it's okay? >> guest: it's okay, like everything in life. you can't have a perfect. sometime it makes you mad and sometimes it's really fun. c-span: what is the best thing about being in the army? >> guest: i guess is serving the country although it sounds really big in my job is really tiny. and many terms, serving the country because you give 19 months from your life to this country. it's the least you can do. c-span: is there anybody who doesn't have to serve in a country? is there anyone that gets to -- >> guest: orthodox. c-span: if you weren't orthodox you don't have to serve in the army? do people ever say they are orthodox to avoid the service? they do? do? do they get caught? guest: nobody is looking for them. c-span: how many of the people in israel are orthodox? >> guest: i don't know exact numbers. c-span: we are about out of

time. my last question to you is, if you had to do this book over again, what would you change? >> guest: i don't know. it's not been enough time for me to tell you what i would change. c-span: so you like it? >> guest:? >> guest: for the meanwhile yeah. if i change my mind i will call you. c-span: we will do this again. help me under name one more time. >> guest: know of. now you? c-span: in the name of sorrow and hope. thank you very much. >> guest: thank you. ..

>> and now, john yoo looks at the role international law place for u.s. legal system and argues congress and the executive ranch, not the courts should be

in charge of enforcing or not enforcing international agreements. as about an hour and 10 minutes. >> or do you welcome to today's meeting that the commonwealth club of california, the place where you are in the know. and skipper as can the pastor of the commonwealth sports club of governors in her chair for today's program. please now make sure all cell phones, pdas and other noisemaking devices are turned off and i did not turn minos, so i will do that now. we will get underway in just a minute, the first to tell you about that governing programs. next wednesday, march 20, jennifer granholm, former michigan governor for al gore's current tv will discuss the political landscape. this will be a new program at the commonwealth club in san francisco. and on thursday, march 22nd,

dr. roy santos, professor and director yale university's comparative code nation laboratory was also known as the monkey whisperer will discuss with the behavior of monkeys revealed about human behavior when it comes to decision-making. this'll be a 6:00 p.m. program also here at the club in san francisco. for more information on all of our upcoming programs, please visit commonwealth club.org. it is my pleasure to extend a special welcome to any new commonwealth club members here this evening. do we have any new members? if you do, please raise your hand. okay, we are all old-timers then. if you are not yet a member, today's a great time to join. before we began the program, i'm also pleased to let you know that our moderator fortunate audience question. will be abraham so fair, george p. shultz distinguished scholar and senior fellow at the hoover situation and a noted authority

on international law. professor so fair also teaches transnational live danford gospel. he previously served as legal advisor to the state department under president reagan in u.s. district judge in new york. under the program their question cards under steve's. please write down questions you have for professor yoo and also be collected during the program. we want to remind you copies of professor yoo's boat, "taming globalization" are on sale in the lobby and he will be pleased to sign them in this room immediately following the program. the commonwealth club is a nonpartisan organization we do lasseter's beakers be allowed to make their emacs without interruption. we of course encourage you to write and submit questions. i will now pass for one moment and begin the program for our

radio television and internet audiences. good evening and welcome to two nights meeting of the commonwealth club of california, the place where you're in the know. you can find us on the internet at commonwealth club.org. it's if rose, past chair of the commonwealth club sport of direct heirs and your chair for today's program. i am now pleased to introduce today's speaker. he's a lot professor at the university of california at berkeley and co-author of the new book, "taming globalization" international law, the u.s. constitution and the new world order. during the administration of president george w. bush from two in one to 2003, our speaker

served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the office of legal at the u.s. department of justice, where he worked on issues involving foreign affairs, national security and a separation of powers. during this time he wrote the administration's first decisions on prisoner detention, habeas corpus, military commissions in the geneva conventions. he received much attention for writing controversial memos on the treatment of prisoners. he also previously served as general counsel of the u.s. senate judiciary committee from 1995 until 1996. he originally joined the boalt hall faculty at you see berkeley in 1993 and then click for justice clarence thomas at the u.s. supreme court. our speaker has received research fellowships from the super late, the olin foundation and the rockefeller foundation and is a visiting scholar at the

american enterprise institute. in addition to his latest book, "taming globalization," he is the author of the powers of price and peace, the constitution and foreign affairs after 9/11. war by other means and insider's account of the war on terror and crisis and command, the history of executive power from george washington to george w. bush. he also received his jd from yale law school and his pa in american history from harvard university. please give a generous commonwealth club welcome to professor john yoo. [applause] >> i'd like to thank the commonwealth club for asking me

to return to speak about "taming globalization" i was here last two years ago to speak about crisis and command and made wonderful time then and i'm glad to be back again. i'm also very honored that the commonwealth club in cited -- i can't judge abraham to moderate question and comment on the boat. i couldn't imagine a more qualified and acute commentator. i don't know whether he will agree with any ink or some of it or much of it, but i really look forward to his comments and questions. it's a great honor to have someone with his combination of academic experience. who is also a judge in legal advisor at the state department. every job i've had in my careercommitted to me several several levels better. i look forward to his comments and questions. i also would be remiss if i didn't mention my co-author who is not here, julian ku was a professor at hofstra law school

and the origins of the book are the julian and i went to a conference together and just by chance they gave paid yours that said almost exactly the same thing, just by chance and that became the genesis for this book. so let me just briefly describe the case of 90 in versus texas and explain how that encapsulates a lot of the issues in "taming globalization." this is a case of a mexican national who cross the border and committed murder, capital murder and was sentenced to death in state court of texas. he was not however given his warning under the vienna conventions, which required that when an alien is arrested in the united states, he'd be given warnings that he can seek access to this conflict, if you get assistance from translators and so on.

