mobilizing preparedness, one of the themes was we're not going to make another generation of instant millionaires. franklin roosevelt was very sensitive to this. he obviously, had his conflict with the business community. he wasn't about to threat -- let that happen, but at the same time, he to get this process moving, and so that was one of his many data -- dilemma with the innovation of poland. you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. next josh blackman taking a behind-the-scenes look at obamacare. this is about an hour and a half.

welcome to the cato institute to an unprecedented book foryum. my name is ill ya shapiro. i'm editor in chief. the latest volume of which were releasing this coming tuesday at our annual constitutional day conference i hope you'll attend as well. today, however, you're in for a different kind of treat. my good friend has written what will surely be considered the definitive account of a once-in a-lifetime case the constitutional challenge to obamacare. not the definitive academic but the inside story of a legal and political tug of war that embroiled all three branches of government. the book, which the "the wall street journal" called excellent, offers unrivelled access to the key decision makers with interviews with more than 100 people that lived the journey. academics, attorneys, activists.

now, 14 months have passed since chief justice john roberts made obamacare's individual mandate attacks. i was in the courtroom that fateful june day, and my emotions quickly cycled through shock, denial, anger, and later depression before -- [laughter] settling to the bargaining stage of grieving. still not over it. to be sure, as i'm sure randy will discuss, the decision was a constitutional win in at least four ways. it's clear that the government can't compel activity in order to regulate it, legislation that is necessary may still be improper and therefore unconstitutional. the narrow tax power ruling allows the government to only levy small taxes on nonpurchases. but congress probably won't use the power it can achieve the same economic goal by offering politically easier tax credits. for the first time, the the court by a 7-2 vote found that the federal government can't

cohearse the states by attaching too many strings on federal funding. still, by letting obamacare survive in a dubious manner, i call a unicorn tax. a creature of no known constitutional province that will never be seen again. roberts undermine the trust people have that courts impartial rather than political actors. i never thought i could feel so empty and still do after having court majority offer such ringing endorsement of my theories, not mine alone, on the commerce necessary and proper and spending clauses. what bothers me isn't that roberts' changed his vote. judges do that regularly. instead that his tax section simply doesn't compute even justice ruth bader begins berg who expressed skepticism about the taxing power justification during oral argument was qvc call about the theory when she read a summary from the bench. the regrettable inference to

draw he -- not expanding federal power and succeeded in squaring that circumstance wl a ruling hinging on a head-scatching tax on inactivity. a piece of legislation no congress would have passed. the sad thing about this episode is that the chief didn't have do what he did to save the court. for one thing, obamacare has always been unpopular, particularly the individual mandate which even a majority of democrats in a national poll on the eve of the ruling thought was unconstitutional. for another, he only damaged his own reputation by making this move after warnings from pundits and politicians striking down the law would be conservative judicial activism. most importantly, the reason we care about the court's independence is so it can make the tough call white letting the political chips fall where they may. had the court struck down obamacare it would have been a sort of thing which the court needs the crude respect. instead we have a strategic decision addressed --

dressed in legal robes. i'm reminded of the film "a man for all seasons" a lawyer perjuries himself so the crown can secure sir thomas moore's treason conviction. he is promoted to attorney general of whales. upon learning of the con connivance -- to give his soul for the whole world but whales. well, in refraining from making that hard strike call he discussed in the conformation hearing, john roberts sold out the law for less than whales. therefore by showing why we don't want our judges playing politics. here to tell us all about this sort of tail is josh blackman. an assistant professor of law at south texas college of law who specializes in constitutional law, the supreme court, and the intersection of law and technology. josh is the president of the harlan institute on whose board i sit. the founder of "fantasy" scores.net.

he blogs at josh blackman.com. he clerked for many judges. he's a graduate of george mason university law school. as josh said, i'm still not over the economy and the health care system may never recover. but here is josh blackman. thank you. [applause] >> hi, everyone. we have -- you might not know it was an emergency constitution podium. it's here in case we need to read from it. it's honor to be here. my first time in the auditorium was six years ago for constitutional day in 2007. it was ilya's first week on the job. i got to know ilya shortly thereafter. he's a great friend. he's given over 100 talks across the country. what is the number now? >> i have lost count. >> over 200 talks across the

country. [laughter] arguing that obamacare must stop. even after the court ruled he's arguing against it. >> nobody understands the decision. >> i understand it. but ilya is a great friend. also joined by two wonderful friends. randy, a mentor and guide to me. the work he has done the case is hard to characterize. he wasn't just the law professor who an intellectual idea. he was the god father. he was the person who helped move the idea from all the wall on the wall. he gave the idea energy he dedicated himself. and jeff rosen, we're honored. he's one of the key thinkers in court in the constitution. and inside to the chief justice proof proofreading head on. jeff rosen -- [inaudible] [laughter] that means a lot, josh. thanks. >> i get confused. actually we have one ilya. we're safe. this case is precedented.

i will use this as a prop. the title actually comes from the law itself. why is this law unprecedented? there are a number of firsts. one first, never before in the 20th century has congress tried to pass a law of such significance in the vote. the president made the determination that he does not need any republican support to pass the law. get the votes and we'll be done with it. he saw later it wouldn't be the case. we need other support. it was a straight party line vote. it was also unprecedented never before had congress forced people to buy a commercial product. there had been some laws about making people in the militia get rifle and stuff like that. it was a unique law that forced people to do something. never before had the constitutional argument developed so quickly, so rapidly, with so much significance and spread all the way to the supreme court in less than two years. my good friend randy is one of the key people.

they dead candidate their lives to spreading the argument. it's remarkingble to look back. actually, the tight to the book came from, you know, an offhand quip i made. randy took to -- he said it's unprecedented. unprecedented. i made a joke saying we should have a crying game. every time we say unprecedented we take a shot. it stuck. >> which is ironic because josh doesn't drink. >> i have water. that's about it. randy said it. it was one of the moments where crystallize in my mind that. the idea that the law forces people to do something triggered something the american pop lis. it wasn't about the pure constitution. not just the -- it was about the people. the people in very social movements, the tea party and other groups had an aver -- we don't like this because we think it's going to destroy our economy. we don't like it because it

violates the constitution. we have people protesting with signs saying overturn it. with signs say we need to enforce a constitution. this law unintentionally engendered a baseball lash i don't think anybody anticipated. it started a lit test -- litmus test with the american people are. the actual story of the case is fascinating. iwill run through it. make sure we have enough time for the distinguished panel to speak. the mandates actually is quite old. our good friends at heritage in the late '80s. some of you might recall in 1993 the former president of cato sent a letter saying it's unconstitutional. it was actually an event where stewart butler invented the mandate which didn't come. and he joked i guess we couldn't mandate him to come. [laughter] the history goes back long way. for many years the republicans

supported the idea of the mandate. we think it's a good free alternate. cato said it's not a free market. it's coerce. fast forward to 2009 after president obama was elected. he coopted hillary clinton's health care plan and made it his own. we will have obamacare, we'll have a mandate. we're to force people buy health insurance. why? it's not fair the young and healthy people are free riding on the system. i they can wait to buy health care until they are sick and not pay to the system. they have a law called obamacare. the problem was it was unconstitutional -- it wasn't constitutional. it was popular. it was unpopular. not a single republican supported it. not one. so the president made a call that said, you know, we'll go straight to 60 votes. we'll pass it through party line. whatever happens later. we don't care. so this happens. you can see the pattern early on. you can set the pattern. something happens. senator ted kennedy dies.

