this, that's what you said good if you delegate too much to improve your current, they will prevent and humid vision that dominant democracies and this people make. ..

>> because many of those implementations require technical law of knowledge. you will discover that in a democracy, people cannot get their way. if congress passes a law that says before a general can take the hill, he has to consult with us about whether it is the right thing to do to take this hill rather than that, the result will be we will lose the war. and if congress tells the epa that we think you should have level 4267bsox in the tail pipe up there, i will predict we will lose the war for the environment. because to get the individual what he wants in democracy, you must have a degree of delegation to experts because that is the nature of modern society. so now we have two voices, and which one prevails?

and as usual, since i'm an artistic, i think it all depends on what the situation is. [laughter] >> but i am pretty sure that the people who inevitably will have to make the decision on how you balance those two things are our elected representatives who will be responsible to the people. that's how i see the answer to your question working out. >> one last question. >> thank you. thank you. my name is fred fisher. i come from a country that has a constitutional court and many elements have been incorporated from the united states, for example, descenting opinion. we didn't have that before. we are very grateful. [laughter] >> my question, sir, is on debated on the fascinating lecture of yours is the

refreshing openness of the court decisions of other democratic parties. of course, is that shared by critical public in this country? is it shared -- is the public open to what happens in other countries? if i may with your indulgence, quote the house majority leader in 2005 quoted in "news week" we have justice kennedy writing on international law not the constitution of the united states. this just outrages me. i think the same judge said recently the punishment in this country are eight times harsher than in europe. so my question is: take the health care reform, you know, the health care reform, there have been so many critical arguments about socialism in europe that we are kind of intrigued that the united states is so convinced that what they are doing does not reflect any

openness as how other countries do it. that's just one example. thank you. >> well, what you said is very interesting. because i can tell you one thing which will not satisfy you. what you are discussing is political marts. it is how certain decisions made, including our courts, are translated through the press into the public mind and how they reaction. and one of the reasons that hamilton, he writes in the federalist '70, whatever it is. he write this is, he said why should we give a supreme court the power to set aside a law of congress as constitutional? he said the reason is this, if we do not give someone this power, the limits that we've written into the constitution will become meaningless. but if we give it to the president, the president will

become a title. because he will have the power to ratify whenever he does. and if we give it to congress, what will happen? well, congress is a politically respondive branch. they will pass the law that the public wants, and they are very unlikely to say the law they just passed which the public wants is contrary to the constitution. so we have no choice. we have to give it to these obscure places. there's a risk in that. but that's an san advantage. the risk is they won't do their job. the advantage is they don't have much power. they don't have the power of the press. and they have to convince people through their reasons. and that they job is they could make terrible mistakes. they certainly don't have special knowledge. they certainly really don't have some kind of special gift, but

we're giving them a job. and they being judges and being somewhat independent or job for life or so forth, maybe they'll do it. and what means to me is i don't get into those questions. i'm not really in any case concerned with whether it's popular or not popular. i try to do the job. and the betting, if i do the job, the people who have the least popular protecting, the least popular people in the united states who are entitled to a right under our constitution will get it. now you have the answer as to why i can't give you an answer. [laughter] [applause] [applause]

[applause] >> if we could ask everybody to remain seated under justice breyer and the dean can exist? if we could just remain seated. thank you. [silence] [silence] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> host: live later this afternoon, a discussion on conservatism and what free market systems must do to survive in today's global economy. from the american enterprise institute, live coverage at 5:30 eastern on c-span. >> if you have a process where it takes years to get an answer

and your wogged down in the courts, which is what is threatening our industry right now, that's not a good answer for anybody. it doesn't make the agency effective. >> verizon vice president for policy and former congressman tom tauke on calling for the government to take a fresh look on communicators policy. tonight on the communicators, on c-span2. >> i know what the challenge is, and we're in a unique position to go to war. what we need is policymakers in washington is to develop a road map so we can get it done. >> something about energy policy that you'd like to talk about on your blog. at the new c-span video library you can search it, watch it, clip it, and share it. over 160,000 hours of video. from yesterday or 10 years ago, every c-span program since 1987. c-span's video library. cable's latest gift to america. >> this year studentcam

competition asked middle and high school students to create a video dealing with one the country's greatest strength or the challenge. here's one of the third place winners. >> just from the time this video have been playing, two people have already died from hunger. although world hunger is very important issue, i'm going to focus about one country. a country where 49 million people are struggling with hunger. but only 26.5 million get aid for it. a country where the number of people struggling with hunger has increased by 13 million people over the past year. and the country where one out of every eight people are struggling with hunger. this is the country that we live