texas refused to reconsider its decision, even though it had not provided warnings as required by treaty. the country of mexico went to the international court of justice to seek relief seen the united states had violated its treaty obligations. the international court of justice found against united states and said the united states had in fact violated obligations under the treaty and issued an order to the united states to halt the execution of mr. midian and the other aliens on death row in the united states or who are also in the same situation. president bush issued an order to the governor of texas. i trust you need the address to put on the letter. president bush issued an order to governor rick perry, asking him -- federally ordered him to stop the executions of the united states could come into compliance with the vienna

convention on international court of justice's opinion. texas refused to obey it and actually was sued in the supreme court and ultimately the u.s. supreme court refused to stop the execution. mr. midian was executed shortly thereafter. in that decision the supreme court said even though the united states had signed the vienna convention that required these kinds of warnings that congress still have yet to do something. congress had to act to put it into effect until congress did that come in the course not going to get into the business of enforcing the treaty. even in a death penalty case when someone was on death row. that one case is very complicated, but the one case summarizes a lot of issues in this book. the first is that globalization, although we use the phrase a lot, has caused a lot of changes in our political and ecosystem.

when we sit globalization, we mean a few things. one is the easy and rapid and chief movement of goods, capital and people across national borders. for example in the united states, millions of aliens cross our borders every year coming in and out of the country. billions of dollars of goods and services also cross our borders. in the last economic report of the president a few years ago, 30% of american gross national product is related to imports or exports. and of course the length of dollars move with the price of a button between accounts here and abroad. globalization also refers to i think the ease of communications and the rise of the internet and creation of new kinds of networks that make it extremely easy and cheap for people to communicate and for things to to

try to affect us here at home and away that they didn't use to 50 years ago or even 25 years ago. if you look today at the american stock markets, they move up and down in reaction to what is happening in greece, whether greece will appeal to pay back its bonds has a direct and immediate impact in the same day on the dow jones. that is something that probably would have happened 30 years ago or 40 years ago, but the speed and quickness and cheapness of communications makes that possible. however, we would be the first to admit that globalization is not an undiluted good. globalization also makes that impossible. for example, transnational criminal networks, drug smuggling, pollution crisis state borders, terrorism. in fact, a lot of these problems use the same channels of international commerce and communication to move around the world, just as goods, capital and people do.

that's part i think, in our view a response, which is to try to create regulatory regimes that control these types of globalization. we call it in the book global governance. people refer to as many different things, but the basic idea is that is outside the power of a single nations they to effectively regulate any of these things anywhere. it used to be in the power of one country to affect most of the good, services and capital into control problems like aleutian and crimes that occur within its borders. but today because of the ease of transportation, communication and because of globalization, it lies outside the power of most nationstates to effectively regulate these new types of problems. so what you had is the rise can we argue with a new kind of governance. global governance and has two features to it.

one is that international agreements now try to regulate worldwide, that to effectively regulate some income international level has to have a scope that it didn't used to have. so for example to regulate chemical weapons worldwide, the chemical weapons convention regulates the production and storage and existence of every kind of chemical in the world no matter who possesses it. even chemical is held by research laboratories, industry, private persons fall under the chemical weapons convention. so one thing you see is just brought scope that reaches well into a nation state in which the international did not before. the second thing is the rise of new kinds of international institutions that are neutral and independent from the control of any one country. in fact they would be able to do their job unless they had the scare iris takes because in

order to affect the bully regulate and enforce these new kinds of international law, institutions have to be seen as outside the control of any single country. so you have the rise of things like not just the united nations and old and court of justice which i just mentioned, but things like chemical weapons convention again has the secretariat for the world trade organization has new forms of court and regulatory bodies that sit outside the control of any one country, but also because of the independents, a kind of power than international institutions didn't have before. it used to be fair to say the international institutions were more directly under control of the few nations are some nations. now they are seen as being independent of any nations. so just to give you an example, the united states and other countries in the world are able

to reach an agreement about couloir mean. that has those characteristics. global warming treaty to be affect the would have to be able to preach and to energy production and use any country in ways the federal government today doesn't regulate here at home, even to the extent of regulating domestic for home energy usage. at the same time it would create international institution that would have to decide how much each country was allowed to produce in terms of energy, how much pollution was allowed to make and also to measure whether people in violation and issue sanctions and out of trust the depletion of those directly under the control of the united states or the european union or china. loses its legitimacy and independent function unless you have an independent institution from the control of nationstates.

so i don't think we feel these are particularly controversial descriptions of what's going on in the world. it's been going on an accelerated in the last few years and is globalization ties the united states and our economy society tighter to the rest of the world, you will see more and more of these kinds of agreements and the two shins. the problem from my view is not not that these are done at the international level. the question for us in question for the book of "taming globalization" is how is the united states political ecosystem respond? can the united states cooperate with international institutions, new kinds of regimes and how does it do a quick study is the fundamental tension and issue at the heart of the book. because as you can guess in my description, some of the new kinds of regulation and some of the new kinds of institutions are intentioned with the way the united states traditionally exercises public power and

particularly run into prerogatives of congress, especially over control of domestic law and things like taxation, but also prerogatives of the executive ranch and of the judiciary. to give one example, when the treaty regulates an issue, it is a standard doctrine amongst many scholars and many people who work in this area that treaties are not limited by the same restrictions on behalf of federalism that apply to congressional statutes. so there is a famous case called missouri versus holland were back in the 1920s it was thought that congress could not regulate -- could not regulate and protect species of birds for endangered species reasons. the court struck down statues that try to protect birds.

