming csi program or what not. none of it lends itself to actually focusing on substance. it's all about how many bells and whistles can you throw at people and i really worry about the young people in future generations. it is all about the technology and the sound and the color not the substance.

>> you're listening to the commonwealth california radio program and our guest today is bob barr former congressman and former libertarian party candidate for president who is discussing his concerns about the growth of federal government and what he says are the related threats to individual liberties. let's talk a little bit about the current state and the current climate in the congress and in the government. there are words every minute we're hearing the word filibuster being thrown out. you have evan bayh who just announced his retirement from what many considered a very promising political career saying that he felt government was broken and there was no hope. are you getting to the point where you yourself see very little hope? >> i -- one of the most difficult things i have to do george every day when i wake up is to remind myself there is hope. i think