responsibility requirement. substantively, they're the same, but individual mandate is something that could be more easily understood than individual responsibility requirement. the reason why the word unprecedented did so much work for us is because it means that if something really is relevantly unpress tent caned, then it means that all the previous supreme court doctrine that says one thing or another about it are not exactly on point and, therefore, don't directly district tate the -- dictate the outcome of the case. if, in fact, you can establish that it is unprecedented, and many people took issue with our claim that it was, but ultimately, we prevailed such that every court who issued an opinion about this case admitted it was an unprecedented case of first impression. all right. so the last point i'm going to make is that what this tells us is that think tanks alone, as clever as they may be and clever lawyering alone as clever and as smart as lawyers can be, are never going to be enough to restore the lost constitution, and by the lost constitution, i mean the constitution with all of its parking parts, not just f

the parts being enforce toed. and that's the reason why the social movement like the tea party is so important. whether they're called the tea party or not called the tea party, none of this would have happened if a political movement had not formed around this issue, and i was, myself, out in front of the capitol during a tea party rally the weekend in which the bill was first passed by the house when the bill was up to a vote in the house.

of the united states. this book describes a crucial battle in that fight. in this battle we gain ground. in this battle we gain ground with the lawsuit but it continues. you should read this book, i believe, as a case study how the war needs to be wage the and by whom. thank you. [applause] >> well, it's not unprecedented for speakers to go over their time. i'll excuse it in this case. finally, it's my pleasure to welcome jeffrey rosen, the president of the national constitution center. it if you haven't been, you should go. it's a wonderful permanent rotating exhibit. it builds it. i got on the website, it's the first and only non-profit, nonpartisan constitution devoted

to the most powerful vision of freedom ever e pressed the constitution. cato chopped liver? [laughter] he's also a professor at george washington law school. a nonresident senior fellow at the brookings constitution. jeffrey is a highly regarded journalist whose work has appeared in "new york times," "atlantic." the chicago transcribe boone named him one of the best. and the l.a. times called him the most widely read influential legal commentator. he's been a privacy free speech and democracy and the author of several weaks including supreme court in the debate series we

tartedded. i'll make a brief plug to say in addition to being the museum with the people. it's america's town hall and center for education. increasingly on the web and radio and television we're going to be sponsoring debates that bring together the best minds on all sides of every constitutional issue. we are the only constitution in the world charted by congress to disseminate information about the united states constitution on north -- nonpartisan basis. we wring together libertarians, acs, and social conservatives, and we are -- it's also a special honor to be here on behalf of my friends,

josh blackman. i agree with ilya it's the best book published on the health care case. josh did tremendous service in interviewing everyone on all sides of the case, including randy and me and many others. and giving a fair-minded, rivetting martive of the most important and compelling case in constitutional history. buy it and, congratulations josh. it's also a pleasure to be here with my good friend randy barnett. he's, indeed, "new york times," the god father to the challenge of obamacare. he's also, to give him his due, the intellectual arc tech of one of the most important challenges to the constitutional conventional wisdom of the past generation. and i agree with everything he said in the thoughtful talk. he's correct that the ideas matter and that it was his vision that the -- the proper scope of congress pour could be changed. and that it was important to

change not only in the course, but but also in the court of public opinion. the pop allow constitutional matters all of those are sentiments to embrace. i congratulate him for coming within a heir of the breadth to achieve the goal. you won't be surprised, randy to note i'm going to talk about the book that you didn't mention. and that is a claim that surprised me when i read the inspection. namely, how is it possible that the compelling intellectual challenge that persuaded the majority of americans that the mandate should be struck down sphailed on the conservative court. well, the answer comes on randy's forward on page 11 of the book. that is that this round swing of popular constitutional was thwarted by a liberal speefs -- conspiracy lead by none other than me.