he was the 60th vote in the senate. after ted kennedy replaced. a republican in massachusetts, imagine that, scott browne. scot browne replaced ted kennedy. the democrats lost the filibuster majority. what happens now? they don't have majority. they send it to the house. nancy pelosi has to effectively pass the bill from the senate. but she wanted to make some changes. not just some changes, a lot of changes. but if she were to make any changes, as our separation power work it would have to go back to the senate. the democrats were afraid once it goes back to the senate it will be shut down by the fill -- filibusters. they changed the law and basically rewrote it and passed it on a straight partyline vote. 40 republicans across the aisle voted against obamacare. i'm sorry 34 democrats voted against obamacare which was remarkable. it was only a few pro-life

democrats who got the law through. but the president was so happy. he signed the law. of it a gorgeous signing statement. it was the law of the land it was march of 2010. he made a statement at the signing. actually, biden was there. he was grinning. he's got a nice grin. that's right. edward on the bfd lines. the -- when the law was passed actually the president was watching this on tv, probably cnn and we'll get back to that later. the president said we passed it. he go it's a big f-ing deal. it was caught on a live mic. the law signs and 2010 that's the end of the story; right? no. otherwise my book would be one chapter. a lot of stuff happens. within nine minutes, nine minute of the ink drying on the president's signature, lawsuits were filed across the country. the first one was in florida,

which had 26 attorney generals citing against obamacare. another suit involved in virginia. i think 10 or 15 minutes later. they had electronic filing problems. so these lawsuits were filed. back then if we go back to the fall of 2009, no one thought much of the argument. i'm sure randy will taunt at the may flower hotel. a simple conversation over what is wrong with the argument develop the constitutional ideal. the ideal was in the past, the supreme court has only upheld the regulation of classes of activity, growing weed, growing marijuana. this was something different. congress was not regulating a class of activity, they were regulating inactivity. that is a decision not to have health insurance. that is never done before. okay. so these state attorneys general raise these arguments, and

remarkably they worked. the judge hudson in virginia and judge vitamin -- vincente in florida. they gain victors for the challengers. they said never before had congress done this. it was unconstitutional. remarkable. we have federal judges saying a law that regulates a million billion dollar industry does not involve commerce power. this was a stunning blow to the administration. the case went to the court of appeal. remarkably it was plit. some judges ruled in favor of the government. most importantly the 11th circuit the one in georgia ruled for the challengers in a less than think opinion that was split. they said congress can't do this. the case went to the supreme court. this is where it gets fun. everyone knew where it was headed, but no one knew how it would be resolved. at the supreme court, there were a lot of issues to consider. i don't want to get too much of bogging down.

to make the opinion make sense. something called the tax antijunction act. if you need to go to the bathroom now is the time. it's boring. it said you can't sue -- i'm sorry you can't challenge a tax until you pay it. the reason why the law exists people would stop paying taxes. the proper procedure if you don't like a tax, you pay it, then you go court and sue. it's been around for over 100 years. originally the government argued that obamacare was a tax. and because it was a tax, that would not be enforced until january 2014, no one could sue on it yet. the argument was rejected. why? the actual statute of the text said it's a penalty not a tax. a penalty. why does it say that? who wants to raise taxes? the president ran on a platform of not raising taxes. the platform was no new taxes unless you are really rich. so they framed it as a penalty. that was a deliberate move. but the unfortunate consequences of passing laws on certain words

that you can't prefend it is a tax. the argument was rejected. but after it went to the supreme court, there was a difference approach. this is something i talk about in the book. many of you follow the case might not know much about. the general decide to frame the issue of the issue of the tax. in the past, they said, listen, this is a tax. don't worry about the fact that it's not all the tax. pretended it's a tax. they had a slightly different argument. it was new york v. united states which was a case he studied for other principles. there was one party opinion i never read before. justice o'connor's opinion she said if congress passed the law that is framed as a penalty, but it can be construed as a tax to save a constitutionality should be done. let me say that again. if a law can be viewed as a tax, even though it's not, we will save it. and it was the associate

general's decision to make the argument, among others, that ultimately persuade the chief justice. the chief justice went along with the vote who said, listen, congress can't mandate inactivity. they can't force you to buy a product. okay. but what the court will say is that if there is a law that could be construed as a tax we'll do so. that's the horrible thing that kept people awaking for the past 14 months. are you sleeping now? it's a nightmare. >> it's a nightmare. i actually talked about it in the book "the dynamic." the supreme courted a vans -- advancing the opinion you don't know what they're going say. there is no media in the court. the people thought it was going one way. the first i don't know 12 minutes or so, it looked like the law was going down. it looked like it was going to be struck down. the chief justice said, wait a minute, if we can save it we will. i think ilya was pumping your first.

then you went very fast. [laughter] the law was saved. there are some linger implication to the law, i think we should discuss which might be more interesting from a policy perspective. one is the politics of the case. the president has made no secret that he likes to go after the court. if you recall the 2010 state of the union, which was after citizens united, he made statements critical to court. he said they reversed precedents. they open the flood gate on foreign spending and the creative horror. he said it with the justices sitting five feet away. the justice was shaking their head like it's not true. the president repeated this behavior in -- i'm sorry two days after the oral arguments finished, the following monday. he made the off the hand comments he basically said to dpowrt you should, quote, exercise your jurisprudence carefully.

