is u.s. supreme court heard oral argument in questioning the constitutional treaty parties. the case bond versus the u.s. involves government's prosecution in that pennsylvania woman under federal a federal law designed to ban chemical weapons. the woman was found spreading toxic chemicals on her friends personal property. the underlying issue in the case is the question of when the federal government may intrude on powers traditionally given to the states. in this case police powers. here is the oral argument to that case. >> we with her arguments in case 12 .158 bond versus united states. mr. clement. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. if the statute at issue here really does reach every malicious use of chemicals anywhere in the nation as the government insists it clearly exceeds congress's limit --

limited and enumerated powers. this court cases that may clear the bedrock of our system that congress backs the general police power to criminalize conduct without regard to jurisdictional element or some nexus to a matter of deceptive federal concern. the president's negotiation and the senate's ratification of the treaty of a foreign nation does not change that ed rudd danceable of our constitutional system. >> you said that the treaty is valid and the implementing legislation seems to largely copy the words of the treaty without adding anything, so it's a puzzle that the treaty could be constitutional but the implementing legislation that adds nothing is unconstitutional >> justice ginsburg i guess i

would quarrel with your premise which is it is true the conventional conventional statute yusem of all terms and terminology but there is one very important difference between the convention and the statute in that differentiates this case. that difference is that the convention itself doesn't directly regulate individual conduct at all. and so all the convention does does -- see the convention tells the parties go regulate individual conduct in exactly the way this convention regulates state parties and then what the legislation does as justice ginsburg said just mirrors the convention as the convention contemplated. >> justice kagan what the convention says in article vii, section 1, 33a what it says is that each nation-state convention agrees in accordance with these constitutional processes to pass p. no laws that make it unlawful for

individuals conduct that would violate the convention by a nation-state. i would respectfully suggest that making that translation if you will between what violates the condition for a nation-state and what would be comparable individual conduct is not obvious and when the government does that through pena legislation there is no reason why pena legislation shouldn't have to comply. >> mr. clement why not? there can be no doubt that chemical weaponry is at the forefront of our foreign-policy efforts right now. look at the serious situation. it would be deeply ironic that we have expended so much energy criticizing syria plan if this course were now -- this court were now to create legislation to implement the treaty was in unconstitutional.

putting aside the impact on foreign relations if it's okay to regulate the possession of marijuana for a local crime, why is it unconstitutional to regulate the use of something that can kill or maim another human being, a chemical that could kill or maim a human being? i don't understand where the disconnect is in terms of our federal or state system. >> justice sotomayor i think it gets down to the difference between raache and lopez which this court is held as a classic and rational way to regulate commerce to basically prohibit certain items from congress. >> there is no dispute that these chemicals were transported along interstate lines. that's not even disputed in this case.

>> i don't think it was disputed and lopez that the firearm would have had to cross-state lines but the problem and lopez was the federal statute was not sure it should in a way that had jurisdictional nexus that made the statute applicable. >> we could take this case to decide the commerce clause issue did it? it asserts it now but as we take the case the issue is whether the treaty supported the laws. >> that's right justice scalia and we think the government like a private party can weigh the constitutional argument. on the other hand i would say we are not particularly concerned about the commerce clause argument because we think the argument has the same basic effect is the treaty power argument. >> do you think mr. clement and this goes back to justice ginsburg's question, could this treaty have that self-regulated individual conduct? could the treaty have been self-executing?

>> well, i think that's an interesting question and i don't think the court needs to answer it. i would take the position that it there really were a self-executing treaty that try to impose criminal call -- chemical prohibition i would say it violates the constitution for the same basic reasons that this implementing legislation does. >> where would you find that in the constitution because there is clearly treaty power that does not have subject matter limitations and indeed if you go back to the founding history it's very clear that they thought about all kinds of subject matter limitations in james madison and others decided quite self-consciously not to impose them so where would you find that limitation in the constitution? >> i would find that limitation in the structural revisions of the constitution and the enumerated powers of congress and i would say -- >> the enumerated powers the treaty power so you have to find a constraint on the treaty power.

where does it come from? >> well i think where i come from again is the structural provisions of the constitution. a self-executing treaty purported to commandeer state and local police officers i would think there might be an amendment objection calling it an enumerated power objection and there might be objection to that treaty. >> the word treaty has some meaning. it is certainly too true going back to the beginning of that country there have been many treaties that have been implemented in ways that affect matters that otherwise would you within the province of the states. one of the original purposes of the objectives of the constitution was to deal with the treaty power was to deal with the issue of debts owed to british creditors and there have been cases about property rights of foreign subjects about the treatment of foreign subjects and you hear about things that are moving across international