i'm the one who denied randy in the victory in the health care case. here's what randy said. soon after the case was submitted to the court i became distressed by an extraordinary aung precedented effort to influence the court's private. many on the left from president obama to leahy. waived what i campaign disdain death sentence the and in an effort to influence and even intimidate one of the more of the justices to capitulate these efforts were troubling in light of the report at the time when the attacks were at the peak they began to pull back from the initial conference vote. we may never learn whether he changed his vote. left a stain on the entire case. strong words. and josh further reports in his, you know, fair-minded and fair

going account that the conspiracy went further. essentially ran i -- randy and j harvey willingson and i attended a dinner at george's house. right after i wrote an article to invalidate obamacare he would violate the pledges he had given to me and other journalists when he was nominated. in the interview the chief justice said he wanted to make a signature of chief justiceship in effort to persuade his colleagues above their own ideological agenda. he said it was bad for the court and and the country when the court struck down legislation. he said he would try to persuade his colleagues each of their decision they should make constitutional legitimacy a goal and he really he wasn't sure he would succeed. this is what he was going to --

develop a man crush on john roberts. the truth is i took very seriously. i would assume he would do what he said he did. i he a mixed success in avoiding 5-4 decisions during the five or so years during the chief justiceship. notable failures like citizens united. i thought he would do what he said. toward the beginning of may i wrote piecing say he cared about institutional legitimacy and wanted to avoid 5-4 votes if he were to invalidate the health care act and disregard the institutional legitimacy he wouldn't a-- i thought it was the blatantly obvious he articulated an earnest vision it was an testament. i learned from josh's book i was the head of a conspiracy that the dinner of george's house, i

thought it was a book party inspect fact, discussion of judicial restraint galvanize george and other conservative commentators to resist my effort to intimidate the chief justice. it was around this time i learned from josh that chief justice roberts was beginning to wobble. it was report he shifted his vote from a initial vote to strike down the mandate to uphold it. and therefore, will and kathleen parker and a bunch of conservative journalists wrote articles calling on the chief justice to have a spine of steel and resist the administration of nefarious journalists like me who were trying to intimidate. they expertise -- expressed confidence he would. according to the conspiracy account, which ilya embraced in the introductory remarks, the chief justice faced the test and failed upon the one hand, the opposition of the majority of the american public, obamacare, on the other hand disapproval

from jeffrey rosen. [laughter] in fact he was afraid of his disapproval with a craving political act he shifted his vote and he guaranteed that his legacy would be viewed as one of politics rather than principle. he deserves nothing but disdain from principle differenters of judicial constitution. i'm here to point out the blatantly obvious. it's a complete "fantasy." the entire conspiracy theory rests on the notion that i knew the chief justice was going wobbly and wrote the article in an effort to intimidate it. i didn't know it. the first time i learned about it was harper greenberg and i learned from jeffrey's book far from me being the one who has inside information about the chief justice going wildly. it was in fact george. the dinner party i stumbled in to thinking it was a nice party was one where george had grumbles from the court according to jeffrey too bin's account of the book. where the conservative books

were so upset that the chief justice changed their vote. they were complaining to colleagues -- colleagues complained somehow to george and he wrote them to shore up the chief. so there's any conspiracy at stake, i wouldn't use the word, it was basically will who was using this inside information to try to bully, scare, you know, persuade the chief justice to change his vote. now so that's all there is to it. i didn't know he changed his vote. i wrote the column because i believed what he said. it he meant what he said. far from ilya's conspiracy theory being one to persuade you. i want to take a moment to say how much respect could chief justice deserve for doing what he said? you may not agree. most people at cato don't agree with chief justice's john robert's notion that it should trump it. but believes it. obviously he wouldn't have talked about it for an hour or

two in interview if he didn't believe it. i think the chief justice is correct when he said the american public perceives the supreme court repeat disli striking down legislation by polarized political votes. faith in the neutrality of the court is something that transcends politics is undermined. i believe this is a hard boat for the chief justice. we haven't spoken, by the way, since the interview came down. i think that he was obviously facing tremendous pressure not just from people like george but the conservative colleagues, as we also learned from josh's book, like justice anthony kennedy were lobbying him repeatedly to change his vote. it was kennedy eager to get him to have a spine of steel. roberts, i don't think if he would have cast his vote if he has was a regular justice. i think he thinks the chief has a specialt role and they have recognized institutional

legitimacy is key to shoring up their legacy in the long run. far from being political, obviously not political, as you pointed out, the decision was counter majority. most people wanted him to strike it down. he didn't do it. because he thought that institutional legitimacy was more important than following opinion or embracing the dock trinal purity from randy. far from being on principle, i believe there are strong arguments on all sides of all constitutional questions one of the great contribution to the constitutional debate is the idea of something once on the walt can go on the wall fast. ic it's too bad that my colleagues in the legal academy were so quick to dismiss randy's challenge. he did something important and beautiful. you deserve hiewmght credit -- huge credit. there are strong argument or the ore side.

