areas for which he's responsible. dennis will ask you first. i'll ask you to wait until we get a microphone to you to identify yourself and to keep your remarks very short. >> thank you very much, mr. minister, for the very upbeat appraisal of the situation. i had two questions, not entirely related. the first, you spoke about the prospects for business, american business in pakistan, investment, ect.. i wonder -- i think that one of the hold ups has been the lack of an investment treaty, and my impression was when this was negotiated or the effort was made and negotiated i think during president bush's visit that the hold up was on the pakistani side, and i wonder if you could fill us in where that

sits today. the second question, another area to evolution. a very, very sweeping change, lots of new responsibilities to the provinces. i'm wondering about the financial side. do the provinces have the basis for paying for these new opportunities or these new functions, and particular, i was wondering about -- i think it's part of the evolution, the pact that the provinces now will have the right to borrow money. thank you. >> yes. i think excellent questions. first of all, i'll share with you my own humble view about the role of these business treaties in promoting investment. my own view, and i could be wrong, is that the role of having a business investment

treaty between two countries and generally promoting investment between two countries is usually not so great. of course, it might provide certain extra safeguards to e leaveuate some -- alleviate some risks of concerns, but we have a thriving, you know, and historically tested achievement of so many u.s. companies that it's not a new terrain where you are going. second, the last discussion we had on this business up vestment -- investment treatly which probably has been a really good exercise for lawyers on both sides is that the u.s. was coming up with the new template for rntion you know, future business investment treaties, and once the template was ready,

then the discussions could restart so this is my understanding over things from last time, but if anybody in the room has more up-to-date information, i think we can all be enlightened by it. the second point about the evolution, it's very important to recognize that the devra evolution is going on both on the administration side and on the resources side, in fact, it's more drastic on the resources side. eighteen ministryies that's now been decided to get rid of this overlap and have excessive government that they should be solely the domain of the prosinces. on the finance side, previously,

we have a divisible pool of the taxes raised, and out of that, previously, 45% used to go to the provinces, and 55% would go to the federation, and now 60% would go to the provinces, and about 40% would go to the center , so this is a very dramatic shift, and as i said, it's about 300-400 extra rupis and this poses another problem on the government because they are responsible for debt servicing of the past, responsible for expenditures, and of course, running civilian p government at the center. on your question whether they can borrow, provinces have always been able to borrow from

international agencies, but that borrowing is done in coordination with the federal government because only they are the sovereign and only they can borrow through an arrangement with the federal government because they are the risk related to the foreign exchange. yes, yes. >> we'll get you in a minute. all the way in the back. i think that's polly, but i can't see because of the lights. >> yes. i do have a question about kerry-lugar-berman, and i was wondering if i understood you to imply that it is not essential for pakistan to have it. can you clarify that? i have another question which is if you feel that

kerry-lugar-berman is still a good idea, where would you from your vantage point particularly like to see those moneys go? what would be from a pakistani perspective the best outcome? >> okay. well, first of all, i believe it's very important for pakistani-u.s. relationship. second, i believe it's very important as a symbol of the u.s. government, and it's congress' commitment to a new democratic government in pakistan, and three, i think that if it is dispersed in a proper way and con figured in a proper way and implemented in a proper way, then it can have far reaching consequences for the

people of pakistan, and, you know, altering some of the misperceptions that are there, but, of course, in the larger skean of things -- scheme of things, one has to see what larger impact of that magnitude can have. in my view, i think, i have sat down with u.s. officials, with the u.s.-aid administer, the representatives of pakistan, and pakistan-afghanistan special envoy, holbrooke was a great friend of pakistan and great loss for us, and we determined these five areas which was energy security, food security, infrastructure, development, and the affected areas, private sector growth that includes this sector fund, and social sector,

and i think the amounts were also dedicateed and for the five years and precise amounts to specific projects for the first two years, so i think it's a promising program and no way do i want to appear dismissive of it or not thankful for it. >> okay. down here in the front. >> i'm with the pakistani leader center. i think at a certain point we have to go beyond this statement of we need trade from, you know, market access from the u.s. and pakistan. i mean, as the pakistan american community, we've been working on some of these things, and there has to be recognition that one of the largest exports to the u.s. is textiles. at the same time, there's a

textile industry that's very hyperprotective of any pakistani products. there needs to be cooperation between both of our sides to figure out what specific items we can have those negotiations on and get that market access for. my second question has to do with -- obviously, right now we have this environment coming up where congress is looking to pass some of these fta's whether the u.s.-colombia free trade agreement where there's an opportunity for the market aspect to get bundled. the second question is on, you know, when we have things like the u.s. pakistan enterprise fund, questions come in like why do we need this government fund investing in pakistan that's overseen? part of that is you see very smooth pathways for u.s. businesses to go into india which is next door so i think a lot of thattiveyou

know, analyzing is going on when u.s. is looking to base, you know, where are we basing our manufacturing facilities? i know you said you were in a position to describe what pakistan's competitive advantage was, but talk about what things pakistan can do to facilitate u.s. businesses whether that's a communication strategy of how pakistan is a good investment destination or business delegations because there's the convening power of government where we can facilitate these private sector missions to pakistan. if you can talk about those efforts. thank you. >> mr. minister, this is a savvy audience. everybody taking advantage of the microphone to ask two questions. . >> yes. [laughter] >> should i just selectively pick one of them? [laughter] again, i think you are right that in the end what we want or what the two parties may want is

the upper bound that comes from the political constraints so clearly we have to desire and we have to strive for a trade regime that is as open as possible, but at the same time, we have to recognize that we may not succeed or we may nod succeed entirely because of the considerations and that's a fact of life, so you are absolutely correct in saying that you don't want to bang your head against a brick wall, but sometimes if you try hard enough, a way is found, and your other point about i think the regime one to which -- general one which only i can agree to is you have to do many things to achieve the goal of trade promotion whether it's delegations and fairs and so on about fda's ambitious goal, and

although we have talked about it with our colleagues in the u.s., it's a long multiyear process, and here we are trying to at least get the business investment treaty done which in many cases is a prelude to, you know, the thinking of the fda, so i think we have a bit to go there, but that should be the goal for us. >> we are running out of time, i ask people to restrict themselves to one question now. this gentleman and then you. >> i have a question on taxation and collecting of taxes. the pakistan business counsel in its recent national business agenda called on the pakistani government to both diversify its tax space and improve collection. i'd like to hear your views on

how to go about doing this? >> oh, yeah, i think this is a hard topic in afghanistan, and if you see the recent measures the government has taken have been precisely in this direction. first, there has been a massive amount of time spent in political dialogue and not just with politicians and political parties, but also with the stake holders including the pakistan business counsel. i organized a meeting with the president. we spoke to them before, and they worked their voice behind us, so we are grateful to them. those emerging coalition which is saying, look, these are areas we can want ignore anymore, and we need to focus on them. as we said, we already have taken in the last few weeks steps to bring in totally new sectors that were outside the net including textile which was the most powerful sector in

afghanistan, always resisted being taxed, and now they have been taxed. fertilizer, they have been taxed. sports groups, surgical goods, pesticides, tractors, and in addition to that, there's thousands of products that are really in the general sales tax that are in the system. we imposed a new tax on capital gains again, an entirely new sector. income tax, there's discussion on that. i want to say that we are committed to improving the tax system which is in the provincial governments so we are having a dialogue with the provincial governments, and we're trying to raise the bar for them that either you improve the tax collection on agriculture, and we have to think in terms of other mechanisms for -- because nobody can escape taxes.