the united states entered treaty with canada called the migratory bird treaty and is implemented by congress called the migratory bird treaty act where congress didn't exactly the same things that could not do under its domestic powers and the supreme court said yes unite could do that and the federal government's powers could be broader to regulate things domestically that he couldn't do the interest of normal congressional statute. another example would be in the area of separation of powers. if the chorus to the same role they play with international or domestic affairs, the powers of the courts will grow. they will be called into areas and matters which addition they haven't been involved with, that because international law and international machines and international institutions affect more and more things they used to be under control of the national government or state, it

will by nature drop the courts and the kinds of delicate decisions about politics and foreign affairs said please try to stay out of. the overall tension is between new kinds of international cooperation, new kinds of institutions, which are reasonable and understandable response to globalization and the traditional principles that had underlay the united states constitution and separate powers better listen and we think deeper principles behind the constitution, which i will explain in a second. so someone tries to produce the theory or an approach to solve this problem and the neal solutions. in fact when we are thinking about it, it reminded us a lot about what happened during the new deal. in fact we want to do is avoid what happened in the constitutional confrontation that occurred in the new deal

years. one way to look at what happened in the new deal. it's when the economy nationalized, the markets were continent wide, society became our national and the constitution away we thought about in particular was the regional. so for example famously the supreme court would only allow congress to regulate a good run across the border, but it would not allow the congress to regulate the manufacturing of that good for the sale of the good. only when i crossed the border could congress regulated. supreme court also balked an independent administrative fees. it would not allow for creation of neutral federal agencies to regulate things like communications or railroads for security markets. so when the great depression occurred and president roosevelt introduced the approaches to governance at the domestic level, which are similar to what's been tried at an

international level, the supreme court blocked him for several years in the early 1930s. in constitutional law but not really come to accept a national scope of the economy and the national scope of congress' powers until the famous confrontation between fdr and the supreme court in the beginning of president roosevelt second term and it was only because president roosevelt threatened to pack the court and the supreme court switched its positions on these questions of independent agencies and powers of congress and effectively after that point allowed the federal government to regulate nationally and all of the federal government to create independent institutions. only under the pressure of that political pack that the constitutional tension with salt. so one thing we hope is that writing this book we can see these issues coming down the road earlier than occurred in the 1930s and hopefully figure out a dream that allow us to

escape the same kind of confrontation that in the end did much harm both to president roosevelt and the executive branch and to supreme court and its independence. so how do we do that? oneness we think the united states constitutions basic structures for government, separation of powers and federalism should be maintained in the exact same way they applied domestically as they do to foreign affairs and things like treaties, international organizations and international regimes because we think those structures are an important aspect of what we call the constitution's theory of popular sovereignty, the idea that the constitution and our country and sovereignty of legitimacy and government comes from the bottom-up, not not from top down. the constitution is the contract between the people and the government and the government can only exercise power in the

way that the people delegate it to the federal government through the constitution. separations of power and federalism of the two main restrictions and regulations of how the government cannot but that they cannot be changed. we cannot treat foreign affairs is a lacuna or gap and those principles just because it involves foreign affairs for national security because the people through the constitution only gives the national government the ability to act under those kinds of structures they are to apply equally to globalization or to domestic affairs. the way the principal actually can be implemented is that one, political branches that are elected, the president and congress should have the primary role for figuring out how to accept, implement and enforce international law and our country rather than the courts.

we think congress, including the house should decide when international obligations and international institutions can have a direct effect in the united states, that the most democratically accountable branch of government should be involved whenever the federal government asked such as private individuals to change our behavior, change or legal status on relationships in response to an international agreement. we think this makes a lot of sense for democratic accountability resend because the most selected branches are the ones that must accountable and most transparent. it also makes a lot of sense for reasons of function of the congress and president controlled the main resources of the country prepared charge of conducting foreign affairs and makes the most sense for the most capable branches of our government to be given charge

and responsibility for dealing with important matters such as globalization and foreign affairs and we think it produces the least distortion to our constitutional structure. no matter how you come out where the president and congress powers should decide, no matter how you come out on where the federal government's powers versus state government power should balance, our only argument is that should be the exact same position in the exact same balance when it comes to globalization. if you do that, then globalization an effort to respond doesn't distort the american political system. it doesn't distort the constitutional system. let me close by mentioning briefly some of the applications to discrete questions and then i would like to take your questions and comments. first, one thing we propose is that the supreme court actually got things right in medellin versus texas, the case i mentioned at the beginning.

you should be up to congress to decide how the united they should live up to international agreements like the vienna convention right to see your console. the legislature is directly elected by the american people. we don't think the court should try to implement agreements like that directly without the guidance of the most popular branch of government. sub judice treaties generally should not be considered automatically effective within our legal system until the president and the congress have a chance to figure out how they should work in coherence with the rest of our legal system and principles of federalism and separation of powers. second, we think when it comes to interpretation of international enforcement, we think we should try to reduce the role and the president and congress have an obligation and responsibility to enhance the role, but it should be up two notches the president and congress to do what they do, but

the court should try to defer to decisions of the congress and the president. again, that makes decisions more democratic in deciding what types of international law and international regulation we can accept in our country and to make some more transparent and accountable. so people in the country think the supreme court got things wrong and we should stop death penalty executions in the country for aliens so they can receive their rights to meet with consulate to translators and so on, they can ask the members of congress to pass a statute to change the rule. if it is up to just the supreme court, there's really no way for people of the normal electorate in a quick and speedy manner to make its views known inhabit effectuating public policy. a third area we think is that the states should have a reinvigorated role in foreign affairs. i'd like to mention a case that

is of particular interest to california, a case called karen indeed. remember garamendi was once the commissioner of insurance. this is a case where california in response to information that came out in the mid-90s that life insurance companies had not paid out insurance policies to holocaust victims, california passed a law saying that any insurance company that did exist in california to have this policy should publish the information so people could find whether these policies were due to their families and are sent to collect. they just wanted more information produced. remarkably in our view the supreme court struck down the law because the senate it was inconsistent with federal policy about resolution of claims by holocaust survivors.