the chief justice confronted with the situation where the precedent and conventional legal opinion and 50 years of history point one way and randy is pointing another way. he could plausibly choose between equally. it was doctrinally pure? of course not. it was the twistification to use john marshall -- the one that jefferson applied to marshall. he was choosing among competing argument and ilya said begins -- ginsburg wasn't persuaded. it was a decision which march would have been proud and well within the scope of the legal material. and disagree with it on grounds absolutely fine. to accuse him of being political and giving wit what any journalist or president obama would care is not persuasive. josh, i was surprised to hear in

your introduction your notion that roberts cast his vote because he was afraid of tax on dpowrt during the election. i don't the cared at all about that. he was pursue the vision he articulated when he took office and did it very well. how does josh blackman come down on the question? i left my copy of the wonderful book in phil fill. when i was preparing for the book this this morning. i went to an earlier version of the manuscript that josh sent a couple of months. this is what i read of the early your copy of the like john marshall before him. roberts has a special responsibility fall on the shoulder. he abilitily and unselfishly. now i don't final version of the book on page 298 a few months later and read the following paragraph instead. he hoped the nfib

in american democracy only history can decide. he toned it down. what is the source to change the characterization of the chief justice? i can only assume it's a conspiracy led by randy barnett! the god father i -- to tone it down. i want to hear more about why you did. itst too bad. i felt in the earlier draft you seem to be, you know, praising him for the same reasons i do. doing what he said what he would do. behaving out of his own sense of institutional legislate mitt say and deserving praise for that. this talk of conspiracy, i think, is unfortunate. there is, as we know, right on

the left a -- a paranoid style in american politics. he talked -- he talked about paranoid interpretation of history and distinctly personal. the enemy is to possess especially -- he controls the press, unlungedded funds, a new secret for influencing the find. special technique. i think the talk of intimidation and conspiracy is unfortunate because it's in there. it's not unique to the libertarian. hoff stetter was talking about the gold water right and the also i would say some of my own writing i have written about a libertarian movement to transform constitutional motion of the commerce clause call it

constitution in exile. i've said it lead by powerful figure of secret technique for influencing the press like randy barnett and especially "the new york times" magazine. i think the thesis got twisted in a way that mirrors the conspiracy talk i know randy will regret and withdrawal after the talk. i think sheer what i want to say about, you know, how it's confound. i think randy barnett is not the head of a conspiracy. i think the he's of an important intellectual. i think what he's doing in trying to persuade the heart and miebled of america. i think the intellectual influence is great. i think many judges has embraced his vision and energid judge -- and include john roberts. but others haven't embraced the vision. those include more judicial restraint conservatives.

shouldn't we conservatives be attendive to the claims? are we the activists now? and josh notes that jeff later upheld the health care law and suggests he was influenced by the challenges. it wasn't an intimidate to him. it was an attempt to call him and the other conservatives to the principles and continue to raise the restraint. so all i would say is i hope this important debate goes forward in the country. let's abandon efforts to personalize it to imagine the inside deal. it's a battle of constitutional ideal which is a wonderful thing. that's with a we exist to host at the national constitution center. i'm proud to have participated in this debate in the health care case. i don't know what the future

will bring. randy is optimistic it will have lags and restrict the scope of the federal government. i interview justice ginsburg on friday and asked her about the case. she disagreed. she was a strong dissenter. she believes it won't have the staying power as she said on friday. and thinks that in the end that understanding of the congress will survive. we'll see. time will tell. as josh said in his new version of the introduction. [laughter] i'll close by saying i love so much about the book. the title "unprecedented" is misimplied. laws arrive to respond the unique situation of the moment. time work many changes as my her resaid. and legislation rises to the challenge. jew additional swrowltd black it to strike down the center piece

of president obama's economic thank you so much. just to clear up something. i don't want to speak for josh and randy. my version of the conspiracy is not that the president or senator leahy let alone journalists caused john roberts to change his vote. but that is the perception of the american people. and perception often is important. that's certainly contributed to the laws of the legitimacy or the popular respect for the court, which is, again, ironically as i pointed out. one of the reasons presumably that john roberts abilitied as he did.