as i said, we have identified 700,000 people, we are going after them, the chairman of the revenue service is here. he's having dialogue with the ims and others sharing these experiences. we identified 4,000 of the most important pakistani funds, many of them among the most important evading taxes and the tax revenue services came to me saying what can we do? theirself the most parrel -- they're the most powerful. i said prosecute them all, and so that very day cases were registered against all 4,000 of those companies. they evaded 7.6 billion roon pis. the chairman made hundreds of changes in the top leadership, and i think all pressures are

being resisted to try professionalism, avoid political interference, but these things take time. if you are running, you know, a marathon and you can't judge a performance by the first ten steps, we feel like, i think, this is a process that has to take some time. people talk of all these, you know, leaders who transform their countries, but the success was achieved in the 10th or 15th year. i'm not saying we should take that long, but let's at least wait 10 or 15 months after these changes have been made and so on. >> gentleman here. >> i'm consul at that particular time to the world -- consultant to the world bank. mr. minister, congratulations,

fantastic presentation. thank you very much. quick question regarding the energy sector. you spoke about it. it's electricity and the shortages, and can you just say a few words about what the policy is to attract more investment in that sector and the problems of the shortages in electricity. thank you. >> okay. the problem for the shortages is because of multiple reasons; right? we can decompos this into three types of issues. number one is that government has not had the money in the past to pay every single producer of electricity according to their demands, and that has created what is called the circular debt problem, okay? now, a seemless effort has been made, and a new bill created to park the circular debt

separately so this distortion is minimized, okay? this amount of 300 billion was separated, and i think an effort was made to subject transparency into this and minimize this distortion. okay? second is the question of the subsidy regime or the pricing regime. government, i think, has taken extraordinary bold decisions in passing on the previously suppressed prices of electricity to the consumers, and the prices of electricity have been raised more than 60% in the last two years, and even now for a political government, thews pretty heroic, and even now 2% more a month they are being increased. in terms of other efforts of management, all the government companies or like 12 or 13 distribution companies and some other related companies, the board of directors have been

totally changed, and the people who have been put there are all professionals, all people you could recognize and think they are good people, that they will stand up to political interference, that they are knowledgeable, that they will scrutinize the management's performance from one angle. how are they performing in terms of professional conduct and commercial considerations? i think the getting and a lot of old plants, they are being renovated, and as far as investment policies, i think that's a system that has historically enjoyed a great deal of international investment participation and it remains true even now. if any, it's acquired a greater urgency so that areas of alternate energy of hydropower, of, you know, all kind of new

ways of tackling it are available and open and are being, you know, availed of, and we would like to, in my meetings here with the chamber of commerce, with the american business groups, i see a lot of interest within the u.s. and some of the companies who we are talking to so this is an area i think of prime focus for us. >> mr. minister, i think we could go on all day. unfortunately, you have other obligations so i think we have to free you at this time. we wish you very good luck with the balance of your stay herement i think you'll find a keen interest to work with you and your colleagues on what after all many of us believe is a joint enterprise. we wish you good luck. we thank you for joining us today, and we -- if you join me in expressing our appreciation to our minister.

[applause] we are now adjourned. >> thank you mr. hathaway. i have one request of all of you, please come and visit us. [laughter] >> i'm coming in two weeks. >> oh, good. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> secretary of state, hillary clinton was in germany last week for nato meetings in libya. now, an update on that trip an the number of civilian casualties in the region with

assistant secretary of state, phillip gordon. this is about 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, and welcome to the department of state. i'm happy to introduce to you gordon who will talk about the secretary's trip within the last week for the nato. >> thank you, everybody. let me just start out with brief opening comments, and then i look forward to your questions. in berlin on the 14th and 15th of april, secretary clinton participated in a nato add minister that was key to participate with not just libya, but other multilateral issues. this included sessions on libya, afghanistan, where all of the isaf partners joined nato

members. nato's defense posture review, nato's partnerships in general, and specifically the nato russia counsel, the nato georgia commission, and the ukraine commission. it was a busy couple of days. in addition to the nato sessions, the secretary had bilateral meetings with germany, russian foreign minister, ukrainian foreign minister, and british foreign secretary hag, and others and met with afghan foreign minister and several ash participants, and in the course of two days had the opportunity to discuss these issues even not in a formal bilateral session with a number of other allies and partners. on libya, the meeting in berlin of nato allies and contributors to operation unified protecter was an important reaffirmation of some of the key points agreed

to at the contact group meeting the day before for context and background, you all remember that the london meeting on libya on march 29 set up a contact group to meet for the first time for the first time formally to provide broad political guidance on libya and that nato since it has taken over the command and control of the military operation would give executive guidance for the military mission and that is precisely what took place over the two days with the contact group meeting in doha addressing a range of political, economic, humanitarian, diplomatic factors calling clearly for gadhafi to go and making it clear he lost all legitimacy and should leave power so that libyans can shake their own future, and in the

nato was a chance to follow up the next day. nato in berlin met with all 28 although lies plus six partners that joined the libya coalition, and, again, look guard to your questions on this. i want to draw your attention to was the statement that came out of that nato plus partners meeting on libya. i recommend you read it in full, but the most important part of it was when allies agreed very specifically to maintain a high operational tempo against targets and to exert this pressure as long as necessary until the following objectives are achieved. just to sum up the objectives nato agreed to were tax and threats against the tax of civilians must end, regime forces including snipers, mother their and others have to retreat from areas and a number of cities were listed, and

humanitarian assistance needs to be unhippedderred. all 20 of these allies plus six partners agreed in a very specific set of goals and made clear that military operations will continue until those goals are met. the berlin meetings underscore the commitment to enforcement provisions of security resolution 1973. we know we have a lot of work still to do not just on the military side, but the political side including following up on the financial mechanism that was referred to in the chair's statement, and the berlin meetings provide an opportunity for the secretary to discuss this not just in the nato context, but also bilaterally with a number number of the key partners i mentioned. finally, i'll note like i said in the beginning, this was not just about libya. in other areas, the isaf group of nations met and allies

affirmed the transition principles and expressed broad support for intensifying what we call the diplomatic surge towards an afghan-led political settlement. on the nato posture review, they had a dinner in which discussed following on the new strategic concept of the posture review which was designed to help determine the appropriate mix of nuclear convention capabilities for the alliance to meet article v. they agreed to enhancements in engaging partners across the globe. we need partnerships because we're actually undertake a partnership mission as we speak. nato georgia commission met and allies reaffirmed their membership as aspirations and encouraged further reforms in georgia and georgia territory sovereignty. in ukraine, they maintained the

partnership furthering economic reforms and welcomed ukrainian contributions to nato operations, and finally the nato-russia counsel in the bilateral meeting with the foreign minister, the secretary had the opportunity to discuss libya, nato russia missile defense cooperation, and the future of conventional arms control. you can see it was a busy and productive two days. with that, i'll symptom -- stop and i look forward to your questions. >> right here. >> i don't know if you have seen the news today, but news agency report as many as 1,000 people were killed. if they are protecting civilians, do you agree they failed to do so? there's criticism against nato that the structure is very democratic, make it very difficult to make decisions, and that criticism came from the rebels in libya.