borders about extradition and all of those within all of those, until fairly recently, certainly until generally after world war ii all of those concerned matters that are of legitimate concern of a foreign state. that was the purpose of the treaty so can't we see something in that in the meaning of the treaty what it was understood to mean when the constitution was adopted? >> i think that's right justice alito and i didn't mean to answer justice kagan's question to the premise that there is no limit on treaty power whatsoever but i think it's important to recognize in the context of nonself executed treaties there's a real opportunity to leave for another day the question but that the treaty itself is valid because sometimes the treaty is not self-executing precisely because the summit recognizes that. >> if you had been the president's counsel would you have advised him it's unconstitutional to sign this treaty? >> absolutely not justice

kennedy but that's precisely because it's a self-executing treaty by its terms and doesn't do anything to directly regulate individual conduct and if i were the president's counsel and i would have said ominously mr. president i don't think it's requires us to have any law that applies to garden-variety chemicals but if we need to discharge her treaty executions the states are absolutely ready and able to do that. there's no state that doesn't have a general assault statute covered by this. >> mr. clement the irony in what you just said, because the victim many times went to the state police and said please help me and they turned her away a dozen times. finally they said go to the post office. this doesn't seem to be -- this trenches on the state's

domain and yet in this very case it wasn't until the state referred her to the post office, federal officials that she got any action. >> justice ginsburg one way to understand that is the state of pennsylvania exercised his prosecutorial discretion not to pursue this matter. i don't even think the government says that exercise prosecutorial puts us in our treaty obligation to have a lot of prohibits misconduct which the states certainly do. the treaty application is not to make sure that every single use malicious use of chemicals is prosecuted by state or local officials. >> mr. clement can i date sure i understand your test? your test is to say with respect to every prosecution under this treaty, a court has to ask whether the prosecution has a sufficient nexus to national or international concerns? is that your test? >> no, that is my my test.

the one thing i think i know from this precedence is the federal government doesn't have general police power so as i look at the statute he can either be saved by essentially creating a jurisdictional element out of the phrase peaceful and equating it with nonwar for the statute really has this general character that at least as applied to the chemicals here which are dual chemicals that can't be constitutionally applied. >> i thought the test i just articulated was really directly out of your reefs but if you are suggesting that is not the test give me the test we are supposed to ask with respect to this case or any other as to whether the prosecution is unconstitutional. >> is whether the federal statute exercises the general police power and if it does -- >> that sounds like a challenge. i am careful to talk about as an

applied challenge to this particular prosecution. >> that's because the only relief i'm seeking is to have my clients conviction vacated so this is the classic -- and the reasoning the court may employ in vindicating my challenge may suggest the statute is unconstitutional in some or all of the different applications. >> so you think if the statute extends to things that we have generally thought of as part of the least power, that sufficient? >> i would save the federal statute exercises police power without regard to jurisdictional element or some nexus of federal concern than that statute exceeds congress's power. that was the case and lopez in the case of morrison and -- >> nexus to a national concern again is what i understood you to say in your brief but let me give you a hypothetical. let's say it's the same

convention except it relates only to sarin gas and there's a chemist out there and the implementing legislation mirrors the convention. the chemist out their manufactures sarin gas and i take it's pretty easy to manufacture and the senses through the ducts of the house and kills everybody in it. is that at the nexus to national concerns? >> it does your honor in that it would be valid legislation precisely because fahren is something that congress could or have it in its uses and as i understand how the statute applies to sarin gas or in schedule one substance is in the convention of the treaty those are unlawful. what is particularly unusual about the statute application to something like potassium bichromate or vinegar or whatever you have is that most

of its possession and usage is perfectly lawful and what makes it a chemical weapon in the government's theory is that when it's used purely intrastate in a malicious way. >> my hypothetical, it's a completely domestic use. it's just a chemist that use sarin gas and you are saying the differences well, what the treaty make her stated is to define the category of chemicals more broadly. i guess what i want to know is you are imagining a world in which judges day today tried to get inside the head of treaty makers to think about you know in this case we understand there is a national interest in regulating sarin gas but we don't think there's a sufficient national interest in regulating some other chemical or some other chemical somewhere down the line. it seems to me a completely indeterminate test and one that

would have judges take the place of treaty makers in terms of deciding what is in the national and international interest. >> justice kagan i would beg to differ. i think it avoids judges being put in that's difficult position precisely the because we distinguish between the validity of the convention and implemented legislation. in the implementing legislation we asked the courts to do what they do in every other context. which is to check and see if that implementing legislation is consistent with our basic chartering document. it's the governments position which i don't really understand why this would work but their theory is if the not so executed treaty is valid than the implementing legislation is ipso facto valid. think about the convention before this court in the vienna case. it's an obligation on any arresting officials to provide notification to the foreign national. it would need a critically

rational way to implement back convention to have a national police force so every arresting officer is fully apprised of the vienna responsibilities of the rational which implement the treaty would you are mildly consistent with the constitution. on the other hand the same self executing treaty would implement the state department to work with police officers on the state and local level to understand their patients. >> do you think it would be difficult for a judge to ask is there any possibility that there is any other country in the world that has the slightest interest in how the united states or any of its subdivisions deals with a particular situation involved in this case? >> justice alito i think that would be one way of approaching the question. >> that would be beyond the ability of a federal judge when a case like this comes before them?