what i'm arguing that he wasn't speer wade -- by taking the extralegal considerations he misfired in that. he miscalculated. we don't know 30 years from now. it's been a year and a half and dpowrt -- the court was damaged by his decision. comments? >> first of all, i enjoyed jeffs comments a lot. i can't say i agree with all of them the way he said he agreed with me. let's talk a little bit about the so-called conspiracy. i wish it was -- i'm glad you recognize the irony of calling out the supposed conspiracy theory monogoring after writing "the new york times" specie piece which was a conspiracy-sounding -- not just the story but the picture itself. there is an irony in jeff

objecting to conspiracy theories. let me just talk a little bit about the particular issue in this particular case. i don't know what it was in john robert's mind. i don't know what was going on behind the scenes. i don't know if he was influenced by jeff. it wasn't just jeff it was a ton of abuse that heaped upon the court from the moment oral argument revealed there were probably at least four if not five votes for invalidating the affordable care act. i -- for the historical record, i chronicle the degree extensiveness to the have stiff rise, the attempt to demean them. in a piece i did on the harvard law called the disdain campaign. i show what it was -- i document the rhetoric aim at the justice while deliberating.

i know, as i note in the toward here when i was a prosecutor in cook county, illinois trying to retrial in cook county, illinois. cook county has a republicannation for some judicial unsavoriness. once it went to the jury i could work on other cases thinking it was not going to be tampered with. the moment that the case was submitted so to speak in literally in the court an outpouring of objection from the president to the chairman of the house of the senate jew judiciary committee to the lonely jeff rosen objecting to what they anticipated might be a ruling that would thwart the tie of history and calm legitimacy of the the court in question. but i don't know what actually affected john roberts.

but i know this. i know, this jeff argues, look, there were reasonable arguments on both sides. there were reasonable arguments on both sides. i never once, in the two years i debate the case dismiss the supporters of the case for making an unreasonable argue. i -- i'm sure they were dismissing as frivolous. i never dpn it was a closed case that could go either way given the existing legal material to be applied. never denied that. insisted upon it, as a matter of fact. however, the consensus was it was a choice between the vision of the constitution enunciated in the opinion which argued the case was and more was unconstitutional we articulated which ended being ably made by the joint dissending opinion in

the case inspect is what the choice was between this one vision of the constitution and the other vision of the constitution. no one, nobody, no person, no judge ever made the position publicly. i debate it publicly. i have a good idea what everybody is saying. never did anybody say that the law of the unconstitutional under the commerce and necessary and proper clause. but was constitutional under a saving construction of the individual mandate, which would make it not an mandate at all but an oms to buy insurance or pay a tax. it had to be a nonpunitive tax. and therefore it could be saved bay saving construction of that. nobody said that. so someone saw the position was available. nobody advocated that position. democratic appointed or republican appointed judge saw this as the legally compelled outcome. well, it does suggest give the

fact on the one hand he joined with the dissending justices to accept all of our institutional arguments. on the other hand, he found a way to uphold the affordable care act pretty much in total. this is what -- and in fact this was the ground on which you urge the decision be made. and your colleagues urge the decision to be made. on political grounds. not maybe partisan political grounds. you said again today it would have been unprecedented for the president to invalidate what would be the center piece legislation of a -- i'm sorry for the supreme court to invalidate it. what would have been the center piece of a president's platform. that's a political argument. that's a political consideration that should have absolutely nothing do with the case. but you knead that front and center in the case as did your colleagues. you were not alone. that's what made this decision seem like it was political. it was reinforced by justice

roberts' own reasoning. it was not legally compelled or compared he's the only justice to have seen it as the legal for the case. and apparently he only saw that as a letly coexcelled following three days of oral argument. it occurred it was the right legally justified outcome. i just think that's the case where the case has a taint. it's not a conspiracy theory. it's now about how you communicate with the justice. it's what i said which was publicly known. the public confrontation of the court and the way john roberts responded by ruling the way he did in public which everybody can read and draw their own inferences from. [applause] >> sure. on the campaign -- it was not campaign at the stand. it was a campaign of respect. it was a campaign of respect. if you read that piece i wrote it was a completely mild