he cited the lochner opinion. it might be a first. david is right here. but he actually cited the lochner opinion. he made it clear he was not going to be happy until the court struck it down. it might be a god or bad thing. if you recognize the climate in the case was decided. it was presidential election year. it was decided three months before the general election, and the court was rightly concerned about what would happen to it. jeff rosen has written about it a lot. he'll talk more about it later. i think there was a concern on the court, the chief justice in particular, for the court to strike the law down in election year it would open the door for the phot attack darted. and you might say, what is the big deal? the president, you know, talks about everything. well, it's significant deal when we talk about the court's credibility. if he went so hard after the court for the citizen united

opinion. he is benefiting from. he attacked the court there. we can manage what he would have said if they struck down the signature legislation. it had to weigh on the legislation. some else will talk about whether or not he switched his opinion. we know he was trying to have -- i think it's a very bad precedent. the chief justice ilya said he sold out. he can d. he rewrote a law. he upheld the law that never passed. ly give him some credit because as a chief justice he has to think perspectively. he has a 30-year term ahead of him if he stays healthy. the president has three years and counting. the president is a fairly short time left in office. we have a lot of other cases coming up. just this past term voting rights was struck down. affirmative action is coming up soon.

i'm sorry the affirmative action might be a better test case. the a lot of things the court has to do. let's talk about -- and randy i'm sure will talk about this. what is the impact of inteel yous on the constitution? well dock trinally. i don't know how business it -- big it is. this law is definitely said congress can't regulate inactivity. now, if congress has some sort of other purchase mandate it will probably be there. the medicaid spending is probably more salient. what the court recognizes is that the federal revolution of the renner can and can't do. we'll watch it. and we will make sure it's for it. and in the words shifted our constitution. the way we look at the constitution, the way we look at federalism, the rights. the notion that the structure production -- protection are important for freedom.

what is evident in the court's opinion both for roberts and the joint dissent. i think we have seen that in the voting rights case. the sovereignty of the case actually matters. going forward, we will see this rhetoric pick up in the bond case. it's coming up this term about the ability of congress to amend their laws based on foreign treaty and expand the power. i think we'll see a narrow policing of the federal government's power from the robert's court. even though obamacare survived, and there are many lingering attacks. the court may or may not strike down more. i think we learned a lot about the american people also. for a long time, people assumed the constitution just didn't matter. nancy pelosi famously said when someone asked her is it constitutional. what was her line, ilya? >> are you serious? >> i read at his wedding. i asked him the question in a same opinion. i'm kidding now.

>> that's so romantic. it was framers of love. it was beautiful. [laughter] >> it's on youtube. >> yes. >> cato records everything. [laughter] so the issue is what the american people feel about this. and i think the obamacare law inned aer have dentally awakened a sleeping giant among the american pop populace. people have a natural yearn forking the constitution. thsa of people turn up on capitol hill to march again the federal law. it was remarkable. a lot we don't really see much of the tea party now, i say it's dormant slumbering, perhaps. it can be reawakened. we know it's lurking within the american people. it might be the most important lesson going forward we hear could keep fighting and keep talking about the constitution and keep talking about the constitution and make sure the discussion is ongoing. because when something big comes

along like obamacare, we have the foundation. we have the framers, we have the army ready to roll. it's no accident that randy and others will mobilize quickly. we have the institutions here for when these things happen. all of you here are members of that movement in one fashion or another. at least you are here. everyone here recognizes this. i think going forward we should keep in mind. ilya, am i good on time? >> yeah. >> i will see the rest of my time to my distinguished copanellists. thank you for coming to hear about the book. i will be signing after wards. i hope to sign one for every one of you. thank you very much. [applause] is. >> thank you, josh. you can tell he's an unconventional law professor. i'm sure his students love him. we'll have the ideal commentator for josh's book. none other than randy barnett.

the god father. he was counsel to the national federation of independent business in the case. he's the car mack water house professor of legal theory at the georgetown university law center. he directs georgetown's center for the constitution as well as a senior fellow here. in 2004, he argued the supreme court's medical marijuana case. which would play a large role. he's written more than 100 academic articles and nine books including those on contract and constitutional law, and the restoring the law of constitution and presumption of liberty. he's a regular commentator in broadcast media, including, i didn't know this "the ricky lake show." he's a movie star. he portrayed an assistant prosecutor in a si-fi movie.

he let me accompany him to the tours. we're the only ones in the country who hit all of them. it's an honor for that to have randy barnett here. [applause] >> thank you very much, ilya, for the introductions. congratulations, josh. >> thank you. >> mous i remember when josh was -- second year or third year? >> second year. >> it's interesting i met david when he was a law student as well. it's interesting to see when they go ahead and they accomplish big things inspect is a really truly big thing that you have accomplished with this amazing book. the rivetting book. you buy it if you want to hear a great story. it's a terrific story as what happened the behind the scenes story of written. written bip somebody that not only interviewed the principles involved including people from the government and got their

perspective that we had never shared publicly before. josh was actually there at the beginning at the very moment in which the opposition to obamacare both the legal challenge and the political challenge, really got started. which was at the may flower hotel here in town, in november of 2009. in the moment that he has dubbed the may flower compact. which outside in the corridor of federal society national lawyers convention, i joined a group of people who were chitchatting about something or another. todd of heritage foundation asked me if i wanted to be involved in opposing the senate bill, which had not been actually produced by the committee yet. we didn't know what the text was yet. and after, you know, expressing some initial skepticism, i agreed that i would do so, but only if he found somebody who could do a first draft of the paper. it was at that moment he said i think i can do that. eventually he found nathan yell

stewart who did a tremendous amount of work in identifying the legal theory that we eventually used to pose the law. and josh was in that group of people at that moment, at the may flower hotel and witnessed that event. little did we know, what would grow out of the moment. little does anybody know what grows out of individual moments you might have and might share in the future. so i urge do you buy the book. it's going to be -- it's a great read. it is a story. he's able to very skillfully weave together both the narrative as well as the law. and i have to tell you, that's a pretty big challenge to be able to do that. he meets that challenge quite well. in my talk today, in my remarks today i want to make a few points. some much which echo what you've heard already from ilya and josh about what we established in the case in and also where why we accomplished and how we accomplished it. what we accomplished is somewhat going to be a repeat.