in our view, that went too far. in our view there should still be a space for states to act in matters involving foreign affairs and globalization. one point we think is quite right is that this is inevitable that states are going to play a big role because globalization means a lot of things in the primary control of the state, like trying, for example inevitably are going to affect foreign affairs. it is impossible to exclude the states these days from a voice and regulation of foreign affairs piece as globalization means international fares are everywhere around us now. a second thing is we think that she should pay reinvigorated role because they are more directly accountable and responsive to the citizens. states will react much faster and has better information or closer to the ground when it comes to government policy.

and so we think it actually might lead to more effect is inflexible policy for the two states to try to carry out some efforts to respond to globalization. so let me just close and we underline three basic reasons before i seek judge so fares questions. one is we think of globalization should not result in a change in the basic weight the american system enforces its laws, but the basic public lawmaking system come the basic structure should remain intact and not change in response to globalization. second, we think is the domestic policy, most of these decisions should be reserved for political branches for the president and congress because they are the most accountable, more transparent and because they are most responsive to popular

wishes. and third we think that these solutions make sense because it is to the advantage of the united states of the functional abilities and the executive branch and legislature have the ability to marshal society's resources are not more quickly and set nationwide policies that are more rational than a single judge or single set of courts which tend to act more slowly and only see a small size of a problem and have difficulty in changing their course in point of view. let me close by saying that in our view, this we think will lead to a more healthy american foreign policy, one that focuses on real commitments that the united states makes and how best to live up to them, rather than making promises, which the country never keeps because congress never steps up to pass the lesser because the president never appears to enforce international law.

instead we leave things to the courts. so thank you very much for bearing with me and braving the terrible weather we had in san francisco today and i look forward to your questions and comments. thank you. [applause] >> i think john, you have to stay out there. i will start off with the question of my young men i've arranged to questions from the audience in a way that will start with the most relevant to your book and work their way from thereon. my first and most general comment and question relates to what i perceive to be an assumption on your part that globalization has caused a huge change the way america operates a means to be semi-constrained

over somehow in desperate trouble. my perception of it is very different, that the icj has very limited powers, certainly no powers of enforcement because they can block every icj decision and the security council, that most everything is non-self-executing as you recognize in the book. and the sweeping claims about the customer international law has raised to push very emphatically, that amy rejected by people because they just go beyond the bilious customary international law and the global governance that really matters consist largely non-of the political agencies and the u.n., but it's a specialized agents these, which operate in a very professional and object of manner, such as the international maritime organization, the international

civilization, the world health organization, the international postal union, organizations that have been around for a hundred years and way before the u.n. even in these organizations operate in ways that are very consistent with tremendous deference to sovereign powers of the state members by having either consensus requirements, where any state -- as a single state wants not to be part of some global system, they just stepped out of a new rule or law that they adopt under rules actually adopted in these organizations and their hundreds of them at the international maritime organization i know has had 75 treaties that these in effect you could call them treaties that have been adopted

by them are drafted by expert committees, appointed by the international governments with maritime experts from the u.s. and other places participating in these very professional operations out of which the u.s. could opt if it shows. so i am reminded by your book, you know, the assumptions in your book for very famous law professor from harvard name demand they had been coming to the international community of america just goes wawa over. they just love hudson in the american society of international has named a price that you called them in the hudson prize. hudson went around the world right after the first world war, telling everyone that the world was going to be governed by a

single government and it was moving to the international sphere. just like some of the things she referred to by reselling, hudson was saying before the catastrophic second world war and the whole destruction of the league of nations, which he didn't predict it all. he thought the league of nations was a huge success. and so i sort of suggests -- is that you get your reaction to it maybe you've overstated the problem and that it isn't a matter of teeming globalization as we have it, but avoiding globalization as some would have it and also if taming judicial overreach, which is the reality. based on the last sections of

your book. >> that's a great question. >> a little bit expansive. >> now, the more the better. >> never say no to his judge, current or former. >> i think you're quite right at the kind of global governance, where per train has not been fully realized yet, that there isn't this global government in place now that regulates everything in that the international institutions everywhere and every subject. and i think the system you describe for me in the specialized areas will be fully acceptable with american constitutional system, where the united states would not be bound to anything unless it consents it, right? see a consensus both in specialized areas and you would wait on the president and

congress to fulfill the obligations rather than trying to make them directly enforce within the united states. but i think between mayor and full global governance, i'll point a few examples and maybe i'd be curious to what you think of them, too. so first come the thicker defense plan pineda testified before congress i think last week if not a week and a half ago he was asked about whether the united states mike in vitter intervening syria to help the rebels. just as the united states and libya,, primarily with air force -- the air force and supply advanced to the rebels. secretary panetta said the united states legally could not intervene in syria because the u.n. security council has not authorized the operation while it did in libya. if you remember the obama administration waited three weeks to get the u.n. security council authorization before intervening in libya.

we have a debate we can always talk about, about whether mr. panetta was also correct when he said we also don't need congresses permission. we need the un's permission. but there you have the secretary of defense publicly say that we need the permission of one of these neutral independent and international organizations to get approval before the united states can do something. another one is the ailing tort statute that has been going towards american corporations. the supreme court has a case right now called the coppola case for the question instead a foreign government violates international law and treatment of its own citizens and allegedly does so to help make it easier for a corporation to run a refinery at rebuild the minor sub thing, does that

mean -- does that mean that the courts can directly interpret international law and applied them? the third feature is the supreme court's use of foreign law, which i think we try to address is in striking phenomenon, which is in several cases in the last two years the united supreme court has actually gone and looked at foreign law and international and said that our interpretation of the constitution is back some level guided by what the other countries in the world are doing, not because the international has its own force. that was the case of men began, but just because due process, things like search and seizure, equal protection should interpret thicker parts of our constitution to account what other countries do. that's a remarkable thing. the world trade organization, the last example being the little further ahead than the