manner. it sets out what john robert's vision is and said he strikes down the law he wouldn't be pursuing the vision. there's no stance. i also think you can't, randy, argue it's important to change heart and mind of the american public when it comes to constitutional arguments. then criticize congressmen -- commentators for making strong constitutional arguments and say the court would be violating if it rules a certain way. that's what a constitutional debate is about. it's perfectly appropriate for the president and the senate judiciary committee and blogger and lowly journalist like me to make arguments. that's what we did. i think it was a good thing. john roberts. there is one phrase i regret. and thank you for point thing it out. the problem isn't it would have been unprecedented to validate the center piece of president obama -- that's the right way of putting it. it would have been unprecedented to invalidate an ak of congress

that was s&l piece of social and economic legislation that was deliberated extensively and as ifed by congress. randy, you know a proponent of judicial activism. i think the court is wrong to strike down affirmative action and abortion law. i don't share your institutional vision that dpowrt should be in the business of invalidating act of congress. the court is on most tenuous grounds when it strikes down act of congress. they generally represent national consensus. i think chief justice roberts was move bid the vision when he cited oliver wendell home holmes. i think this is an important point of disagreement too. you're equating robert's concern

with legitimacy of being political. they're not the same thing. it's a delicate balance. he's john marshall came up with an legal argument that hadn't occurred with the party that occurred in the footnote of some 18th blog that no one else noticed. he did that because of the broader vision of the importance of court appearing to be nonpartisan and maintaining legitimacy. i think that's per missable. finally you said court harmed the legitimacy taken a black eye. the polls are complained. everything i have seen is suggest that the democrats, who had opposed the mandate before the position came down switched the decision and it may have been canceled out by republican disappointment. wroadly the legitimacy of the court doesn't seem to be

affected by the health care decision. they don't remember john roberts switched his vote. when you make claim about the effective pes. i think it's important to look at the empire call evidence. >>let open to questions. i'm going to normally wait for the microphone and your identification and actually have a question. relax the rule -- to respond to some of the -- over here. congratulations, ilya. a wonderful event.

you should maybe pitch it for hollywood a little sitcom going. >> a funny movie. >> "the old couple." >> let me ask a question about the constitutional legitimacy of the -- i'm a litigator working with real people every day. the average person on the street finds much of what the prof or souate accepts as bread and butter constitutional law upholding. the backlash against the decision where people were basically found out for the first time that the supreme court is thrown property rights off the back of the constitutional sled and doesn't think it's any of the business that somebody wants to bulldoze your house to -- the extent of the disdain. the idea that growing a plant in your backyard and giving it to a neighbor is interesting commerce. or at least can regulated under

the congress' power. it's not just pailing to americans but frankly for many they ridicule that as a decision. they don't believe it has any integrity. i don't either. it seems to me it should pay attention to what real people think and not dismiss their opinion when there's a serious basis for the government-limiting. i throw the question out maybe they need to clean the house and watch for the into the ground -- into the groundty. constitutional changes made among the people not among the prop or souate it can help persuade the people by putting new idea on the hishes -- horizon. i was at the conference before the health care decision came down where i heard a professor express contempt for randy's decisions and saying they don't deserve to be written about.

was correct. i'm but you may bin the battle because you're to cooing where the constitution nalt change happens. i hope as a democrat that liberals learn the lessons you have learned on the libertarian right and realize they have to persuade people.

the obvious is that, you know, i'm a professional academic. jeff is also. we outside of academia as well. my bread and butter is a law professor. that's what i think of myself as. i'm going state the obvious. in my line of work, it's 99 h 1 and actually that's generous. georgetown we have over 100 tenured or tenured-track law professors. there are three who identify with right of center. that makes us one of the more diverse law schools. it the country. [laughter] to have three. and so and so what this does is breads a corrupt coolture of majortarianism. wouldn't it be true if it were 99-1 the other way. that is that you know what my colleagues know nobody they know thinks these things and the terrible yahoo! things that only credence thinks. and so those of us within the academia. i'm treated respectfully. i have a good life. my colleagues treat me welt and

i get treated respectfully on the road when i'm speaking elsewhere. i can be dismissed as marginal just in their own minds just because there's only one of me or two of me or three of me and there's just many more of them. it's a cumture thing. they have taken control. you can call it a conspiracy or not. i've been the appointment committee. i've been on the inside watching discrimination take place against folks like myself. i know, it's an twiewl factual thing. they have taken control of this institution and flfer we've had to rely on court cultural institutions like the cato and other which are not within academia to strike back. what happens is it's funny. the progressives have institutional envy like the cato institute. they write article how the institute for justice and combined forces in this great constitution exile movement. conspiracy.