is this something that concerns you? have you discussed it with nato members? >> i have not seen that specific news, but i can tell you we are concerned about the situation. it was one of the things that all nato ministers agreed need to be a priority of protecting civilians as well as elsewhere, but i think there was a sense of urgency and great concern about the situation there. i don't agree with the notion that the mission has failed to protect civilians. indeet, i think one can say that the mission has successfully protected the large number of libyans. remember, when this mission started, it was in the context of gadhafi using his troops essentially to march on benghazi with 700,000 people and making threats to what would happen to the civilians of that city and then president obama and nato intervened, we believe we stopped that assault and indeed

protected a number of, a very large number of civilians and are continuing to do so today. we are fully conscious that we face great challenges today and in the time to come, but i think we also firmly and strongly believe this mission has absolutely succeeded in doing that which is protecting a large number of civilians. as for, you know, inefficiencies, it's actually pretty impressive. we will continue to strive to make sure nato is acting as effectively and efficiently as possible, but if you just think oh quickly this operation was conceived of and undertaken and executed, given the diversity of views and interests to get this alliance, to step up and start doing what it has been doing under the circumstances, it's actually a very positive thing. >> [inaudible] >> of course. that's what i said.

we will always be looking how nato can act most efficiently and effectively. that's what this was about and all the meetings have been about. if you think about this going back to secretary clinton's travels, this was discussed at the g8 meeting in paris. within a week, the french had asked countries particularly interested in libya to come back to paris. secretary went back for that. we had the paris meeting following the first paris meeting, and then within another 10 days in london, the british brought all of the concerned countries together again to focus on how we can implement the security counsel resolutions most effectively. at that meeting it was decided to set up a contact group to give the broad political guidance on nato and the military mission, and that meeting took place last month, so you got five international meetings in the space of just a

couple of weeks all designed to do exactly what you say, are we doing everything possible to make sure we are succeeding in implementing the security counsel resolutions and the goal of the united states. ..

there are one different ways of doing it. i mentioned the reference in the contemporary financial mechanism which is something we are working with allies and partners within britain and i think you're planning a particularly important role thinking through how we can get donations to such a mechanism where there is any way to use oil shale there's a way for the resources they need three the number of countries have looked at the asset which we have all said to belong to the libyan people and not to the regime and looking at ways to translate that into support for the libyan people. so all of these are being carefully studied both here in washington and with our partners and the common goal is making sure -- >> being considered right now?

>> i don't have the dollar amount for you, no. >> if i could follow up, clearly, yes you did prevent a kind of run on and prevented the killing of many people, but after that initial kind of saving of lives it does seem as if that although i know the campaign wasn't to officially help the rebels it seems as they have lost ground, because what they are not able to fortify the city's more lives are at stake and it does seem as if the initial nato campaign and the kind of preventing of a large number of casualties has kind of fallen back in some ways and it doesn't seem as if the campaign is as successful as it was in its initial weeks and we are even hearing the rebels are talking about the mean who need

to have them defending again, so how do you regain some of the momentum in terms of preventing the killing of civilians although it might go down to how well the rebels are doing in their home countries? >> welcome a look as we've said protecting civilians is the mission and that certainly includes the civilians what we and our partners and allies have already done is contributed to that. when this mission was stricken because he was fleeing their plans with impunity and striking targets. >> it does seem though as if his campaign had changed do you think that you need to readjust your tactics command do you think the fact the united states isn't actually in, quote on quote lead in terms of its heavy assets do you think that is for the psychological effect of the alliance on the campaign? >> as i've said in response to previous questions we will constantly be assessing how we can make sure we are meeting or goals and acting as efficiently and effectively as possible.

what i started to say is we have already stopped any of his planes from flying command without what we've done so far, you can be sure that qadhafi as elsewhere. we have acknowledged he has changed tactics and we need to be prepared to change with his change of tactics and we will constantly be looking at ways in which we can do so. we are though as we speak continuing to take action including in misrata and various elsewhere. we look to the commanders to tell us, to advise political authorities with the need to do to successfully undertake that mission to vignette senate can i follow on that? you said that we and i am assuming you meant nato is continuing to attack the qadhafi forces. the united states is not involved in that though.

i think we dropped three bombs over the weekend they were all air defense and one radar. is the u.s. during the meetings last week and in the continuing conversation is the u.s. getting any pressure from the allies to get back involved in that mission that involves specifically targeting the ground forces, the tanks and what not? >> the president made clear from the start, the united states made clear from the start that after the initial phase of the campaign which the united states was very much in the lead through its air assets and strikes and suppression of their enemy defenses and submarine cruise missiles the intention of the united states was then to transition through nato and to focus its contributions on our unique capabilities and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and the refueling of which we are continuing to do the bulk of the

mission and that is what we said we were doing in advance and that is eventually what we are doing. and we said that we had confidence nato allies and other partners and others who were contributing had the capability to successfully conduct the rest of the operation and that is what has been going on. we have made clear that again we take a device from the commanders on the ground the united states has other assets in the theater and the commanders on the ground feel they need access to some of those assets they can make that request and the secretary of defense will consider that request. at this time, those commanders haven't asked the united states to do so. >> these reports the other members of the missions may be running short of ammunition ordinance where the missions are not accurate or is that something you are addressing and to what extent can the u.s.

actually help them provide that for e alleviate shortages? >> first why don't want to get too much into the military tactics and strategy which is for others and i would refer you to the pentagon and specifics about the munition and stocks, but my broad comment applies if we get to a situation in which other assets are needed that we don't currently have in the nato commanders ask for them and obviously the united states would consider this request but that's not the situation we're facing now and i would add would not in any way a dominant theme of the discussion in berlin which focuses on all the things i described. >> right here. >> do you share the concern of the libyan who rebels that the turkish government is taking the qadhafi position? and also, when do you expect the turkish government to face turkey? >> you have to ask them on the second part. on the first part, i would note

turkey is one of the 28 allies and partners that signed up to this very specific commitment that i outlined and also the allies that agreed to enforce the no-fly zone and the arms embargo and carry out militarily protecting civilian missions including the the common nato aspect that turkey is part of, and so you know, let's just be clear turkey is a part of this and they are one of the strongest voices for the nato taking over the mission. and so, as a part of the alliance and bilaterally we are in close with of the turkish government about ends and means and turkey is absolutely on board for this common mission of nato. >> talking to both on that would you elaborate is it helpful for

the alliance commitment or it is kind of a distraction? >> and to -- again, i referred to what has come out of doha and berlin and turkey was a key part of all that. what is clear is what all of these governments have signed up to is the basic principle that qadhafi needs to go. any discussion that has been had it's true that a couple of young boys from tripoli have gone off and had discussions and we understand they are hearing the same thing everywhere they've gone including turkey. so i think the line of international community is pretty clear. look at the statement out of doha, where it said that qadhafi had lost all legitimacy and has to leave power and leave the future of libya of to an inclusive political process for the people of libya. the nato government, the 28 allies plus the six partners who

were there including turkey signed up to a statement that strongly endorsed those conclusions and doha and i think the united states was adequately clear as well that qadhafi needs to leave power and i think that's what they hear from us. any envoys or emissaries that have come out of tripoli have heard just that in unison from the international community. and where benghazi has been engaged with a number of countries including ours secateurs clinton has twice met with an important representative of the tnc. mr. jibril spoke to the conference and was in london with a man in the heating semesters and in doha spoke to the foreign ministers and presented his vision that the tnc vision of the future of libya and its received significant support. in turkey has been a part of that process together with many others. >> we have time for about two

more questions. i'm wondering has there been any talk about where qadhafi would go. has that been a matter of discussion between the partners and also about the international ground forces it seems the british haven't ruled it out and even general him brought it up before congress recently. >> well, president obama has ruled out ground force. i think that's pretty clear. >> he's ruled out u.s. troops. >> we can't speak for other countries. >> but the idea itself of ground forces you're not opposed to? >> i didn't say that, nor did i hear any discussion of the forces in doha or berlin. just didn't hear it to talk to others if that's what they're saying. it obviously seen the six we've been clear he has to leave power and president obama said it and as i mentioned he collected leaders and doha in berlin said the same thing.