old nationstate sovereignty motto. the wto just recently wrote the united states illegally gave billions of dollars in subsidies to boeing and production of its latest airline to streamliner and the united states had deceased and i believe the u.s. trade representative representative immediately sent in response the united states will react and they'll take action in compliance with the wto judgment. so i don't think that the global governance we have now is in effect to as the league of nations were. rather anything it is exercising greater powers on more subjects. but i'd be the first to admit we are not at the point where the un's decisions takes direct effect but we are further along towards that. our hope in the book is to

identify something we hope is accelerating and before we take the plunge that we pause and think how do we make it consistent with our constitution? i'm curious to see what you think of those examples if they're inconsistent with your view are examples of her father-in-law and local governments perhaps. i'm not going to have the time here. i've questions and i think your points are also legitimate. dad tort i think having gotten around to it that love really was intended to do and they eventually will. that is that it doesn't apply abroad at all. and never was attended to that as far as i read history that was intended to protect diplomats here from the torts and provide a remedy for them. the supreme court's reliance on foreign lot over did it and

they've cut that. i think that your comments about the other comments will help on that. i think the wto point is more in line with what we -- where differences might eat. the wto has a provision, for example. i think it is article ix, where the united states can simply invoke its national interest and avoid allowing the wto to pass on any question. the only consequence of that is that reciprocity applies as in all and their international things. other states do the same thing. states can stream them so using that power, but in terms of giving at first i ran right, we have very the ability to simply that they of their hands if we don't want them to pass on it. now everyone knows how it has been subsidized and so has the

european airlines. and what we are all trying do is cut back on those subsidies. the wto itself doesn't have the power to order effectively a reduction in subsidies. the remedy that they affect a lot of it's a reciprocal punishment by the other states, the other affected states. so we've been there, they resorted a respect still for the sovereign power of the state founders. and you know, i just think that your points are very good and the overall book is good. i just think perhaps you don't give enough weight to the qualifications that people like you and i because i was part of that draft would draft into these institutions in order to avoid them running roughshod

over american sovereign right. so that make it to the first question here and you can actually comment obviously on anything i said. the one question i thought was really very much a part of your book relate to the e.u. would you go into that a little bit? is the e.u. another example of globalization or is it more like real federal government being formed? but powershift e.u. will have over the u.s.? all the rulings emerging from the e.u. antitrust division, is this also part of the globalization run amok type thing and what is your reaction to that? >> that's a great question. i wish we had out of it and adjusted book. proportionally wrote the book before the current crisis in the

european union. if we had written in theaters the analogies but it's really come to mind because whoever wrote that is a great question. i can't speak for my co-author, but i think the european union is heavily response to globalization and earlier one and a man nine points to some of the terrorists were trying to identify. one of the main criticisms you hear about the european if there's a quote unquote democracy deficit. this is a phrase that europeans came up with is that much of the policies made at the european union does it come from kind of representation for an assembly vote on a new rule or new standard. instead, it is a system where a lot of the authority is vested in what is called the european commission, which are essentially the bureaucrat to set the standards for the

european union in a lot of areas, initially trade, but it's expanded to a lot of other areas now. they make judgments for the european union about whether an american merger is a violation of antitrust or what they call a competition law. and it's very difficult for the electorate in those countries to change the policies of the european union. you see that now the tension between democratic constitution with accountability and transparency versus passwords to rely on independent unaccountable officials to exercise sweeping powers as a response to globalization then it strands. you see that now the problems of the european union is happening with regards to control the financial problem in that country, where you have decisions being made at the european union level about how

to handle the great fat that propaganda was coming down the road portugal and spain and italy. in a way that is never put any popular vote in your opinion have been earnest anon at disconnect with unelected officials that are telling the people what the remedy is going to be for the financial problem might be a chance beyond population. one way to be the problem is we should not put down the route. that does not mean it's impossible to cooperate in to globalization that have to do consistent with their own constitutional and democratic values. the part of the crackup we see in europe, we think, i do think it's they didn't incorporate a more directly democratic element to the european union cannot you see that the people in germany talking about not bailing out grace anymore for the countries to come.

it will be interesting to see. i mean, nobody knows but that the european union will survive in the shape it is in now, but if it doesn't survive, one of the reasons it didn't is because the ousted democracy and transparency and accountability says the core principles about how the union should work. >> thank you. another set of questions that you have ceased to have your opinion on the united nations. what do you think of the united nations? how can it be strengthened in terms of creating a globalization that is more fat is under consistent with our constitutional system? >> i say the united states has a love-hate relationship with united nations. but one of the countries top founded in the city of san francisco where we are meeting tonight. at the same time, the united states has often in the area of

the united nations is perhaps most it's got in this country has use force abroad without the permission of the united nations since its founding. there has only been a handful of times that the united nations has approved foreign conflicts, far short of the number of the ones the united states has been involved with since 1945. on the other hand, the united nations does perform some very useful functions. sometimes we in the united states it darvin be criticized united nations for restrict teen the united states ability of the nato countries. for example of the united nations is a useful forum for the combat is fun if it doesn't try to bias or is steered in a certain way, sometimes overreact us that with regard to the palestinian israeli problem. when it serves or countries can come together and debate and try

to be diplomatic solution is a powerful function. when the united nations perform some of the specialized function but she mentioned earlier in discrete areas that can perform an important focus of countries for a specific issues. so one should not, for example, understate the u.n. achievement in the area of international health and food security and relief, education and so on. on the question is whether all that needs to be done by the same institution you does there need to be one united nation that tries to be an umbrella that supervises all these other functions or as some have it suggested whether it might be better for the u.n. to sort of decentralized into more discrete institutions so for example if the united states does not collect the israeli-palestinian problem or does not like the way

the u.n. is attempting to restrict its abilities for us. that does not mean you have to oppose the un's very worthy achievements in addressing the area of health and disease and relief. fortunately for him this much more directly than i did when senator jesse helme cut the days of the united states dui and because of dissatisfaction with the united nations with the icj decision on helping the nicaraguan contras or something like that you have the effect of harming things the u.n. says that the united states very much be in favor of. one reader thought might be for the u.n. to devolve into several discrete institutions. the second thing about the u.n. at least in my view sometime at the u.n. does is quite inconsistent with notions of justice were improving global welfare. that's been the work of mine in the past few months. i was very much struck by first