when in fact the constitutions of power are being controlled by the left in a remarkable fashion. that's the park that is stating the of obvious. your comment about the yale law school. i wasn't there. nobody like me was at the conference. i heard about it. but the -- i want to say something positive now. something extremely positive about the prez and the press coverage of this case. that is something i think it's in the -- i can't remember if josh pushed my statement about this in the book. the press comping of the lawsuit was fair from beginning to end. it was fair, it was knowledgeable, it was informed. that's what the law professors were objecting to. they had member on the press on the panel. it was being by even handed and fair. they were inappropriately elevating the credibility of folks like me.

and the june that upheld the law were smart and the press was not even handed. they were being overly. that's their criticism. the reality is the press was remarkably even handed. covered the case fairly. i was never devoted out of context or inaccurately. all the the stories i read about the case were fair and balanced in the sense they fairly reported our side and the other side. they report the fact con sen us we had no chance. it was a fact too that was fair to report. but i just want to commend the reporters who worked on the case. the reporters who worked on the case were better at understanding the dynamic of the case than posedly paying attention to it. i think that is the -- i'm trying to think where were they better. i don't have a complete answer to that. i think part they covered the case from the beginning to the end. they were at court like we were there.

they heard the argument. they interviewed the other side and me and ilya and over time i think what he told them had proven to be. we proved ourself to be more accurate and fair and balanced. they didn't dismiss us as crazy throw the left wished they had. how critical they are when they arise. both the -- asked our advice on procedural

issues at the beginning. they couldn't turn to their, you know, uva or university of florida or whatever law faculties posted. because they didn't have someone there like randy barnett. i was debating once with the other ilya, actually. it was at amherst. one of the ours was a crazy position because nobody in a top ten law school saved richard supported randy barnett's position. and of course, georgetown, i guess is the u.s. ranking is not the top ten. it's twelve. he was purposefully. i'll leave it there. clark, i was expecting you. i thought you were going go in to this activism restraint thing. clark, i'll give you a quick plug. he has a new book on judicial engagement i think we'll have a forum on here in december.

it's next month. there you go. if somebody is criticizing somebody for being -- they agree. the debate should be about are you getting the decisions correct or not? what is the constitutional theory. let's engage that. not this other, you know, term legalistic -- [inaudible] >> over there. hi. i appreciate this panel and looking forward to reading josh's book. i'm sorry you didn't have a student at george mason law school. i taught there are. anyway, i would like to, at ask the panel about future challenges to the law. and the the court's decision to set even if the taxing power enables congress impose a tax on

not impending health insurance. any tax must comply with other requirements in the constitution. one of the requirements and a big one is the origination clause that said all bills for raising revenue must originate in the house of representatives. besides the mandate tax there are 15 other revenue-raising provisions in the bill that are raising hundred of billions of dollars. currently before the dc circuit is an appeal raising very issue. i'm going representing an amicus trent franks and others who cosponsor with the chairman of the subcommittee on the constitution arguing the very point. they have a house resolution that said obamacare is unconstitutional because it didn't originate in the house. i want to know what the panel's view is on the viability of the argument. and i'll just leave it at that if you can respond. >> i'll take that, thank you,

paul. t an interesting theory. you stated it accurately. i won't restate it. my view is that first of all, i review the two years ever to make prediction how the case come out. and i knew a lot more about it. i might have had a pretty knowledgeable opinion about how i thought it might come out. my opinion changed over the time. i never made predictions i resent -- not resent, i object to the attitude of most of my colleagues who based all of their views of constitutionality on their predictions how the court will or will not rule in the future. it i'm not going to state an opinion how likely i think that challenge is to succeed as i never stated that minnesota about my own challenge. ly say it has the virtue of validity. it has a virtue of bag strong argument. like jeff said pretty much constitutional argument there's an argument on the other side. there are arguments on the other side of this as well.