in. >> there's no excuse for the staggering number of hungry americans. last year 49 million people were in danger of going hungry. more than 4 million children didn't get enough to eat. >> the number of people seeking emergency food assistance in new york city is up 20.9% over last year. >> help the grow growing number of people who don't have enough to eat. >> increased by 17% in the past year. >> the numbers so high it's almost hard to believe. there are now 36 million americans on food stamps. >> every month it's more and more people. last month was our record. we had over 500 familied helped out in a month. we've never done that. it's just so many people. >> the cause of this is the economy. since 2007, unemployment rates have nearly doubled. and although the change in people receiving food stamps a not quite as drastic, still

increased by 33%. in fact, the 2% of unemployment rate and the percent of people receiving food stamps are nearly identical. >> the economy suffers when people are unemployed, when they are finding it difficult to make ends meet because they don't have enough resource. working several part-time jobs, can't get a full-time job. they are spending money on health care which they could be spending money on food. all of these things combined to make it more difficult for american families. >> one comment that the only federal hunger aid program is the food stamps. the u.s. department of agriculture or the usda also coordinates many other programs. most the prominent is school lunch, school breakfast, and summer feeding program. which focused on providing free or discounted lunches for school

children during the school year and during the summer. however, other programs provide services such as providing new mothers or expecting mothers with snacks and meals. making sure seniors get the food they need, and making sure kids can eat healthy. all of them focus on eating and eating right. other people have disagreements with these federal programs and think they should be abolished. one disagreement some people have the use of taxpayer money for something most people don't use. they should choose to delay it to a charity or organization. not be forced to do it. another complaint by the think-tank cato institute that the government laws contradict each other. one law makes sure food prices stay high to make sure farmers can make a profit. then we need another program so

poor people with afford the high-price food. the solution, according to cato, would be to end both laws and program, and help make food more affordable. another complaint about these programs is that it's too easy to commit fraud. critics claim that 4.5% of food stamps were acquired in fraudulence. >> the hardest part for many of the individuals is comprehending and understanding the application process. which is why when we became a site, i was adamant that we needed to have a qualified person in that access site to be able to help each individual and family apply for those services. you'll be made at how many people apply and are rejected because they didn't answer the

question right or didn't put a check in the box. >> they are living large off of, you know, off of the government subsidies. and you know, she may get something like $25, $30 a month in food stamps. can you survive on $30 over a month's time? >> it would be great if they had something available for kids that they didn't have to fill out the forms, they didn't have to be embarrassed and they could get something for lunch if they need it. >> although federal programs will always have decent funding, private charities are struggling to get donations. a recent study shows that 80% of charities are feeling financial stress. smaller charities are being hurt the most. 70% of charities are seeing less than $1 million a year. say their financial situation has worsened since march of 2009. as opposed to less than half of

larger organization. that is not saying that larger charities are not being hurt. feeding america, a nation's largest domestic hunger relief charity is experiencing a lot of stress. 99% of their food banks have reported a search and demand for their services. the increase in use is 30%. but some food banks have experienced increases of over 100%. vicky, the feeding america ceo says the people are traveling farther and waiting longer to receive their services. unfortunately, more than half of their food banks have had to turn people away because they were low on supplies. >> we've never had so many. >> there are many ways to address this problem. the budget for the federal food stamp program was $37.7 billion in '08.

up by 13% from '07. billions of dollars were added from the 2009 economic stimulus package. but even this is not enough. it'll take more money and newer ideas to really take a hit on hunger in america. states should give grants to private food banks to reach more people with this movement. however, common solutions are not the only ones. the great way to get lots of food for cheap prices is to join a community garden. which is where a community of people garden crops like lettuce. the crops are given to the members every week. if states were to give grants for garden, cheap produce would become easily accessible. food networks, or food ops buy food in bulk and share. like share in florida.

if they were to encourage and possibly give money to them, many people could save money on their groceries. >> and no child should have so little to eat in a nation that has so much. >> it is sad that in america that anybody would feel they need to go hungry. because we're one the richest states in the world. >> everybody should eat in a very healthy society. >> we have responsibility to help others. >> to see all the winning entries in this year's studentcam competition visit studentcam.org. >> next a discussion on u.s. involvement in iraq and afghanistan. we'll hear from h.r. mcmaster and retired general john keane. this is part of the symposium hosted by the national

constitution center. it runs an hour and 50 minutes. >> good evening. and welcome. i'm david ice -- eisner, i'm the president of the national constitution center. it is our distinct honor to host the fourth annual peter jennings project for the journalist in the constitution. it's named for a man who prior to his passing in 2005 had made it his mission to bring constitutional conversation to his viewers and readers. and moreover he did it in such a say that was with his enthusiasm for what he felt for the historic human achievement represented by the u.s. constitution. it is to that unfinanced mission that the peter jennings project for journalist and the constitution is dedicated.