that is the core point, he needs to go and leave power. of course crossed people's minds and there's a number of options and discussions have been had but there is no formal process under way of identifying a place. we want to focus on the first part of that. >> you would like him to go sooner rather than later. there's nowhere for him to go. >> that's why people are thinking about -- the most important thing is that he leave power as soon as possible, and if going to and getting out of libya would keep him further away from power that would be a good thing. and so people are thinking about places he might go and he should do so sooner rather than later. >> i was wondering if you could give more details. it is almost two years since the nato members.

how do you see the process? how was the member need to to -- nato membership? >> i can tell you ministers reaffirm their commitment to supporting georgia bureau atlantic aspirations and continue to stand by the process of strengthening georgia's candidacy for the institutions, and they are working with george on its international plan and other mechanisms that make georgia a stronger candidate. and they also expressed appreciation for the contribution to the mission which was also represented in berlin. >> thank you very much. your

programs for more information about their many accomplishments. the members of our panel areart, starting at the far and terrence mcnally, and actor producer and filmmaker and general all-around artistic genius, also a veteran of the conference on world affairs. terrence gerer has a focused narrative allowing people to tell their stories in ways that reveal their truths and their foibles. my favorite fact about terrence mcnally, he directed the wonderful film first girls are

easy. next to me, robert kaufman a distinguished scholar now at the heritage foundation and pepperdine university whose many books have considered such subjects as on control and the careers of various united states political figures, generally but not always republican officeholders. he is currently working on a book about how republicans can recapture the white house in 2012 and i am told that remarkably, jack hour does not figure in his scheme at all. [laughter] right down there in the blue shirt is the editor of the washington spectator and has had a long and accomplished revere in both weekly and longform journalism. he co-authored two books with the late and beloved conference on world affairs figure, mali ivins and like professor kaufman he is frequently written about the political careers of republican political figures, although i believe the somewhat

less admiration than professor kaufman generally has for his subjects. [laughter] >> correct. and richard mack in the yellow shirt there has had a long and honored career and law-enforcement, including a sheriff of graham county arizona for a decade. he was plaintiff in al anbar case before the united states supreme court challenging the constitutionality of the brady bill on state sovereignty grounds and he has written several books about his life and work. he is a frequent speaker at tea party events, but he assures me that he understands that this is not so much like one of those. [laughter] we will begin with terrence mcnally. terrence thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you, mimi. i read the bios of the other members of this panel and i've realized that there is no way that i know as much about the subject as they do. subject which i think is important and one about which i

suspect many people are not really clear, a little fuzzy about what are the issues around states rights and what are the problems and what are the circumstances and so on. so i'm going to start off by offering some questions. i would like them to answer if they get the chance in terms of their remarks or afterwards. and first of all i asked myself what i thought when i read the word states rights and i thought of civil rights complex, with states on the side of retaining separation, segregation unequal access in the 60s. the federal government asserting its right to ignore california's medical mare won a lot, even though it demands no interstate commerce. the supreme court stopping florida's presidential recount in 2000 on the claim that irreparable harm would be done by recounting those with differing standards in different counties all those those votes have been counted once already with differing standards in

differing counties. now, i usually feel that we don't gain a lot by labeling things conservatives, liberal, right, left because i don't feel there's enough consistency and i don't feel are there of them still holds to the original definition. i see others described as conservative, who want to interfere intrusively and the private lives of its citizens. i see others described it as progressives or liberals coming to the aid of wall street, much more aggressively and successfully been to that of working families. so it seems to me that what we want in an issue like states rights and so in so many issues is consistency. a basketball or soccer game you want the referees to call it the same way the whole game for both teams and it is my sense that people like states rights or don't like it. i want to maximize our minimize it depending on the outcome that would happen when you take are there position.

so, that is my impression. my big question is how accurate is the impression? question, do regular folks think the question of states rights is important? how much do regular folks really care? i know states rights are important to some people. who are those people and what is it that makes them care about it so much? am i right that most people come most general citizenry are pretty unclear about are there what the constitution says or about what the various arguments actually are? and, if we were going to make the general population more informed, what is important that they know about the origins of states rights or the history or critical decisions or the important questions we face today? finally, can be a rain of states rights be boiled down to a few clear principles and how much agreement is is there on those principles? and a couple of sort of onus

rounds, what is up with the citizens of washington d.c. and the fact that they lack representation? how does that fit into the story about it is not states rights in this case but about right. finally here's my biggest question with regard to states rights. would be all be better off if lincoln had allowed those states who wish to succeed -- secede to do so? klasko was preserving the union a good idea and that may put it into some context. with the american belief in progress half the nation was moving in a moderate direction based on slavery is evil. another set of state said no it is essential to who we are. it is our cultural and economic institution. we want to continue to hold slaves and then lincoln chooses to -- the preservation of the union, 600 people died which is equivalent to 5 million today and you know going and you are not going to persuade the south to change their minds are quite as you are going to dominate and humiliate them and defeat them and although you emancipate the

slaves they don't actually get their freedoms for another 100 years. sharecroppers actually worth less than a claim to his property. and you build up a deep resentment among southern whites, which i yield actually pays off to every election to this day. so what is it worth to preserve the union of that cost? those are my questions. and i want to rp one observation. homage time do i have? >> plenty of time. >> great. about something that is not quite states rights but something that i find very exciting. with fellow named tom lindsay is the co-founder of an organization called community and berman to legal defense funds, and anybody interested in what i have to say check it out. their mission is to build sustainable communities by assisting people in asserting their rights to local self-governance and expand and recognize the rights of people, communities and nature over the rights of corporations.

in 1998 they began to assist communities to draft and pass laws. they have assisted over 100 communities in passing laws that outlaw their rights that corporations claim to have been given by the constitution. this is a great reversal. what comments he learned after years of dealing with environmental regulations was that regulation does not work. regulations are defense. regulations tell an offender how much pollution they can do, how much harm they can do to your community by fracking for natural gas. he said no, you were on their side of the court then. pass a law that says a corporation does not have the right to do that because, and as i think will appeal to some other folks on the panel, the state of pennsylvania constitution says the sovereign in the state of pennsylvania is the people. now it turns out basically if you look at the original

documents in the united states, the same is true. corporations originally work granted their right to exist at all the rights to get in terms of liability protection and so on, but they are granting a corporate charter was at the pleasure of the sovereign. in england that meant the royalty but in the united states that meant the people. and corporations originally were entitled to do a public good whether it was asked gration if you were the east india bay company or the hudson bay company, or to perhaps build a bridge or something else that a simple group of people couldn't afford and yet when that public good was done, their license was over. that is how corporations originally worked. now, lindsay realized that as he started looking into the law come he saw that it was after the civil war that the

corporations realize that if they were really going to make it, they had to actually fight many laws in this country that still held that way. and they did a concerted effort and as we pretty well now they succeeded probably beyond their wildest dreams. with the 1886 finding that corporations were persons. wet lindsay and ceo bf has done is they have said, we are going to set the rules for how our community works, for how the nature and our community. we are going to say it is the people's rights that matter, not the corporations. one question is, won't the corporation just fight these laws and the answer is yes but if you can see what you have done then is you have flipped again. instead of being on defense they are now one defense and as he points to the habla shin movement and points to the women's suffrage movement, it was, you had to actually fight to say a right which you may