there's not an open and shut case. it's a very powerful argument that i think having -- making a valid argument is necessary but unfortunately not sufficient basis for actually getting a correct outcome in the case. >> hi, trevor cato institute. my question for jeff rosen, actually. two parts. do you think roberts' taxing power the decision legally speaking, which has not been raised. talk about strategically. is it compelling enough to do the work that it did? should have been rebriefed if you want to ask about taxing power. secondly, how can your opinion of the argument raise over time as they were raised and discoed in randy's argument, particular. >> good question, thank you for questioning. i think it's a very legally plausible argument. i think the greatest

contribution was making it strongly as he did. he teed it up to roberts very well. jack endorsed it. the argument on the other side the legislative history, of course, the comedy of the fact that the democrat originally said it's not a tax. it's not a tax. the republicans said it was. as soon as the the a-- the democrats say it's a tax and authorized by the constitution and the republicans say it's not not. i think that should be less important than the function of the i think roberts did a fine job embraces how ask my opinion change? i took randy's challenge seriously. i don't know. like randy i try not to predict for what it's worth. maybe it was the crash. i was rooting for roberts. i hoped he would pull something

out of the hat. i did text a friend minute before it came down. i think it's not going 5*8 5 7 4 -- but i was delighted. >> what was the most surprising for you as you wrote the book? you followed the argument and the case, you're a law professor throughout most of it. then you got actually writing the book and interviewing people. what was the most surprising or interesting thing that you learned through the process? thank you very much and for jeff and randy and everyone. a quick pleasure. i think what surprised me the most that this case was how significant it was to everyone. there a lots of laws passed by government that people might not like or dislike. there's something particular about the law that triggered a reaction never seen before. it was something that maid academics work overtime. something that made ilya travel

around the country. something that made jeff rosen cling to the man crush that john roberts' uphold. the constitution matters. there was a competing vision what the constitution said the charter of limited government that restricts what the federal government can do or the constitutional empowers that federal government to into be people to pursue happiness. i think the two competings vision was on display in the case so vividly. it was really this and not so much but what is relationship between the person and the state healthy or let me do my own thing. i think that's the clash that people have to contend with how it comes down. as randy said, it's a another step in the journey.

with that, let's thank our panel. [applause] we're going adjourn to lunch which is up the stairs on the second floor. there are bathrooms on the first floor and upstair along the way to luncht. -- lunch. we're adjourned. thank you. [inaudible conversations] we wanted america to better. we wanted america to live up to the declaration of independence. live up to our creed. make real our democracy. take of an oath of people and make it real. when i got arrested the first time, the book is saying that i felt free. i felt liberated! and today more than ever before i feel free and liberated! >> sunday on c-span two,

congressman john lewis takes your calls and comment on his role in the civil rights movement. live for three hours starting at noon eastern on in-depth. you can keep the conversation going online.ceol here is the most recent book. it's called.er mosrecent joyce is the author. we don't often have novelists'tt bookooktv on c-span. but this is historical fiction in a sense, isn't it?s is h >> yeah.is, a how sndo? >> well, i did a tremendous amount of research. that was the most pleasant part of the writing in to princeton and vicinity and the years of 1905 or '60 when wilson was

president of princeton university. >> host: what was princeton like at the time? >> guest: at that time it wast t alle a representation of affluent, white, christian america generally.whitc and princeton is an explayer i are. >> host: and wilson has a >> hosin your book doesn't he? >> guest: he's a principle character. he's in many of the novel. chacter. he's cob fronted bay demon.ed he's tempted.. i shouldn't say what happens. ql he behave nobly in the novel.el he represent many of they o the shortcomings of people in theomt time. he was a racist and sexist andit other. probably his most he wasas bigone. >> host: toed b what? >> guest: to be a leader.