the war in kosovo and then the libyan intervention. you may remember in the war in kosovo, president clinton led a coalition of countries to intervene to stop ethnic cleansing in the balkans. the u.n. explicitly did not approve the intervention in kosovo. looking back on it, most everyone would think that the intervention of basically the native coalition into the balkans was a very good thing, both for the balkans and for the world. but under international law as many people currently interpreted, the u.n. has to approve all uses of force in self-defense, international actually becomes a barrier in obstacle to the achievement of improving the welfare of the peoples of the world. one could interpret the charter so it doesn't mean that, which somehow faking traits you or it

may be that the u.n. security council system is obsolete for the kind of challenges we have in the world, particularly when two of the five permanent members that can veto any use of force are authoritarian take it or ships, which should not have an interest in allowing intervention to stop civil wars and terrible humanitarian disasters. the one example and really left with is our failure to intervene in rwanda, or a small detachment of american troops could have sought a genocide that killed about a million people in part because the u.n. would not prove it. >> well, that is interesting to see you are advocating a little bit more globalization in that area. if i just want to remind everyone that we're listening to the commonwealth club of canada radio program and are just a few

seats or cory professor john yoo was discussing "taming globalization" and the issues related to globalization and the law within the united states constitution. there are a couple of relatively technical and i think very good questions, john, but i think are worth raising with you and there is one general political one but i think in fairness we should raise even though it isn't directly pertinent. let me do that too short technical ones for you to handle. one is the impact of the voluntary compliance, which seems to be quite common now where presidents simply avoid the political process by announcing that they are going to voluntarily comply with some international treaty or international agreement.

any other race, are are you really serious about giving states this veto in the absence of federal legislation overriding them? don't you think they'll interfere with the effective implementation of perfectly democratically obtained rules? >> who's are both excellent questions. the first one about voluntary compliance is not something we address in a book, but i publish an op-ed with john bowles in "the new york times" last friday. it's a growing phenomenon where presidents who feel that senate approval of an international agreement or congressional implementation of an agreement instead say that the united states will voluntarily comply with some kind of international agreement, but not submitted to the senate or the congress and this is done by president the boat parties.

so in the piece are noted for example of the president to bomb is doing that right now with the european effort to create an arms control regime for outerspace. president bush i think did the same thing with regard to some of the agreements with iraq, particularly with a few nights how many troops would be laughed. president clinton did it with the abm treaty review and out of existence. president clinton said they would still comply with the abm treaty even though the other treaty with out of existence. this is something that has happened but it's going to happen more and more. in part a political reaction to the senate been more difficult perhaps the slow remaking international agreements. the problem we have with it is that at some point a president who says the united states is going to act a certain way that happens to cooperate with other countries can meet into a binding commitment we think that

to be one data submitted to the senate. .. to say when does this you know that a rogue presidential action become an agreement that is submitted to the senate or submitted to congress? the same question is, i guess i am serious in the book. it wasn't a trick to say that we think that the states should have a greater role in foreign

affairs. an part i think this is inevitable because for example the case itself, because of the ease of movement into the country with aliens coming in and out of the country, aliens are going to commit crimes just like citizens do and they will come into contact with the criminal justice system. is probably impossible for the federal government to create a rule for a separate criminal code as it were for aliens on the one hand when the states regulate crime for everybody else. the states don't have the ability to make the decisions and i think about how you would define a crime that would be consistent throughout the country when the states have different laws. states have to regulate foreign affairs. there is no way to escape it. unless the federal government intervenes and actually passes a law or there is a judicial or

some other laudable exercise of federal power, you have to default to something. so one thing that troubled us when we were writing the book is we have a lot of scholars and international lawyers who argue that no, you shouldn't just use the background state rule. federal court should make up their own rule, that this is a gap in our constitutional system and since the system doesn't address it the court should feel free to develop their own answer. we think it has a lot of problems in terms of democratic legitimacy so that the federal government has not acted then one should default and let the states regulate so for example garamendi itself where on the federal government has not yet issued any kind of law, had not reached any kind of binding internal rule about the right of private citizens to get information about insurance policies that were not paid out during the holocaust period. i think that is something that

state should able to do because states are ready, like california heavily regulates the insurance industry. why shouldn't be able to regulate things involving the holocaust victims when those insurance companies want to do business in california whether they are a boston insurance company or a german insurance company. >> no, i want to ask this question for the audience because there are so many of them to who want to know your view of executive power, and i know it isn't directly related to what you have been talking about and what you analyzed in the book but it is part of it, and they really do, many of the people in the audience, would like to have your perception of executive power. what is the role of the president in all of these issues? >> i know you and i have academic debate between

ourselves, but the about the role of the executive war. >> we do. it's one of the few areas where we disagree. >> i do want to make it a secret. one of the books that most influenced me when my did my own work on war powers powers was your book on war powers. justice has a view that congress should authorize, and stop me if i mischaracterize but i think in your argue said congress must authorize offensive uses of force. >> it says when congress does say the president cannot do something, and that he cannot generally, he cannot do it. the president does not have the power to disregard an affirmative act of congress. >> my view, it's not a secret, an executive power. it does have some, it does have some influence in this book but as you say it's not in court. i think the constitution created the presidency to actually play

a larger role when it comes to foreign affairs and national security. actually the role that we must associate with the president today is political leader and the head of the government and the center of policies. is something that the framers actually would not have expected for domestic policy. they thought the president would play that role in foreign policy, not because the president would have a unique claim to it but they gave it to the president because the executive branch is best structured today that so that is why the presidency as one person. there were proposals and there were state examples where the executive branch was multiple people but the framers thought the president ought to be one person because that would mean the executive branch could act swiftly and quickly. they understood that resident might make more mistakes. if one person decides rather than two they understood that could lead to more mistakes and errors that they thought the balance was better to act with