how and why might be something you haven't necessarily heard before. first all of, as to what we accomplished in the case. the rest of it only is premised on the idea that first we accomplished something. i have to make the claim we accomplished something in the case. some of you may think otherwise. i try to summarize it in the forward to the book. i wrote it. i was privileged to write the forward. let me read at least the bullet point of what i think we accomplished in the case that comes from the forward. i explain a little more in the forward itself. first of all, we prevailed in establishing the federal government lacks power to compel people to engage in the economic activity. that's the first we established with five vote on the supreme court. we were vindicated in the claim that the government's authority to solve problems that affect the national economy is not a blank check for the expansion of federal power to do so. thirdly, we established congress may not simply invoke the necessary and proper clause. fifthly, we show congress cannot

avoid the limit that the constitution places on the power. to governor simply by calling something attacks. after a law is enacted. fifthly, to be constitutional, we achieve the ruling that any such tax must be low enough to be noncohearsive and preserve the choice to either conform or pay the fine. sixthly, we show scweeded? showing congress' power to compel states to accept federal money can be cohersive and held unconstitutional by the supreme court of the united states. for those of you who are still wondering what we might have accomplished whether those six accomplishments are much of anything. i ask you to imagine that the control substances act, which makes illegal all the recreational drugs that have a tremendous amount of appeal to a lot of consumers in the country. imagining that the controlled substances act was enforced not as a commerce power regulation, which it is. that's what the case was about. but as a spending power or as a

mandate -- i'm sorry, as a tax under the nfib ruling. supposing that was the way that the drug floss this country were enforced. it that were true, if it was the basis for enforcing drug laws in the country. then we would have to open the doors of the federal penitentiary and release tens of thousands of prisoners who are now there. they would not be able to be incarcerated for fail -- for using or selling these recreational controlled substances. all they would have to do in order to conform their conduct to the law would be to pay a small tax on the activity of buying or selling these controlled substances act. that would be a libertarian change in the direction of the country if were the means by which our drug laws were enforced. it wouldn't be a perfectly libertarian outcome. there would still be a tax on the activity, and therefore, a capability of restricting it.

it would be a huge step in a libertarian direction. that is what we accomplished in this case. that is all the government was allowed to do at the end of the day. in order to uphold this law. and in addition to that, as josh makes clear in the book, we also manage to hobble obamacare a bit in two ways. first of all of, we certainly undercut legitimacy in the mientdz of the public. for two years, not only was it argued that the affordable care act was bad policy. it was argued it was unconstitutional. many people care about. it was a ill legitimate law. it was held there long enough to become the subject of presidential campaign which would not had been possible if not were the lawsuit. i'm not happy about the way the campaign turned out on the issue of the affordable care act itself. but it was made possible that the campaign even involved the affordable care act was made possible by our lawsuit. and ever since then, the law has

been consistently unpopular, and more susceptible to being repealed or revised significantly than otherwise had been if not were the lawsuit. i would also say that by limiting the penalty that is enforcing the individual insurance mandate to a small nonpunitive tax we render the operation of the bill sufficiently problematic it may actually be necessary for congress to revisit the law in the future. when that happens, there will be more opportunities for positive change than there otherwise would be had we not prevailed in the case. obviously on the spending power, we gave states the ammunition, the power they need to resist the coverage of individuals under the medicaid program that they otherwise would have lacked. that was something else we accomplished that state governors across the country are using in order resist the further implementation of the law. that is what, i think, we accomplish. how did we accomplish it? obviously, i think individuals matter. i think individual people

matter. it matters who it was that was in the position to oppose this law. this wasn't done by nameless faceless people. it was done by real people. they deserve a thanks. i mentioned to you the role todd at the heritage foundation and the heritage foundation plays in putting forward the original even before the bill emerged from committee. josh tells the story in the book about what happened with that report that stewart and i and todd wrote. how it was used to shape the republican's argument in the senate so the republicans who had not -- the republicans in the senate who were not previously planning on making a constitutional point of order in the senate because they couldn't -- the staff couldn't think of a constitutional objection to make to the bill. once they were exposed to the argument, they did launch a constitutional point of order. there was a debate on congressman the day before christmas eve. it brought to the country the issue of the constitutional

problems with this bill in a way that was highly salient and otherwise never had come about had not for todd and the heritage foundation. it wouldn't have halve -- happened. david, the first lawyer who represented the states and the nfib in the initial lawsuit was one the only lawyers perhaps the only major lawyer in town in this town in washington who prepared to take on at the same time assured to be a sure loser. he stood up for principle have been already called out the health care reform unconstitutional in a series of 0 bit in the "the wall street journal." and it's to be commended for being the first in the fight and carry the fight to the government in this lawsuit. then obviously the legal team of the jones-day law firm, who i worked with in representing the nfib did enormous work on their briefs. the brief i think their brief had a particular influence on justice alito. paul who came in to the case and made some really an oral argument.

not only his brief brilliant. it was a brief that appealed largely to justice kennedy. but his performance in oral in both of the court of appeal and the supreme court was a thing to be hold. it was a sight to behold. i was privileged to witness that. i would be negligent if i didn't mention the role that ilya and trevor, in the room, played in writing they wrote numerous amicus briefs. it was true we were the only people in every court of appeals hearing. i was in pensacola -- i got one hearing up on him. [laughter] and but he was there. we wrote the briefs. >> i was too busy debating the case in some other law school at the time. >> he debated in all of the law schools. and what trevor and ilya were able to do with the amicus briefs we coauthored. we worked together on the brief is make a pure constitutional argument of the kind that not all the lawyers for all the cases being litigated around the

country were able to make at that point. i think our amicus brief galvanized the best constitutional argument against the case and eventually absorbed by the parties when the case went to the supreme court. these were the people. these are the people who must be thanked for the effort that drn -- for the effort that was successfully maintained. however, a lot the existence of the individualities was necessary to the success we enjoyed. by no means was it sufficient to the success we enjoyed. i want to talk about what else was necessary for the success we enjoyed. beyond individual people who happen to be at the right place at the right time. and willing to devote themselves to the particular cause. at this point, i want to talk about something that law professors call popular constitutionalism. it's something josh already alluded to. that is the idea that it is the people themselves that shape, in some sense, how the supreme court will interpret the constitution of the united states. the people themselves, i don't believe, change the meaning of

the document. by the way, i held this up in my constitutional law class this week. i didn't have a copy with me, somebody provided me a copy. i wanted a prop. it's the cato institution. they insert the word liberty in the constitution all over the place. it's a different -- it's the same constitution. [laughter] so i don't believe that the people change the meaning of this text itself, but there's no question whatsoever that the people have a big influence on what we would call constitutional law, which is the doctrine that come from the supreme court of the united states nap constitutional law does change. it does evolve. it is living. and it is influenced by the publics' perception of what jack ball kin is basically said is off the wall and what is on the wall. what arguments are beyond and what arguments are to be respected are influenced. the question of whether you make an argument is considered a crazy argument or a serious argument depends on the validity

of the argument. but only in part it depends on how that argument is perceived by the general public. and that is why the involvement of the general public in this case was crucially important to us getting as far as we did as fast as we did. we can never count on the courts themselves to save the constitution for us or save limited government for us. it's not going to happen. it hasn't happened. the court have let us down repeatedly. they let us down in this case to a large degree. they are not going anything that a critical mass of the american people don't support them doing. they are hirely majortarian constitution. they are lightly majortarian. generally speaking they try to stay within the main stream of what the people are thinking. that's the reason why, i think, it's important what the american people are thinking. so why is that 99% of american law professors who considered the possibility of a legal