our journalist, mid career journalist come from 19 states and 9 countries. the jennings fellows in the audience, will you all wave? the jennings fellows in the audience represent a diverse group of media professionals. they are all here, and have given us this weekend to engage the constitutional issues. they are exploring the principals and the ideas that are expressed in our nation's most cherished document. as journalist, they are serving a unique -- they are supplying a unique service. and whether directly covering the struggles of power in and among our blanches of government were or if they are reporting on business, education, health, art, culture, or any other area where constitutional issues come into play. and strengthening their ability to report on constitutional

issues, their striving to provide all americans with what thomas jefferson called avenues of truth. so that all of us -- all americans, can fulfill our potential as citizens. on behalf of the center, i want to thank all of our jennings fellows and all of participants for honoring peter's legacy. i also want to thank todd brewster, who you will be hearing from in a minute. and casey jennings, a close advisor and great friend to the center. let me also extent a special thank you to the annberg foundation and knight foundation of both's support who is allowing us to bring you the peter jennings project and this forum tonight. and to our distinguished guest

here tonight, i want to offer a thank you for making this what promises to be a fascinating conversation. tonight's timely program, the constitution and the long war, will consider whether the u.s. can maintain the long fought constitutions prized balance of power. where a war is prolonged, and we'll consider whether the executive must have expanded powers to act without significant participation by congress. todd brewster will introduce the program. in addition to his work with the jennings project, he's the director of the west pointe center for oral history which is our copresentor this evening. he was a close friend of peter jennings. todd is a veteran journalist who for more than 20 years covered national and international

conflicts, working with "time" and abc news. he's coauthor of the best selling books of the century "insert to america." todd has taught constitutional law as a visiting profession at west wesleyan, he is a knight fellow. please welcome me in welcoming todd brewster. [applause] >> thank you, david. welcome everybody to our main event for the peter jennings project. it's a joy to be addressing corral, introducing this main event, con received around west

pointe. you also hear the cause of the famous victim war is politics by other means. where should the line properly fall between civil and military affairs? the framers negotiated this path with a delicate power. they give power to congress to provide and maintain a navy, but the army must be reappropriated every two years. so fearful the standing army could be an agent of tyranny. under the administration of thomas jefferson, that west pointe was founded in 1802. jefferson, who feared standing armies as much as anyone in his time. if the framers were suspicious that a powerful military would

be blood thirsty, perhaps too quick to right, history hasn't proved them right. abraham lincoln had the generals who had a bad case of the slows, so reluctant to act. in our own time, we know that the decision to invade iraq, the option of an enhanced interrogation techniques and the assistance on going to war with the army we had rather than the army they may have needed was guarded by the civilian leaders often in conflict with the mill's advice. it is army officers who understand perhaps better than anyone else the other familiar praise of war. -- phrase of war. war they know is a dangerous and

unpredictable business. throughout most of american history, the army has remained small, the role, built up during wartime and demobilized quickly after. that is until world war ii. since then, the army has remained large, expensive, and more frequently employed not only because of the american stature of the superpower, but being being the super power has required the permanent war footing from world war ii to the cold war to the war on terrorist. the result has been a president who is always dressed as commander in chief. remarkably james madison anticipated this when he argued that constant apprehension of war has a tendency to render the head too large for the body. today we are in a period of extended conflict with troops deployed in two theaters and

perhaps even more important that the protracted war, 30 years, 40 years, will blanket the first half of the 21st century. how can the constitution tolerate such a thing? what are the implications for civilian control of the military when the military is in a period of engagement? what are the prospects for the balance of power? today we are fortunate to have a panel of extraordinary professionals to help us negotiate through this difficult territory. general h.r. mcmaster commanded the third army calvary regimen in iraq, and was wildly praised in 2004. he has been a military history profession at west pointe, has the phd from north carolina, and has coauthored a book.

he's also a local boy. he grew up here in philadelphia. required army four star general jack keane served in the vietnam war as a paratrooper. he was later deployed in somalia and kosovo. he commanded the 18th air borne division and was army chief of staff. bruce is the author of the "before the next attack: preserving civil lints in an age of terrorism" he criticized stanley mcchrystal for challenging obama last fall was widely circulated. bruce is now at work on the expansion of the presidency in the 21st century. they are all joined tonight by terry moran, coan author of abc news "nightline." the questions for tonight's work

is coframed, in addition, he's also the supreme court correspondent. he has reported extensively on the wars in iraq, afghanistan, and he was white house correspondent during the presidency of bill clinton and george w. bush. let's welcome our guest and get excited for a great evening. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, todd. thank you. it's an honor to be here with all of us and with this remarkable panel. it's a great topic too. a topic of abiding interest really to generations of americans. you never know where it's going to turn up. i was in the taxi over here, told the taxi driver, i'm going to national constitution center. he starts driving, a couple of minutes later, she said,l,