have assumed you had you actually had in you actually can not impose but you can bring rights to bear and so the attempt there to do is to do exactly that. what is interesting is, most of these communities are rural communities. they are conservative communities so it is a wonderful melding kind of the american spirit that it is the people and it is the local that matters, but it is finally rising up against corporations and one thing he says which some of the folks on panel may want to speak to is he said you can't fight these things in the state legislatures because the state legislatures have now been overwhelmed by the corporations. the way that money runs elections now, the laws, the rules and things are very often written by corporate lobbyists. so while 100 years ago, 120 years ago the state legislatures were strong enough to have made these rules, now he says you've

got to go down to the community level so this panel is about states rights. it may be that our real hope becomes in lower community rights, and i would think a lot of you know that is a lot of realizing about society that the totally centralized way we do power, the way we do food, the way we do so many things is not working for us and it is the resurgence of the locals that may be our salvation. thank you. [applause] >> thank you terrence. professor kaufman. >> looking at states rights, but like to go back to the actual constitution and the debates over the constitution, particularly james madison for the constitution as our starting point found in the federalist papers. one of the objections of the anti-federalist people who believe that the national

government was too strong was that it obliterated the rights of states. to that, madison responded that our system was unique. it was unique in that it conferred mix sovereignty on some issues to the national government, on other issues to the states. and without that concession, without that concession, the constitution would not have been ratified in the first place. what was the theory underlying states rights? why did the founders and alexis de tocqueville later commenting on the american system, identify the federal nature of our system where much was reserved to the states as part of the genius of that? one reason is that the founders believed that in order to inculcate the skills of self-government, people needed to have responsibilities suitable to the issue. at the local, state and the

national level. so literally, local and state government was considered to be a training ground of national government. the second thing is that the founders also believe that many issues were best decided by those people closest to them, the catholic church calls it the doctrine of subsidiarity. there were a numerator powers reserved to the national government. that is why we have a constitution and not the articles of confederation that gave too many rights to the states. but our founders believed that a large reservoir of states rights was necessary to inculcate the habits of self-government, good government, and also to prevent the excessive centralization of power that had been the bane of republican and democratic governments in history. so the founders believed that states should have major

discretion on many issues, although not on issues they deemed national. that is .1. second that weber, terrence is right. there is a very good case that states rights theoretically should be something we should encourage and on many issues we should because it provides 50 separate laboratories for trying things, education policy, health care, rather than a one-size-fits-all. you can learn from the comparative successes and failures of states if you give them a wide degree of discretion on many domestic issues. the unfortunate thing about states rights, even when it is legitimate and it is legitimate much of the time, is that historic day, the greatest effort in invoking the doctrine of states rights was in folks for the least defensible cost. slavery and also to maintain the

southern system of segregation right up until the 1960s and one of the problems in discussing states rights is how do you delink states rights as a theoretical and practical idea, an idea that has much merit and much constitutional sanction? how do you delink back from the misuse of the principle of states rights that happened during the pre-civil civil war period and the period of segregation after reconstruction that didn't end until the voting rights act of 1964 and the civil rights act of 1965. so there is a paradox at the heart of states rights. there is a third issue. what the founders thought as significant for me, very significant but we also have to take into account that basic ring court particularly since the 1930s has dramatically narrowed the scope of states rights through the aggressive use of the commerce clause.

whether you agree or disagree with that, and i disagree, it will be very hard to move to an originalist notion of states rights even be linked to the sin of slavery based on 75 years of experience with the court dramatically broadening the role of the federal government. on the last issue of whether we should have fought the civil war, i must say that is the easiest one. i say this in humor, terence but in all bizarre ideas i have heard of my five years coming, including one panel on what would jesus cut in the budget -- [laughter] this one takes the case -- cake and usually it is associated with some recalcitrant southerner somewhere in south carolina at the citadel. had lincoln not fought the civil war, the united states would have descended into dante's nine

chamber of help. we would have broken up into three or four separate republics europe would have played us off each other the way they played european states off each other to gain our independence. also it wouldn't would not solve the racial issue because the south would have become an even more deeply apartheid system. there would have been fugitive slaves, causes for war and if you think that eradicating the vestiges of discrimination was difficult, but the civil war, the would have multiplied those difficulties by an exponent had lincoln not fought the civil war. people say kaufman likes war. he defends the bush doctrine. indeed, he does but if you don't want to take my word for it, take the word of james mcpherson at princeton university who wrote the authoritative look on the civil war, battle cry freedom. the civil war was absolutely necessary. lincoln like to fight it and it

is a tragedy that it took 600,000 men and brave people to eradicate the original sin of slavery. states rights is a legitimate principle. the contours of which will be affected via the courts. there are some issues where the federal government has been given primacy from the beginning, such as immigration. there are other issues traditionally, the reserve of the states such as education. there are some issues like the them garment in which the founders couldn't have anticipated that is actually in my view a national rather than a state issue because of the effects of the environmental problems don't scrupulously respect state boundaries. what is an issue that is a public good that is better suited to the national government? what is an issue better suited to state or local government?

that set of issues that the founders pondered in 1787 at the constitutional convention is still with us today and the reasoning of the founders is the best way still for all its problems, to think through the problem of the proper responsibility of the states versus the national government and our great successful social experience called the united states of america. thank you. [applause] >> can i say one thing? i was not advocating the advocating the lincoln position. is raising the question. >> while you are not supposed to raise it. [laughter] >> professor kaufman i think you should just. >> your mind. [laughter] >> i have to overcome this pathological shyness. help me. >> thank you very much for your comments. next lou dubose who i suspect

has been wondering what his beloved hometown of boston would have been like if texas remained the old confederacy and permitted to secede. >> made me find out again. we have a governor who has advocated or come close to advocating secession. but the point i would like to start with a bit of housekeeping. to the guy with the gray hair who is standing in in the one down for me and i said this is where me go my friends, thought he was deep. [laughter] that was the extent of it. it was a senator gregg moment. my stance was wide. anyway, should you see him or should that rumor began romer began to circulate in the conference, he looks very much like someone else, thesis profile. his profile. [laughter] alright, starting from there, i can go nowhere but up.

i am not going to take on terence on this or professor kaufman on the civil war. but, i would like to remark about something that terence said. you know, i spent half my time in washington d.c. and half my time in austin. in a weirdly gerrymandered congressional districts that makes me boat in san antonio. and, in austin i'm represented by lamar smith and in d.c. i'm represented by elinor thornton who does not have it both. i preferred congresswoman horton to lamar smith led it is an oddity that to this day washington d.c. has no congressional representation. i think it is a travesty. i want to indulge you for a few moments in a bit of my personal

history that has nothing to do with what i started with. and, that is, in 1971, i was hired at a public school in texas. i had just graduated from the university of houston. i weren't to work as a public schoolteacher in east texas. i had a 66 dodge dart. i wish i still had it. they are great cars. at a 66 dodge dart and i started out on telephone road, the telephone road of the steve earle song. i crossed the houston channel, one of the most polluted oddities of water in the nation. i was an occasional -- a casual worker on the docks and there were warnings about the possibility of death should you fall into the water. on down highway 90, i passed -- i knew it miles before i got there, i passed across the san jacinto river.