challenge scoffingly dismissed the merit of our challenge as frivolous, in one case, one particular law professor said any lawyer who signs a complaint or brief in the case might be subject to sanctions for having made a completely frivolous argument and have to pay a fine for having done so. a law professor who i respect, said that. why is it? so many law professors missed the boat on the case? i think there's a lot of reasons for this. i'm not going go through all of them. one of the most important reasons, law professors tend come from a similar culture. they tend to assume history is on the side of the politics that they all share. there is just a general gut assumption that they are progressive, and that history is moving in a progressive way, and that everything they have accomplished have never be, in their words, undone. you can never go back. everything you want is

negotiateble. everything they have can never be give up. that's why you can't vote no on one of the progressive policies often enough. they will make you vote no again and again and again and again. and the moment they get a yes vote, that the point, that issue can never be returned to again. that's the end of it. it's done. it's settled. that's in the bank. let's move to the next issue now. that, i believe, is the culture for most law professors come. according to the culture, an argument of the kind we were making in the case, is one completely ail dwroan them. because they believed it violated this trend of history that was on their side. and; therefore, they were confident in their view that judges who tend to follow the political trends, and the supreme court in particular, who follow the trends would never consider the challenges seriously. as a chul urban -- cultural matter they were simply off the wall. i believe what our case shows,

the nfib case shows is that the history is not invariable belie moving in a progressive direction. our case was fought in the realm of public opinion as well as in the realm of the court. in fact, it had to be. that's the reason why we got as far as we got. so let me take -- i know i'm just -- ilya signaled me i was out of time or almost out of time. out of time. let me make one further point how it was we issue able -- able to do this. number one, i think you have to make a legal argument that appeals to the american people generally to ordinary folks, generally not just lawyers in a way they can understand and appreciate. you can call these things sound bytes, and in some respects, they are sound bytes. they are sound bytes that have to have resonance and consistent with a sound and coherent

general legal argument. they can't destroy or undercut the reality of your argument. the first and most important is the tight of the book unprecedented. it was a term that came from the congressional search service who wrote a position paper, a study paper prior to the bill being introduced who argued an insurance mandate of the kind would be unprecedented what we did in the paper is move it up and lead with the idea that this was unprecedented and the idea that was unprecedented became the first of the major sound bytes. the second one was that we called the individual insurance mandate. it was a mandate. the law refers to the individual responsibility requirement. substantially they're the same. but individual mandate is something that can be more easily understood than individual responsibility requirement. the reason why the word unprecedented did so much work for us is because it means if something is really relevantly unprecedented the previous

supreme court doctrine are not exactly on point. don't directly dictate the outcome of the case. now you have room to run in court. if, in fact, you can establish it is unprecedented. many people took issue with the claim that it was. we prevailed such that every court who issued an opinion about this case admitted it was unprecedented case of first impression. the last point i'm going make is that what this tells us is that think tanks alone, as clever as they may be, and clever lawyering along, as clever and smart as lawyers can be are never enough to restore the lost constitution. i mean, the constitution with all of its parts not just some of the parts being enforced. ..

the. >> in this book or in this battle we gain ground with

this lawsuit. as a case study how the war needs to be waging and by whom. thank you. [applause] >> is not unprecedented for speakers to go over their time. i will excuse it in this case. [laughter] now i welcome jeffrey rosen if you have not been to the national constitution center in philadelphia it is the permanent exhibit, rotating exhibits the bills itself as the first hint of the nonprofit institution devoted to freedom. is kato chopped liver? [laughter] also a professor at george washington university law school.

in the legal affairs editor. as a highly regarded journalist the "atlantic monthly" and "the new yorker" and "the chicago tribune" of the "l.a. times" calls it have been influential legal commentator. moderator's of the aspen is a -- aspen is a to -- institute is the author of several books including supreme court of personalities. a graduate of harvard college, oxford university and yale law school. [applause] >> it is a great pleasure to be here. more than a sister institution that one of the great defenders of liberty in this country and i will

make up a brief plug to say that the national constitution center is also americans town hall and increasingly on the web and radio we will be sponsoring debates to bring if the best minds of all sides and the citizens make up their own mind. we're the only one chartered to 70 information on a non-partisan basis to bring together libertarians and social conservatives in drear the hosting platform for these great debates. also it is an honor to be here on behalf of my friend josh blackman. we agree this is the best book of the health care case. he did a tremendous service to interview everyone to

give a fair minded the narrative of the important the compelling case from history. congratulations. also is good to be here with my good friend randy barnett indeed is the godfather of the challenge to obamacare but also in the intellectual architect of one of the challenges of the constitutional conventional wisdom of the past generation indict agree everything that he said that ideas matter and his vision talk about the profit one dash not only in the courts but the courts of public opinion to win the hearts and minds of people and i congratulate to come within

a hairsbreadth. but to note i will talk today about one part of what you did not mention. what surprised me was how is it possible for this compelling intellectual challenge the persuaded a majority of americans to be struck down failed of the conservative roberts court? from his foreword on page 11 this ground swing from a liberal conspiracy other then be. i am the one that denied him his victory. [laughter] here is what he said. said after the case was submitted to the court i became distressed by the unprecedented effort to fight against the the court. after the case was submitted

many on the left from the president to jeffrey rosen would have a campaign of disdain against chief justice roberts in particular to influence and even intimidate one or more of the justices to capitulate. these efforts were troubling although we may never learn whether he would change his vote also attacking the court's legitimacy to attack his signature legislation left a stain on the entire case. strong words. then he further reports in his spare minded account that the conspiracy went further east in chile that we attended a dinner right after i had written an

article of the chief justice he would violate the pledges that cares about the court's institutional legitimacy. an effort to persuade his colleagues of institutional concerns above his agenda and he said when the court struck down signature legislation. he said he would try to persuade his colleagues that they should make the legitimacy of gold:he was not sure he would succeed. i was very impressed by the interviews so we decided i developed a man crashed on john roberts. [laughter] i got a back because i always assumed that he had a

mixed success to avoid the five / four decisions like the citizens united i that he would do what he said that is why rhodopes say the chief justice robert said in order to avoid those close to invalidate that act to disregard the of legitimacy now would erode the article and that was a big test of that but but those that i thought was just a book party for j. harvey wilkinson but with judicial restraint galvanized other conservative commentators to intimidate the chief justice.