ot n it's not that uncommon for people people to feel politicians,nd statesmen, and leaders.aders. some are psychopath logical and some less so. sec >> host: without giving awayhola the plot can you tell us about the curse? >> the curse in the novel really means the white upper class christian people who literally look the other way when the ku klux klan was operating in newnt jersey and elsewhere. the black people were being lynched and harassed ande tortured and murdered, and then white leaders, like woodrow wilson, and many others justoodw would not say anything aboutt sy it. they wouldn't come out courageously to criticize and wouldn't do anything. it was basically like they, you know, see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil. no that sort of thing.e i thought there was a curse on so the white race basically. >> host: and upton sinclair in

your book? >> guest: he was 26 years>> g old. he represents a younger r generation. he sort of rises rise of interest of equality among the races and sex ises. it was about women's right and s women acquiring a vote. >> host: and john london and grover cleveland? >> guest: yes.grover cle jack london is a friend of uptot sinclair. devote socialist. >> host: where do you get your>: idea? >> guest: myo idea from the novel because i came to live in princeton. was i read some biography of woodrow wilson and princeton. i perceive in the biography supported of a person muchf a different from the sort of received notion of woodrow wilson is a model person.ow i saw that he had many flaws, and i saw that his do you havee

any idea how many books you sold? >> no. >> host: do you have any ideard? how many awards you have won. ct >> guest: i don't sit around counting them, no. >> host: how do you write? >> guest: i try to write early in the morning. w i basically love to write. to me it's very exciting. it's literally exciting to write.ing. i feel that i'm organizinght thoughts that may be incoherenty and chaotic and funneling them. i like to create dramatic sceneo ..at novel has a lot of exposition and history. but basically each chapter is dramatic scene and often conversation between people. and something really happens at the end of the chapter there's an ending. then there's something else in the beginning. and when the novel ends, it really ends. there's a resolution and the mystery is explained in the last pages. >> as you're write --

has your writing changed in the last 40 years? >> my writing changed a lot. i had long paragraphs of -- now i have more dialogue.uch mo people talking.more dialo i try to evoke the voices ofali. people rather than my own voice. >> host: longhand or computer? >> guest: i start longhand andtr an then computer to organize.gan it's perfect for organizing and moving chapter and paragraphsand around and positioning andm repositioning. that's perfect. >> host: do you save your r drafts? >> guest: i save many of my drafts, yes. i do.s my archives at in a universityty and they're huge. it's like the grand canyon. at n it's filled with all of this paper.e, >> host: why are your archives

thatkewsc when you teach ats princeton? >> syracuse is where i graduated. and my ba is from syracuse. >> host: how long have youuest: been at princeton.ric >> guest: 1978. >> are you teaching at this semester? >> host: at this very minute. a coupli'e dpaifs, yes. >> host: what are you teaching? >> guest: two writing workshops and two students who i advise to do thesis. >> host: do you pick the students? >> guest: to some extend i pick them. tses. basically they are apply to thee program that i choose my thesis students. >> host: on the pfirst day of >> h class what to cow dosh do youf, assign? >> guest: we may go over inass, great detail a short story. as a classic story.we make over we may go over a hemmingway a as story. line by line. hengway's almost word by word a storyarrae maybe two pages long. we go over it carefully. i want them to see how it'sword written.nd w

the very best prose is writtent. like poetry it's nicely constructed. the ore day, which is a coupleet of weeks ago we did a ray carvea story.the that's the first class. >> host: do you enjoy wa teaching? >> guest: very much.irst >> host: why? >> guest: the h students arey interesting and their writing is often engaging and original. and i love going over hemmingway, let's say, or fobbinger -- o falkne. i love going over good proseoina when we're appreciating it. as i said, it's something likeea poetry. it's written soa carefully that with a number of sensitive younu people to go through this and see how well it's written.sehowl it's a pleasure. it's >> host: is writing hard work? h guest: writing can sometimes be hard work or wo sometimes be fluent. it's like mo -- luen

mozart created music and other s composers revise a little more.a one is maybe too easy if it comes in your head and you don't have to revise. maybe a i like that have a first draftdu and revise it. that's my happiest situation.rat >> if someone were to pick upats one of your books and said whici one of ytour books should i o read?us say >> guest: that depends on whoy t you are.yo i have huge long novels about marilyn monroe is 800 pages long. but "zombie" is only about 140 y pages. if you like short word i have ae novel called "rape: a love store ." that's very short.nd not very >> host: joice carol. s here is theu most recent bookoa. "the cursed ." it's booktv on c-span2. a look at the u.s. capitol today. the senate about to gavel in for a rare saturday session on day five of the government shut down.

we'll return to booktv programs as soon as the senate is gaveled out for the day. right now go live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the senate chaplain, retired admiral dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god of heaven, your are great and we come before your throne with reverence. lord, look at us and hear our prayers for our congress, our nation, and our world. make our lawmakers so