on my right was the slot pit which was later an epa superfund site. in this pit, 100 ship channel companies dumped 70,000 gallons of industrial waste of the backs of their tanks. it went on through 1970 and it did in 1970. i get to lynchburg ferry with road and i turn right. crosby texas was rigidly segregated by i-90, barrett station on the right, 100% black and i would differ slightly with professor kaufman and that i don't think we have quite taken care of all of the legacies of slavery and racism. so, it was an all-black community on the right on the

northside of the highway was crosby which was an all white community. still pretty much the same to this day. at crosby, some of the kids that i talked sadly went into the texas penal system. one of the most brutal, brutal corrections institutions in the history of not just the country but really, really you know, dogs, attack dogs, torture, denial of health care. now, you know and at the same time, my good friend dave richards was litigating in east texas 100 miles to the north, where the population was about 20%, 2227% depending on your county african-american yet there was not a single african-american county commissioner. you know, william barrett travis wrote a famous letter from alamo, and living in texas at that time, the letter that read,

to the people of texas and to americans all over the world, the beseech you to come to our aid. we are surrounded by, and in our case, we were in the same circumstance. we were surrounded by us, by the people of texas and the government of texas that would have done nothing to wreck if i any of these, any of these really serious problems had it not been for the supremacy clause of the constitution of the united states. you know, the school that i taught act in 1970, 71, had been integrated in 1970. that is what brown v. board was in 1954, so you can do the math. i can't because i am -- asleep. but you know, the school was still segregated in 1970. you know, you have the notion

that the texas authority, texas and any agency of texas government would have cleaned the ship channel, which now is a better story. you know, no one is swimming in a gap but you know it is not a cesspool. , undertaking the cleaning out of their french limited superfund site. that was going on under the supervision of the texas water quality commission. there's a notion for you. for six years. it required federal intervention a required in many cases one remarkable judge whose career, whose career arc was defined by many of these cases and the one texan in the room is nodding yes because he knows it is judge william wayne justice he died two years ago. he was an activist judge. ..

in 1970. in 1993 -- in 1993i was following a justice case to east texas town. it was a some downtown. a legacy -- have a legacy of racism that persists to this day. there was a tom -- there was a sign in the 60's that said's don't let the sun set in your texas because the emotional

impact that that had on an african-american person who had to drive through that city. the case to win justice was litigating who was involved the integration of public housing of viter never had an african-american citizen live within its city limits and when justice integrated public housing in viter. so from my perspective, you know, he also clean up -- really remarkable judge, william wayne justice also sued, presided over a lawsuit that ended the most brutal practices and one of the most brutal prisons in the country. my point being there was no relief from the local government. there was no relief from an african-american who wanted to serve on his counsel in nacogdoches texas in 1978 but the day that he filed a suit and

when justice' court and the relief came by the grace of the constitution and by the supremacy clause and by -- christoff 14th amendment, the protection, walls, case law, but i am, founded by -- i really come from the bye our current states' rights movement. in particular the nullification. i have been for the past two months doing something i think progressive liberal journalists, i'm not afraid of that term, i use it on occasion, i've been out talking to tea partiers in wyoming, wisconsin, arizona, and the notion i keep hearing again and again and again is that the tenth amendment which guaranteed, which goes to the states' rights of the states

that are not enumerated in to the federal government of the constitution because it passed after the supremacy clause it takes precedence over the supremacy clause. you know, there or modification bills and in montana, i was in helena and last week, nullification would mollify the endangered species act. there are laws the would require us to citizens to disobey the endangered species act, i'm sorry. you know, it's a really interesting movement. i'm a little off. it's based on the politics that resentment. i spoke with one really terrifically nice guy, sincere man, but as leader in his first

term who just filed a bill that would allow the state of montana to begin using eminent domain to reclaim federal land i saw the same bill followed by a senator in arizona two months earlier and he said we are going to start filing suit and taking the federal land back away from the government. and thinking the grand canyon? they're going to take the grand canyon and sell it? it's an interesting movement. i would think it amusing if it were not taken so seriously, and i think it really represents a threat to the commonwealth and to the notion that we are a united states of america. i will close and try to be better in the lightning round. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you. if i could have a personal

observation and a little bit conference on world affairs seven devotee, i was the law clerk to judge william rehnquist during some of the years that you described and i want to say that the situation in east texas particularly as it pertained to people of color is exactly as him to become he described it. >> and what a judge. >> what a judge. i miss him very much just like i miss small iain i think the two of them are probably joking and laughing together. >> richard mack? >> it's a pleasure to be here and on this panel with of these distinguished panelists. first i would like to add these to pumas equals doesn't grant supreme power to the federal government. it's something that is in my lawsuit and justice scalia addressed this issue. it only makes the law supreme of the federal government that are made in pursuit of the constitution. so you can look at the federal

government and not see any supremacy because they don't do anything that's constitutional and that's the way that it's been for a number of decades now. so there's nothing supreme about degrading the constitution were going or making the laws that are clearly unconstitutional. and i would be both sides of the ogle because the patriot act was done by the republicans and it's the most on constitutional law that we've had in america in the last 50 years. maybe more. [applause] i was sure of and in law enforcement and that's all i wanted to do and wanted to be sure if my home town and by we, my home town, county is 95% owned by the federal government. and it's not their land. as in that and read the cowboys we are in arizona, it still think we can run the grand canyon without the federal government. i don't know. i might be stretching that.

and i really think the bottom line of this is, you know, the federal government has just gone out of control and is there an answer to that? yes, there is. the founding fathers put it in the constitution. it's called the tenth amendment. and the reason that that's there is to keep the federal government in check. while i was the sheriff in arizona, the federal government, united states congress passed a law known as the brady bill. it was advertised and propagandized by the clinton administration as a five day waiting. before you could find a handgun. you know, but these going to have a heart attack over that. i thought it was stupid and i thought it was an infringement just as the second amendment says, and it gives us time and in the law enforcement to do a background check. who's been to oppose that? we want to make sure people aren't criminals than getting handguns. telling the truth about the

brady bill. and until the brady bill was signed into law, november of 1993 that will generate 21st, 1994, free agents shall of at a sheriffs association meeting in phoenix. there's only 15 counties in arizona, and one of them. 12 sheriffs at the meeting. the datf hands as a document in this is this details you're marching orders as to when you will do to comply with the brady bill background checks. we are kind of looking at each other and the sheriffs are going when did we start working for these guys? they don't hire us. and then he went on and said not only do you have to do the background checks but you have to use your resources commodore departmental money and budget come in your personnel and keep all the records and this isn't a kid on the stick grant.

there's no money attached here. you have to pay for it yourself and we are sure the federal government won't do that. but if you feel to comply, you are subject to federal arrest. folks, you need to understand what they're saying here. this is the united states congress, federal government for the first time in u.s. history commandeering the office of local elected sheriff for federal bidding me, and if we don't like it, we can go to jail the sifry with the support that? well, we didn't. you never heard so much cussing in your life when these agents left the room and that actually started before they left and i think that's why they tiptoed out. but every sheriff and there was against it. and after about five or six more hours of discussion, the cussing wing and into the emotions weaned and they said there's nothing we can do about this. you can't fight city hall.

the federal government supreme, bologna, they are not. and so all the other sheriffs said we will have to do the best we can and go along, and i said you guys come away. i said come on. they don't haulier us, they can't fire us. we work by and for the people of the respective counties. no way. so i decided it took me awhile, but i decided i was going to sue the federal government. i am a small-town sheriff, county of 35,000 people. david versus goliath. i'm going to take on the clinton administration. i'm going to sue them. and i wasn't really excited about it either. you might look at history and see of all the people that sood bill clinton, was the only one to do so on and on sexual matters. [laughter] so, be that as it may, the case

went much further than i ever fought, and on february 28, 1994, my lawyer with the help of the nra they helped pay for most of this but i pay for my own lawyer filed in federal district court in tucson arizona in the courtroom of one judge john role. i hope he will remember him. he was killed on january 8 in tucson in a rampage. this was a very staunch principled judge, and man of honor. and he ruled in my case the congress exceeded its authority under article 1 section eight of the united states constitution, thereby impermissibly encroaching upon the power maintained by the states pursuant to the tenth amendment. he's also the only judge in the country that ever heard this case that also ruled that it violated the fifth amendment because of the threat of arrest

that the small engendered and he was very much against the federal government thinking they could threaten the sheriffs in order to have less work for them for free. and this whole thing about the states' rights keeps coming back to the civil war and segregation and prejudice and hate, and let me make this very clear right now i have a poor much and freedoms for americans don't care what color you were or what religion you are, and i don't care who your daddy was. american principles are for everybody, and freedom is for everybody, and as far as i'm concerned, one of the greatest heroes in the history of america was rosa parks because she taught us all a very important lesson. what we do with stupid laws and we've got thousands and thousands of them today, and the question is what do we do?