but then i've learned that the chief justice roberts from an initial look to strike down we wrote articles alling on the chief justice to resist the administration of the various journalists like me. it with the conspiracy account and then he failed. a with obamacare to the other and with the other of the approval of jeffrey rosen. [laughter] he was so afraid of disapproval that a political act he shifted his vote and guaranteed the legacy would be used to politics rather their principal from

judicial constitutionalism. >> this is a complete fantasy. alves on the notion that i knew that the justice was going wobbly and wrote the article to intimidate. i did not know that the first time my mother and after the case came down then i learned that far from the being the one with the chief justice in fact, it was george. that dinner party that i stumbled into is one where george according to jefferies account the conservative courts are so upset they he changed the boat they were complaining it he wrote the columns to show -- a sure about.

said there was any conspiracy it was will using inside information to try to bully or scare or persuade the chief justice to change his vote. that is all there is to it. i did not know that he did a row, because i believe what he said. he meant what he said and far from that theory i really want to take a moment to say how much respect he deserves for doing what he said you may not agree in many a good do not agree with the chief justice notion is used illegitimacy should trump ideological obviously he would not have talked about it interview if he did not believe that. i think the chief justice is correct when the american perceives repeatedly striking down signature

legislation faith in the neutrality of the courts of transcending politics is undermined. and i have not spoken to him since the interview came down. facing tremendous pressure the also from the conservative colleagues. and kennedy was so eager. i do think he would have cast this vote i think he felt the chief has a special role and he sees the great chief justices threw out have always recognized that institutional legitimacy is ski to shoring up their legacy is in the long run. as you pointed out most people wanted the court to strike down the man day.

they thought that was more important than falling public opinion in embracing the impurities of randy barnett also there are strong arguments on all sides of one of the great contributions the idea something once off the wall can go back on the wall. it is too bad my colleagues in the legal academy he did something really important to beautiful did he change the constitutional debate. there are strong arguments on the other side to use the precedent that was against you. the chief justice has the situation the president and conventional legal all paid in 50 years of history .1 way in and randy barnett points and a the way he has compelling arguments.

it is the twisted metal did that was applied to marshall even as he said he was not persuaded by the decision to strike it down but it was a decision that john marshall would have been proud and well within the scope of existing legal material and disagree on grounds absolutely but to accuse him of being political or of what obama would care i don't think. >> i don't think he cared but with that vision that he articulated that he did that very well.

>> now how does josh blackman come down on this question? i left my copy of this book of philadelphia solid was preparing this morning and went back to an earlier version of a couple of months ago a and this is what i read at the conclusion of that earlier. as chief justice of the united states. to have that fall on his shoulders now come to the final goal -- the final version of humans later and then roberts hopes the decision would help to preserve his vision of american democracy only history can decide a and he toned it down. what is the source of the decision to change your characterization of the chief justice?

i could only say it is a conspiracy led by randy barnett. [laughter] before reid in the acknowledgments working his evil while solid josh. thankful for him to tone it down. want to hear more why you did that but at least in the earlier draft you seem to presume the say reasons that i do for behaving and of his own legitimacy. but it is unfortunate right of the left that was called the paranoid style in american politics. with a paranoid interpretation of history.

and he controls the press and the limited funds in new secret techniques. of this talk of intimidation and conspiracy is in fort -- unfortunate. but it is not unique as we talk about the goldwater also what is applied to the patriot movement of the two-party although as described in the populist movement also in some of my riding i have written about a libertarian movement to transform the movement collet the constitution in exile but by powerful figures was secret techniques to influence the press and especially in the hands of the photo editors this mirrors the talk that i

know randy will regret and withdraw after the top. i seek reid deburred it is not the head of a conspiracy but in intellectual movement. trying to persuade hearts and minds of america is important i think the judges have embraced his vision like those that struck down the law but others have not that include more traditional restraint like those of food that i have the greatest respect but a federal society that i moderate talk about judicial restraint saying maybe the issues of your foot are we the activist now?

to uphold the health care lobby was influenced. that was not the attempt to intimidate but to embrace the restraint so i hope this goes forward in our country as a debate as they deal of secret meetings the battle of constitutional it is. i am to proud to participate in this debate in the health care case. and reedy is optimistic the commerce clause opening will have legs and i interviewed justice ginsburg on friday and asked her and she disagreed although she is a strong defender in believes it will not have staying

power and thinks in the end the post new law a new deal of understanding will survive. but time will tell but i will close by saying that title "unprecedented" is misapplied to the health care law. their rise to respond to the unique situation of the moment. and legislation has to rise to the challenge. for it to be "unprecedented" to strike and the centerpiece legislation? it is a tribute not to the political institution but a chief justice john roberts. think you so much.

[applause] >> i don't want to speaker josh and randy but my version of the conspiracy is not that the president or senator they keep or journalists caused john roberts to change his vote but that is the perception of the american people and perception is important and contributed to the loss of the legitimacy or the popular respect for the court, again as i pointed out one of the reasons presumably that john roberts acted as he did. but i am arguing is not persuaded one way or another but by a taking the extra legal considerations come he misfired. we don't know the next 30

years but it has been a year-and-a-half and the court was damaged by his decision. >> first of all, i really enjoy it chaffs the comments of lot. i cannot say they agree with all of them go. but to talk about, i am glad you recognize the irony to call that out on maundering after riding that peace which was very conspiratorial sounding not just the pitcher but the story itself that there is the irony of him the object eaton to the conspiracy theory and we talked about this particular issue and i know what was going on behind the scene there even if he was influenced by jeff

not just him but a cacophony of abuse heaped on the very moment the oral argument revealed thereat least four if not five votes to validate the affordable care act. for the historical record i chronicled the degree of this force of risk reactions to the conservative justices to be mean them in a piece of the did 40 harvard law forum that i call the distain campaign and a document this outpouring of rhetoric but you know, that cook county has a reputation

for some traditional unsavory this pathetic to go back to my office to work and other cases thinking that jury would not be tampered with? >> but literally an outpouring of objections to the judiciary committee of objecting to thwart the tides of history calling the core into question but i don't know what affected john roberts but they do know that jeff argued there were reasonable arguments on both dismiss the case i was spending time defending the

fact there was a reasonable argument on our side that they dismissed as frivolous i never decided it was a close case to go either way given the existing materials to be applied. never. but insisted that however whatevers the consistent -- consistency annunciated by the four liberal justices of ginsburg's opinion better geared this law was clearly constitutional and under the tax power bill. it was unconstitutional and in with this mission and in this vision and no one, nobody, no person, a new judge ever made the decision publicly i have a