speed and swiftness and secrecy and decision as the federalist papers called it. however, i think this is a power that is directed abroad and that it fluctuates so that in periods of our history when we don't have a significant threat, with the united states is not heavily involved with foreign affairs, to me it seems the president's constitutional powers recede and they have historically receded during those times. but when there are emergencies and crises such as civil war or the 9/11 attacks or world war i and world war ii, then you do see the big expansion in the executive branch but i think that is keeping with the framers original design. that is why they wanted to have the executive branch at all. one of the major defects of the constitution are the articles of confederation. it didn't have that kind of single executive who could respond quickly to a crisis. then after time, either the

emergency crisis goes away or becomes more stabilized and there's ample space for congress to act and the courts to get involved. i think we have seen that in the last 10 or 11 years now. >> if the audience is interested in following up on that, they can. i wanted to and with one question that i think we'll will give you a chance to get to the heart of some of your arguments and that is, if the constitution itself provides for a treaty power and a process whereby trees are passed and adopted, and then reserved for the house of representatives the power to fund things and most of these treaties have to be enforced through legislation, why isn't that a sufficient constitutional structure to justify treaty making and globalization through treaty making? >> i quite agree with that

actually. if that were the system that worked, going forward with response to globalization, i would be quite happy so the idea would be the united states and signed treaties and make whatever agreements it wishes as part of this effort to respond to globalization but the house still retains its fundamental check of the power of the purse and the power of legislation. the problem i think is that ec efforts, and that they say that is the system that seems to me to work in this country for almost 200 years. that reserves most directly in the most accountable branch that we vote for every two years. the primary responsibility to do with these issues and if we don't like what they do we can quickly and easily put them out of office. the problem to me anyway is responsive to globalization and the things we are talking about with the first question, what is really happening? youec efforts to go around or ia data structure so the supreme

court using foreign law or international law to interpret the duke russ is clause, the house is not involved. only towards statues hold american companies or foreign companies accountable for the actions of foreign governments and also the house. so the worry i have is that the system that we are developing to deal with globalization promoted by use of international institutions in these broad treaties, is actually trying to figure out ways to get around that structure. in fact that goes back to your question about the european union. that's a problem we have both the european union today is that the check of the democrat, most democratic branches in these governments is excluded when it comes to the actions of the european union and so maybe i can close by saying again, i think that what is happening in europe now should be a warning to us in the united states of a way to pursue these questions

that might -- of a disaster. thank you very much. >> well, let me just say our thanks to john yoo, professor at uc berkeley law school and co-author this new book which i strongly recommend. it's beautifully analyzed and full of very very useful information. "taming globalization" international law, the u.s. constitution and the new world order. we also take our audience here and on television, radio and the internet. now this meeting of the commonwealth club of california, the place you are in the know, is adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> the pope has a very famous way of being determined and that is with the cardinal level post. the pope handpicks this person and this person decides when the pope is dead. he hits him three times in the head with this over hammer and calls out his baptismal name three times which is carried over from the romans. the romans used back, yelling your name you three times.

>> so i he see a healthy nasa double its budget, double. right now to half a penny on your tax dollars. did you know that? one? 100% of everyone who tells me, why are we spending money at their not down here? we are spending too much of there. 100% of them did not know that nasa's budget is 1/2 of 1% of their tax dollars. and i've measured this out. you can take a dollar bill and cut horizontally 1/2 of 1% of that width. it doesn't even get you into the ink. [laughter] [applause] so double it. then we could go to mars and a in a big way, yes.

we can check that asteroid that has a center sites. we can go back to the men and yes but a colony on the moon just because gingrich's republican doesn't mean he doesn't have an okay idea about this. [laughter] what might be the motivation? it could be economic. whatever is the reason. you and abate and when you innovate you invent things that drive tomorrow's economy because right now america is sliding backwards. the rest of the world is passing us by. we are practically -- we are never session. jobs are going overseas. there are not enough scientists in the pipeline. privity wants to put a band-aid on each problem. jobs are going overseas? let's change the tears and gives tax incentives of the companies will want to keep their jobs here. we need better, more scientists? us make better science teachers. okay, we have that. here are all these mandates going around.

if you double nasa's budget and we going to space and a big way and is writ large, we resurrect the innovation culture that prevailed 40 years ago. nobody today is thinking about tomorrow. nobody's thinking about a world fair. i don't remember i saw an article journey about the city of tomorrow. deana when they ended? after we stopped going to the moon. i submit, a healthy nasa is a healthy america and is nasa's feature goes so too does that of america. if nasa is healthy, then you don't need a program to convince people that science and engineering is good to do because they will see it writ large on the paper.

to help us go i swishing on europa where there is an ocean of water that has been liquid for billions of years. we will dig through the soil of mars and look for life. that will give me the best biologist. it has biology, geology and planetary geology, aerospace engineers. electrical engineers, all the stem fields. signs technology engineering and math represented in the nasa portfolio. the healthy nasa is a flywheel that society had for innovation. i don't know another force of nature as powerful as nasa and the next generation we go in because we need to stoke our economy and that is one of the two big reasons and the nation has ever done anything. i'm not so naïve as to say do it for science. science will piggyback it. we have done that forever.