yes the states have every responsibility to tell the federal government it's time for you to back off. you've gone too far, this is not your land, these are not your waterways. right now the federal government, all in the name of the endangered species act or all this other stuff shut off the water to the samaha keene valley in california where we get 50% of our fruit, vegetables and nuts in this country. they did the same stupid thing in climate falls oregon in 2000 under the bush administration. i don't see a lot of difference between the two, obama or bush, if you want to know the truth. we invade countries, tech farmers and ranchers and we do all these subsidies and entitlements and spend all this money we don't have. i don't see any difference really. but the thing of it is it has to happen. the states have the authority and the responsibility to tell the federal government you got

to stay out, you've gone too far. that's what the tenth amendment is about. it is a check and balance system that was in eight and engrained and inherent in the constitution. the founding fathers believed it. james madison said we can safely rely on the disposition of state legislators to erect barriers against the encroachment of the national authority, and of quote. and my author fever quote is thomas jefferson. he said our government shall be drawn to washington as the center of all power it will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. and of quote. the question is, my friend, when the government goes too far, when the federal government thinks that it owns everything, our air, water, land, education, children, health care, every facet of our lives to whom can

the people turn for peace, safety and protection? its local officials having the courage to stand for state sovereignty. where do you think the tenth amendment is going to be enforced? where do you think state sovereignty is going to be in force? who's going to enforce the ten demint and? are you waiting for barack obama to pick the state sovereignty sar? that's probably not going to happen. the states are sovereign. and as horrible as the division between the south and the north might have been, they had every right to do it. i had a poor slavery, i had the segregation. i am against all of that but as horrible as it might be, the states formed the union. at the states formed the federal government, not the other way around, and they could certainly back out of it any time they

felt that it was necessary. as horrible as that might have been, i'm sorry, the states are sovereign. they do not ask permission to do anything from the federal government, and as a matter of fact, i have in this little booklet is a synopsis of the supreme court decision. let me say -- what we do a couple of quotes from the supreme court. this is 1i really like from the judge. mack is forced to choose between keeping his oath to the constitution that we all taken the law enforcement and government officials, is where the oath of allegiance to the constitution obey the act or following the law. and then, justice scalia those we have held, however, states, state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. don't you wish your states knew

that? they are not subject to federal direction. but conditions the xu pumas equals, doesn't it? the federal government, scalia says, we held, may not come how the states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program would do you think that does for obamacare? sounds like he's talking directly to that issue, and just in closing i will quote justice scalia one more time the federal government may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems they can't even give us directed to do that, nor command of the state's officers or those of their political subdivisions, what are the political subdivisions? counties, cities, school boards to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.

it matters not whether policy-making is involved and no case by case weighing of the burden for benefits is necessary, such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty, end of quote, i'm don. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, richard mack. i'm now going to invite the panelists if they wish to comment on one another's remarks and i'm going to begin with professor kaufman. >> i respectfully disagree. the constitution was not a compact states. was ratified by the people, buy conventions in the state's precisely because we rejected the contact theory of the articles in federation which gave the states being a supreme masri john cao home that

wouldn't be accepted by judge scalia as much as i think that the constitution this respect a realm of states' rights, the founding fathers clearly considered the federal government's supreme and areas where the constitution confers a primary authority. i think the federal government has gone too far, but it's not that simple if we are going to be analytical and fair about it. for instance a pretty sight of article 1 section eight and that's the section that eliminates the power of the congress. there is another clause we haven't talked about and that's what we debate. it's called the necessary and proper clause, the enumerated powers calls of what is necessary and proper to carry through those enumerated powers and from the beginning the debate between hamilton and jefferson also the national bank we had the data with the phrase

necessary and proper means. i do believe that the congress and the president had gone too far in using the commerce clause in areas not justified by the original intent of the founding. to be fair, however, even though i don't agree with the principle, there is an alternative view of how to interpret the constitution associated with justice lawyer and others called the living constitution dan argues that the constitution is a living document. so this debate about what the founders meant, and how that applies to today's situation is a serious principal to debate where people can disagree on where to draw the line. it's not that simple. >> could i jump in the lightning round? i might be put in the lightning round actually. i come under that -- won, and what not to be arguing robert. you never argue with a rabbi and

the law with a law professor so i'm good. >> if you agree with me i'm going to take it back. [laughter] >> i like that. but, i mean, listen. i'm reading a lobby that passed the montana house two weeks ago that takes richard's position, and it says that it defines certain federal transgressions of the tenth amendment, and it says -- will allow all goes on to say that if any of the federal government commits any of these transgressions, than the contact by which the states performed, and there was no contact come i agree with richard -- robert -- the compact is dissolved, and as i read it, it's not just dissolved for the state of montana, but this one contractor who is in the state

legislature which is the pinnacle of people's power, has written a bill that will dissolve our union and the result of federal government transgressors come across is one of his red lines. it does allow -- i was comforted to see for the constitution of the union by the state but states that want to get in. so this you know, you go from the tenth amendment to the nullification and the secession it is a slippery slope, and i think as it becomes mainstream, it represents a threat to our way of government to the country because it ends up in endless fights that were put to rest by the civil war and they were put to rest by countless case law. so i just -- you know, the kids in texas had we -- because we had been waiting until this day

for integration and the end of the separate versus equal were it not for intervention by the federal government under the supremacy clause. so i mean, i see the argument as very clear, and i'm going to defer to the sheriff. >> well, thanks. never would i ever say that state rights supersede principles of freedom. and certainly, when segregationists in the south were still forcing blacks to get at the back of the bus or even worse, much worse, the federal government comes and move san? that's fine because even scalia addresses that issue when the incursions' occur that the government from the separate governments, the different governments are here to protect us from incursions' of the other, and thereby he says a double security arises to the

rights of the people. in other words, this is how we protect freedom from both sides. the federal government, yes, keep the checks and balances on the states. you can't do that to people. but the states also have the same responsibility. federal government, you can't do that either. now the fair and proper clause, what did you call it? >> i called it by quoting the necessary and proper. that doesn't give carte blanche to the federal government and even the supremacy clause doesn't give carte blanche to the federal government. the founding fathers intended to create a central government with extreme limitations, and was called the constitution, and then some of the founders said that doesn't go far enough. this is allowing too much power to the central government and we just fought a war to stop all that. and for anybody in this room or on this panel to pretend at any time the founding fathers wanted

to establish another government of it tells what to do and run every facet of our lives king george the third was doing in the first place is absurd. >> straw man. [laughter] >> observed. >> would you read the preamble to the constitution? >> i can quote it to you. we, the people. >> if you compare that to the articles of confederation which is weak, the states, we are a union, and in the realm of -- look, i agree with a lot of what you have to say to the federal government going to far. but when he makes the claim i think is unattainable that we are a compact of states -- >> i never said a word contact, you did. >> at shul you did. it's on the tape. >> you did. >> if you make the case the south of the legal right to secede which is the contact theory, but i think -- >> and that clinton says if you don't stay here we will tell

you. if texas leaves we are going to invade texas and kill them all. >> gentlemen, gentlemen -- this is -- >> where it's legitimately applied. >> gentlemen, this is a wonderful conversation and i think it's time to bring some of the members of the faithful audience in to it. so if you don't mind my intervening i want to make sure we have time for questions. so, ask your questions and answers. if you wish to ask the question of the panel please come forward and line up here at the microphone. those of you who are veterans know that it's one of the greatest traditions of the conference on world affairs of students have a prayer before asking questions. so as to why not, maintain your place in line but there is a student before you please allow the student to get in front of you. his other great tradition. i will get to you in a second, that although i am sure that many of you have a lot of knowledge and information that you can share, this is an opportunity to ask a question, not to make a speech.