pretty good idea but never rigid anybody say well under the necessary improper clause but under a construction of the individual mandate but not making an option and all but to buy a tax cover that had the they could be saved by that? >> never. to officers argued the to do is that if they wanted to but nobody advocated only john roberts but it doesn't just given on the one hand he joined with the dissenting judge to except all constitutional arguments put on the other hand, he found a way to uphold the affordable care act. this is what is suggested it

was a political decision. in fact, we're the you heard the decision be made is in your colleagues did on political grounds although you said again today would be unprthough you said again today would be unprecedented for the president to invalidate the centerpiece for the supreme court to invalidate the centerpiece of a president's platform? that is a political argument and a political consideration that should have nothing to do with this case but you did battle of with your colleagues in that is what made this decision seem like it was political in why his own reasoning -- reasoning that it was political illegally compared the only judge that has the rationale in the port -- apparently he only saw that as a legally compelled argument after the friday

conference after three days of oral argument it occurred to him this was the right outcome and that is the reason why it is not a conspiracy theory. is what i said that is publicly known the public confrontation of the court by routing the way he did to draw their own inferences from. >> with the campaign of the staid. it was a campaign of respect it was completely mild-mannered it was just his vision then he would not be filling the vicious and. it is disdain. you cannot argue it is important to change the hearts and minds of the

american public and then criticize commentators after the supreme court's oral arguments for making strong arguments to say the courts would be violated if their roles a certain way that is what the debate is about it is never appropriate for the president and that is what we did. there is one phrase id request it long dash regret is that the problem is not that it would be unprecedented to validate the centerpiece it would have been to invalidate the act of congress that was a substantial piece of social and economic legislation deliberated extensively and then passed by congress. you know, i'm a proponent of judicial activism on the

left of the right to a question roe v. wade and it is wrong to strike down affirmative action and abortion i don't share your constitutional vision that the court should be in the business to invalidate the act of congress although judicial activism is repeated by ginsburg on friday that the court is on the ground when it strikes down because that represents the national consensus with the chief justice roberts has moved by that citing holmes saying he would be most cautious so that is what i think he was getting at. finally, an important final point of disagreement you equate the concern with legitimacy of being political but they are not the same thing. they came up with the legal argument that no one argued it did not occur but in a

footnote of some blob but he did that because of his broader vision of the people of the court appearing to be non-partisan to maintain legitimacy with the public and that is why it is permissible and finally you said at a higher bids legitimacy everything i have seen has suggested those that had opposed the mandate switched their position to do support upholding it after the decision came down with the legitimizing defect and it may have been cancelled out but the legitimacy of the court does not seem to be affected by the health care decision but but they did even remember john roberts switch to the bow if you make claims of

the effect it is important to look more closely. >> let's open the floor to questions. firmly we wait for the microphone with your identification we will relax that rule as we talk about the activism discussions. [laughter] please wait for the record from. >> you did a great job of that. congratulations and you guys should think about pitching this is in hollywood as a centcom. [laughter] but let me ask you a question of the

institutional legitimacy of the of professorial. i and now they're working with real people every day the average person industry finds much of what the professors except as bread and butter of law appalling. the backlash against the kilo decision that people found out for the first time that they threw the property rights of the sled and does not think it is there business if somebody wants to bulldoze your house it was a shock to a lot of people. the extent of the disdain the growing a planted your backyard to give it to your neighbor is interstate commerce? not just appalling but frankly to ridicule that but it seems to me they should pay attention to real people

think when there is a serious basis for that government limiting physicians' so maybe it is the of craft professors that need to watch for the integrity. >> i agree with you and i of feeling tuesday although that could come from razr size i don't know but on the horizon i was at a conference before the health care decision came down i heard a professor express the he does not even deserve to be written about that "the new york times" should not even describe it. i just thought that was unfortunate. also bad strategically to

the wounds of constitutional change for having people sign on to that property rights movement is great. i am from judicial restraint the you focus on the constitutional change and where it happens but i hope as a democrat that liberals learn the lessons they you have put on the plate and realize they have to persuade people that just assume the constitutional law of kobe tomorrow. >> i will state the obvious then say something that may surprise you. i'm a professional academic we both exist outside of academia but we migrate as a law professor and to state the obvious in my line of

work it is the nine / one day and that is generous. in georgetown rehabs over three you are identifiably right-of-center in excess of a more diverse schools. [laughter] we have three. so this breeds a corrupt culture of monks themselves it was true of that was 99 / one d of their way back when my colleagues know is nobody they know thinks these things that the only tree and sinking and -- that only creighton sink by colleagues treat me well when i speak elsewhere but i could be dismissed because there is a lake where one or two of me

it is cultural and have taken control, have been on the appointments committee i have been on the inside watching discrimination take place against folks like myself i know it is an actual factual thing. and therefore we have to rely on counter cultural institutions like the cato institute and other places not in academia and then what happens is the progresses' have institutional envy of people like the cato institute to write articles about how the institute for justice has combined with the cater institute in this great movement when in fact, used to show the power are being controlled by the left. that is the of part the states the obvious. i was not at the conference room i was nobody there but

i just heard about it. i want to say something positive know about the press in the press coverage of this case. i think it is in the books i don't remember but the press coverage of the lawsuit was fair from beginning to end knowledgeable, informed with members of the press list said they were inappropriately elevating folks like me and they should be reporting the judges two-stroke down -- struck down the law were stupid if they upheld it it was smart they were being overly over you did that the reality is they were even hinted i was never quoted

out of context all stories were fair and balanced in the also fairly reported the fact the consensus of opinion is that we had no chance and that was a fact but to commend the reporters who worked in the case were better to understand the dynamics and the law professors who were paying attention. why were they? i don't have a complete answer but they covered the case from the beginning to the end, they heard the arguments over time what is reliable incredible so they listen to us as time goes by we proved ourselves to be

more accurate and fair and balanced it they did not dismiss us as crazy so the left wishes they had. >> at 1.it shows how important we are. see but it was decade-old paper and the validity is very much a topic of conversation in the ability to rely on them when the challenges arrive when they respond appropriately. >> with the attorneys general's office is asking a vice what procedural from the very beginning. they could not to and to those law faculties but i

was debating once at elmhurst in one of the arguments said it was a crazy position because nobody in the top-10 law school supported randy barnetts position by georgetown but i believe that there. but the reason i gave you this i thought you would go into the because he has a new book on traditional in engagement we will have a forum on here in december so there you go. this whole activism restraint is basically where you say if they criticize to be inactive is that means they disagree justice

ginsburg talks about activism and voting rates last term she wants to strike down lots of cases but the debate is are you getting the decision is correct would insure constitutional theory? not the legalistic talk. >> i appreciate the panel in afford to reading the book and as a student george mason law school after i talk there. i would like to ask the panel and future challenges to this lot at with the court's decision that said even if the taxing power enables them to of impose attacks on not obtaining health insurance is still requires an of other requirements of the constitution in one of those is the origination clause that says all bills for ranging revenue must

originate in the house what besides the mandate tax and those in the bill said d.c. circuit of appeals these chairmen of the subcommittee argues this very point that obamacare is not unconstitutional but did not originate in the house. i would direct the view is on the viability of that argument and i will leave it at that. >> it is a very interesting theory but my view is i refused during the two and a half years to ever make a prediction of how our case was it turned out.