he hitched a ride. did he pay for that voyage? no. the boys had other motivations. science piggybacks the stuff pretty well and i'm cool with that. one last thing before and. where did it go? this book came out only about two weeks ago. thank you, thank you. [applause] because what i just told you, it touches on politics and an economics. what has happened is the interest in this book has crossed over and out of the circle of space and busiest and

gotten the interest of economists and politicians. to the point i think, but i am just, i am enchanted by this. so foreign affairs magazine excerpt of the first chapter of this for a cover story, the case for space. this lands in the lap of every single congressman in washington. so within a week of this book being released and this article appearing, i get a phonecall. [laughter] i get a phonecall that says we wanted to testify in front of the senate. generally, i don't like speaking directly to politicians. [laughter] no, i don't mean it in any insulting way, no. [laughter] what i mean by that is, i am an educator, i'm a scientist and

it's my preference to speak the electorate, to highlight, to inform, to educate, to eliminate and that way you choose the representatives that you can in the best interest of your communities. for me to go straight to a politician who is representing a million people or an entire state, i'm not comfortable doing that. so i testified. my testimony is six minutes of testimony. and i say, i don't know if anybody is listening. it ended up on youtube and of the past week it had 200,000 views. and so i realize, and some of the comments are very moving. people said they almost started crying because in there i'm appealing, i'm appealing for all of us to dream about tomorrow again. i don't know another force that will enable that.

but the pathway that i just described so i would like to believe that we are tapping something deep within us all that wants to, once tomorrow to come again and will certainly enjoy the economic benefits that come from it. because it shifts our vision from worrying about where your jobs are to creating the jobs that issue forth from innovations, jobs that are high-level jobs that are so innovative they can't go overseas because they haven't figured out how to do it yet. that is the state of the country i want to enter. [applause] [laughter] i just like messing with the sound people.

[laughter] actually, can i have a little more volume? the sound guy over there. a little more? more? thank you. this is the only part of the book i'm going to read verbatim and i will and with this with your permission. i wrote this in the spring of 2008. dear nasa, happy birthday. perhaps you didn't know, but we are the same age. at the first week of october, 1958, you were born of the national aeronautics and space act as a civilian space agency. while i was born of my mother in the east bronx. [applause] so the year-long celebration of our golden anniversaries, which

began the day after we both turned 49, provides meet unique occasion to reflect on our past, our president and their future. i was three years old when john glenn first orbited earth. i was eight when the lost astronauts chafee grissom and wide in that tragic fire on the apollo 1 capsule on the launchpad. i was 10 when he landed armstrong and aldrin on the moon and i was 14 when you stop going to the moon altogether. over that time i was excited for you and for america, but the vicarious thrill of the journey so prevalent in the hearts and minds of others was absent from my emotions. i was obviously too young to be an astronaut but i also knew that my skin color was much too dark to picture me as part of that unique adventure.

not only that, even though you are a civilian agency, your most celebrated astronauts were military pilots at a time when war was the war was becoming less and less popular. during the 1960's the civil rights movement was more real to me than it surely was to you. in fact it took a directive from vice president johnson in 1963 to force you to hire black engineers at your prestigious martial spaceflight center in huntsville alabama. i found the correspondents in your archive. james webb head of nasa, row two german rocket pioneer werner von braun who headed the center and was the chief engineer of the entire manned space rogue ram. the letter boldly and bluntly directs him to address the lack of people employment opportunities for blacks. and to collaborate with the

alabama a&m in tuskegee to identify, train and recruit qualified black engineers and the nasa huntsville family. in 1964, you and i had have not yet turned six when i saw picketers outside the newly built apartment complex of our choice in the riverdale section of the bronx. they were protesting to prevent black families, mine included, from moving their. i'm glad their efforts failed. these buildings were called haps prophetically, the skyview apartments on whose roof 22 stories above the bronx i would later train my telescope on the universe. my father was active in the civil rights movement, working under new york city's mayor lindsay to create job opportunities for youth in the ghetto as the inner city was called back then. year after year the forces

operating against this effort were huge. poor schools, bad teachers abject racism, and assassinated leaders. while you were celebrating your lofty advances and space exploration from mercury to gemini and apollo, i was watching america do all it could to marginalize who i was at what i wanted to become in life. i look to you for guidance, for a vision statement that i could adopt to fuel my ambitions but you weren't there for me. of course i shouldn't blame you for society's woes. your conduct was a symptom of america's habits, not because. i knew this. but you should nonetheless note that among my colleagues i am the only one of my generation who became an astrophysicist and spite of your achievements and space rather than because of them. for my inspiration i instead turned to libraries, books from

the cosmos and my rooftop telescope and the hayden planetarium. after some fits and starts, i became a professional scientist. i became an astrophysicist. over the decades you have come a long way, including most recently the presidential initiated congressionally endorsed business statement that finally gets us back out of lower orbit. whoever does not recognize the value of this at venture to our nation's future soon will as the rest of the developing world passes us by in every measure of technological and economic strength. not only that, today you look much more like america from your senior-level managers to your most decorated astronauts.

congratulations. you now belong to the entire citizenry. examples of this abound but i specially remember in 2004 when the public took ownership of the hubble telescope. your most beloved unmanned mission. they all spoke loudly, ultimately reversing the threats that the telescope might not a service to extend its life another decade. hubble's transcended amateurs of the cosmos had spoken to us all as did the personal profiles of this bay shuttle astronauts are deployed in service in telescope in the scientist who benefited from its datastream. not only that, i've even joined the ranks of your most trusted. i served dutifully and do your advisory council. eikanger if you guys that when you are at your best, nothing in this world can inspire the dreams of a nation the way you

can. dreams carried by a river of ambitious students eager to become scientists, engineers and technologists in the service of the greatest quests there ever was. you have come to represent a fundamental part of america's identity, not only to itself but to the world. so, now that we have both turned 49, and we are well into our 50th orbit around the sun, i want you to know that i feel your pain's and share your joys and i look forward to seeing you back on the moon. but don't stop there, mars beckons as to destinations beyond. birthday buddy, -- [laughter] even if i have not always been, i am now your humble servant. thank you. [applause]

>> can watch this and other programs on line at td.org. >> here is a look at some of the app coming book fairs and festivals that are happening across the country.