now we realize that certain questions have to be prefaced by a brief kind of prefatory foundation. that's okay. but if i see that you embark on a speech rather than about to ask a question i'm going to ask you to get directly to your question. so, before we begin with questions, did you have something you wanted to add? >> i just want to briefly quote justice marshall in talking about the necessary and proper clause. he said the result of the most careful consideration is bestowed upon the walls is that it does not in large, it cannot be construed to restrain the power of congress or to impair the right of the religious to exercise its best judgment in the selection of measures to carry into the execution the constitutional powers of the government. i mean, i think that is the balance, so what happens then is i think you end up making, you know, decisions, rulings and opinions based on how you interpret the balance. the other thing i want to mention is just a wonderful

point of irony. last night i was researching for this panel and i was looking at the sheriff and i found myself drawn to this page that said to save american convention the share fix once states rights it was a web site called the desk of brough in your resource for breaking obscure news from around the world, and then describes the sheriff mack's lecture on the constitution what applies to state rights and sovereignty after reading just a few minutes about this appeal for the greater freedom for individuals like me, my computer screen was filled with pop-up ads asking me if i wanted to clean my mack and offering only one option, okay, and the only way i could get out is by turning off my browser. [laughter] >> it's my fault. >> i know. it's just wonderful the irony of the site is declaring individual freedom taking away mine as i read it. [laughter] >> we need to regulate more of the internet than.

a greater federal regulation on the internet. [laughter] >> let it began here. >> federal government -- >> thank you very much. let's go to the young gentleman in the green t-shirt. >> my question is to mr. mack, and you mentioned among the things the government has no right to regulate school books so wouldn't brown be unconstitutional? >> brown? >> yes. so, if you could tell on that, you said that who is there to protect the peace and prosperity of the people, well, what i would say, and correct me if i'm wrong, that brown v board was to protect the peace and prosperity of the people come and if that's -- the federal government over stuffing it's bound, i don't see why the federal government is

there if not to protect the peace and prosperity of its own people. [applause] >> man. i must say, for being a student at the university of colorado -- [laughter] you have a great insight. i would say -- i would just say this, that i would love to see the federal government dedicated to those principles that you mentioned. but learning every facet of our lives and in putting education isn't one of them. i honestly believe that colorado educators are smart enough to do without the federal government, to do it without the department of education. one of the things i will add, there's a famous american that agreed with me on this and promised when he was president to abolish the department of education that he didn't do it, and it was ronald reagan, and i really believe a local board of education, if they need to be called in to check local people

can do that. and i still believe all of this is based on weak, the people come and the government needs to be aimed at that. and i want it to be smaller and more efficient and less expensive. if we get rid of some of the departments in washington, d.c. that is the way that will happen. >> and ronald reagan also supported the brown v. board of education with few supreme court rendered by the nine to nothing decision because it wasn't an educational decision, it was for the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment that this meant racial apartheid system which was the expressed intent of the civil war amendment. so in that case, the court would have had the right because that is an area where the constitution says the federal government is supreme over the prerogative of the stage for good reason and we had to fight a civil war not that we should have to get those amendments. >> and we the people in 1970 in the form of elected school words

as close to democracy as one can get have flocked african-american children in the historical system of apartheid that in some places in texas it's no secret its alexis today. so i think it is a point well made. and i wish that the guy were my nephew. [laughter] >> sur? >> thank you for coming. everybody seems to be appealing to the constitution like religiously, right? is it true that we, the people, represented the people? it's my understanding about 200 guys and won a small place making, pointing at the map saying we all this stuff, this is all our stuff and therefore we owned the people. >> you understand incorrectly that especially for the standards of the time the constitution was ratified by 13 separate state conventions. and not only -- they were not

conventions conferred by the authority of the states. the work conventions in the 13 separate states of the people, and let me add one more thing. the requirement for the suffrage, the requirement for the voting in the constitution was that it had to be as broad as the broadest agreement suffrage for any office, meaning by the standards of the time. the constitution was ratified by the broad potential voting group in each and every state. so by the standard at the time, it is more than legitimate to say that we the people clause actually has not only historical but substantive meaning. >> so you are appealing to democracy than. if the majority of the people want to do something, therefore it's right. >> no, it isn't because we are not a democracy and that's a word that has been -- >> i'm just saying -- >> you're constitutional republic. we don't pledge to democracy, we pledge to the public.

if one person disagreed with the constitution, was it right to force their will upon another man? >> but you're saying you are assuming that they did, and this backing of the states and the state's actually -- the states actually formed this very separately, and in fact any of the states could have backed out of this union and it still would have gone forward. but that state would have been a separate government, it would have been a separate country. and that is how this was. and the states ratified the bill of rights. not the federal government. >> this note real estate, there's just individuals. all the talk of state -- >> but it was all aimed at by, for and of the people. it was aimed at that, protecting the god-given freedoms. >> thank you. can we move on to the next questioner? thank you. is sam? >> my name is ellen hilliard. i wanted to bring this back a little bit to what terrance said because if you point was well taken that this isn't a conservative issue or liberal

issue. this isn't a republican issue or democrat issue or progressive issue. in our county here even the issue of state ownership or property rights is one that always seems to be kind of a double-edged sword. i think it was the elephant journal that actually broke the story of our land is being taken with taxpayers' money and being rented to the gm note monsanto for sugar beets. even though the national park issue, i read that it's been used as collateral for the chinese debt. so this issue is much greater. my question to you is to someone that's an organic farmer and holistic practitioners trying to maintain the sovereignty of my own land when we have all these like the food safety act and then codex on the basis trying to control my property and telling me my dogs can't even go

there how do you -- does someone like me -- if you can't use the state's rights issue, how do you take back ownership of your own land and make the decision on your own land? is there a process we go to of the people? >> i think on the individual basis, that very challenging. is it to the celdf, basically what they have stopped is floods, factory farms, it is usually, my guess a corporation that's going to do things in the way they want to do them and is going to pay off with its lobbying or whatever the legislators to get the way they want and what they found is that at the grassroots community if they come together and they make laws returning the the sovereignty to the people that

they can borrow those things. and so i could recommend getting us or them they do a three day democracy school that can bring and they will come out and do it in the teacher community how to keep these stands. >> that is a proper equals question under the constitution. i would look to the calls and maybe make the case under the fifth amendment. but the positive revelation state or local constitution taking without just did not acquit compensation. but the constitution rather than the states' rights as your best bet for looking at your prerogatives under the circumstance. >> getting your rights to the life liberty and property should be protected by local officials and that is your local sheriff, chief of police, they should be protecting you even against other governments if necessary. rosa parks is a typical example of