and may have had a knowledgeable all opinion although it may be changed i actually be jacked the attitude of most of my colleagues to based all of their view on their predictions who will or will not rule -- to limit future purses see are committed self. although to state that of my own challenge i will simply say it is a virtue to be a strong argument. there is almost always an argument on the other side. it is not open and shut it is a powerful argument making a valid argument is not as efficient for the correct outcome in the case.

>> this is the last question in. >> it has two parts using roberts and decision legally speaking strategically, . >> but if you want to ask about taxing power how did your arguments change over time in three the in particular. >> good question. it is a plausible argument that the greatest contribution was to make it as strongly as he did. he teamed up with roberts very well also he was endorsed but the argument on the other side of the comedy

of the fact that all democrats originally said it is not attacks it is not attacks then as soon as the strikes it says the democrats say it is a tax and the republicans say it is not bad for a but i think roberts did a fine job but how did my opinions change? i always took randy's challenge seriously in and out of hand. i try not to predict for what it is worth the wait -- maybe it was a man crashed a was hoping he would pull something out of the hat i don't think it will be five or four against what happens but it.

>> the first was the most surprising aspect as you follow the book? a law professor and a clerk but then you end up breaking the book and interviewing people what were those interesting things of that process? >> thank you very much. i think what surprised me the most is how significant it was there are a lot of laws passed but something in particular about this law triggered a reaction never seen before. so to work overtime that jeffrey rosen with his man crash soever touch the american public but the sentiment that the

constitution does matter with the competing vision the charter of the limited government to pursue happiness in social security they were on display so vividly it was this that they worried about but what is the relationship between the person and the state? i feat that will be the clash like prickings of how it comes down so this is another step in the journey of where it takes us. >> with that let's take our panel. [applause] >> you can buy his book aside now we will go up to

lunch on the second floor. we are adjourned. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> all we ever had to go on and is what meighen's in himself wants to tell people. illegitimate son of a teenage prostitute mother, who cared so little about her child she once tried to sell him for some beer. and he was accused by the of goals she would have moved into the home one after another and to when he was nine she was so tired to

even pretend to take care of him she threw him into the juvenile justice system where he suffered greatly hint he did not know who his father was, but then he finally learned even as a child the street was his father in the prison was his mother and a pretty much everybody accepted so looking in his life and how did he get there come a question where was he in what kind of things were happening in our culture that made it possible for a charles manson to recruit a few dozen followers who would do these kinds of god awful things? history does not happen in a vacuum. i am convinced if charles manson was paroled in

nebraska and ended up in omaha instead of los angeles and tried these things he would have been impaled on a pitch for can put up as the scarecrow he was put at the right place at the right time. said you have heard over and over people different version of what happened on the night of august 9th and 10th of 1969. there is new material in my book because in the course of interviewing besides a couple of sound bites it explained it all in such depth with such honesty and clarity she ended up answering the last couple

questions the lapd has had so yes there is some new things. but if it is okay with you of a like to talk briefly about four parts of this book, a charles manson his life in the world he grew up in. let's begin with his childhood. we talked about what he claims. guess what? they are all lies. it is all documented will. i put 21,000 miles on my car in which every place that he went. with simple visits to the county courthouse charles manson was not illegitimate. when she was 15 was unhappy with the fundamentalist christian mother nancy who believed girls should not cut their hair or not we're

make up for do that sinful thing that led to every evil and that is the dancing. we know now that charles manson is sister nancy never before interviewed anywhere and i found her and she told her mother's side of the story for the first time. and gave me dates and places. here is what happened cover the real means of family including charles himself when she was 15 coming kathleen living in kentucky crosses average of for the river to a town that she sneaks out of the house because there are some clubs where people can dance.

she meets an exciting older man his name is colonel scott. it is a given name not a military rank the he does not mind letting the 15 year-old think it is but actually he works in the factory and has two children and leaves that out. then she becomes pregnant. she is 15. she tells colonel scott he announces he will do the right thing but he has just been called away by the army. he will come back in a couple of weeks and they will take care of everything. said kathleen goes to her mother and says she is pregnant and the father will marry her. you can imagine her mother's

reaction but she says she will stick with her they would get through this and it is not the child's fault and colonel scott never comes back. and kathleen is serious. another fellow in her life is william vinson. a, a neighbor whose dream is to be a dry cleaner. no weighing she is pregnant with another man's child marries her five months before the birth in never any question that charles manson was illegitimate, his birth certificate was filed a few weeks after his birth william meehan said in a listed as the father by the whole family knew the real father was colonel scott. no doubt.

so later rumors that he arcks because he had a black father never. never ever. the old marriagsts a couple years and he divorces her she is still young girl trying to run around and her son is never left with strangers or offered for beer but instead she does so many young women do and sticks him with her mother or her sister that he is always cared for. kathleen and her brother botch an attempted robbery they tried to probe somebody in the back and said it was a gun it was called the ketchup bottle bandits the greatest dunderhead do castling gets five years in

prison and luther gets tin is on her record ben never once anywhere before then or in the next 15 years was there any record she was served rested for prostitution or ever warned she bungled a crime she never should have tried to commit the he was not the child of a prostitute ever. he goes to live in a factory town with his cousin that is three years older and i found to way and who has never talked before and did you get a chance to look at the book tonight you will see the photo section includes pictures from his baby pictures through his wedding album and they came from chilean and his sister nancy. they tell the real story.

here is interesting story she said from the time he came to live with them a five years old he is scary. violent and lies about everything. the first person he physically attacked to iran tried to stab her with a sickle and his parents -- her parents stopped him and his explanation is she made me do it. i was defending myself. she is older than me. in first grade, operated by other people who were in school with him at the time, first grade he organizes girls to be but the boy he does not like. the principle comes looking for charlie. his explanation? the girls were doing what they wanted to do. you cannot blame me.

the same defense he uses. . .