>> i don't think it would need beyond the ability of a federal judge to say let's hypothetically ask the question in a self-executing treaty. would congress have the power to pass a statute. if the interest now the burden shifts to find out why it is the treaty had something to the powers of federal government and i think to make it clear this is a very different context from what the court had in missouri against holland because the treaty itself prohibited individual action. an individual violated the treaty and took a migratory bird out of season that instance the statute did nothing more than put a criminal penalty and violating conduct that was arctic prohibited to the individual. >> is a one-way ticket or dicier argument or to unfairly confining to your argument to say that what you're suggesting is something like a clear statement rule? that if the treaties intent

nation-states to have their own constitutional structure superceded at a minimum it has to say so and then we come to the question on whether or not they can do it. >> only to add the one place that this convention talks about imposing obligations on individuals is a promise by the nation-state to pass legislation that is in accordance with their constitutional system so it's very bizarre that article vii section 133a, it's very bizarre when the only way we are reaching individual conduct unlike the treaty in holland is united states promised to pass legislation that comports with their constitutional process to say the convention therefore allows us to pass legislation that doesn't comport with their constitutional process. >> mr. clement i don't understand how you distinguish sarin gas.

why is sarin gas different from vinegar? >> because sarin gas is i think more equivalent to something the congress would try to deal with the way it dealt with marijuana in risch. it's a reflectioreflectio n of the idea that when you're talking about things with the federal government is trying to prohibited then there is a greater federal power to do that and they think the sarin gas you can imagine if i can put aside the treaty power sarin gas even under the war powers the federal congress would say that something that is inherently a chemical weapon that we are going to prohibit people from having. that's very different from these situations where if you think about it the only thing that makes these chemicals chemical weapons instead of chemicals is their internal use in an interesting way and that's different from the hypothetical statute as well. in the three schedules in statute 43 chemicals that are pretty newly problematic the federal government once to regulate those important that

the unauthorized possession of those, i don't see why they couldn't do that with or without the treaty but what is so anomalous here is the idea that these chemicals everything wrapped poison vinegar whatever it is, these things are perfectly lawful and we don't think of them as chemical weapons unless and until they are used in a malicious way. all of a sudden they become classified as chemical weapons. it's a very odd statute but it does operate in a way that is consistent with the bedrock principle and congress doesn't have this kind of police power. >> the chemical used here one of the chemicals in the annex to the treaty? >> i don't believe so it is certainly not listed on the three schedules. neither of these are on there and i don't -- i do think there's an important difference. this is a statute that is trying to regulate chemical weapons and with respect to something like weaponized chemicals or sarin

gas it makes sense to say those are chemical weapons but with respect to otherwise harmless chemicals the only thing under the government's theory that turns them from chemical weapons weapons -- chemicals into chemical weapons as a verb. it's their malicious use in that puts it yuan an odd situation. if congress had come in and said look there are certain chemicals that by their very nature are almost inherently weaponized congress would have a lot more authority to proceed. >> counsel we permit that in all sorts of definitional sections of the criminal code. we call a dangerous weapon anything that you used to inflict serious injury on someone. i don't think of a car is necessarily a dangerous weapon. it's something i used to transport myself. it's only when i'm using it for a prohibited purpose that it turns itself into a dangerous weapon. so i am having a problem with this noun/herb distinction.

why isn't the intentional killing and burning of another human being using chemicals the essence of what this treaty is trying to stop? i thought that's what it was trying to do. we want to add on warlike purposes that the treaty permits exceptions for any peaceful purpose. >> justice sotomayor echo club points. generally you might be right that the criminal law takes objects that are otherwise innocent and are used in a malicious way but most of that work is done by state and local criminal law but at the federal level you need something else. you need a jurisdictional element something that has a distinct federal concern. as to the concerns about, the treaty power, i don't think when there's this much of a disconnect between what the treaty power destin with the

statute does which is the treaty again does not regulate at all individual conduct. it's regulated by nation-state conduct. with all due respect i don't think nation-states poison -- so when individuals do those things i think it's hard to draw an analogy to what's forbid into a nation-state in the individual action. but any work that is done in a statute by drawing that analogy is done by the statute and not by the conviction -- convention. >> what if the terrorists took these chemicals and put them on every doorknob in boston. that wouldn't be regulated? the exact same chemicals. >> would say under ordinary construction that is covered as a warlike use of the chemical. we would also point out in the record the same conduct would be covered directly by federal

statutes that target terrorism directly. no matter how you decide that case with you except our narrow construction that could be covered by two federal statutes. if you don't accept are narrowing const dictation the conduct will still be covered. when you think about what the convention is after it's not really after ms. vaughn's conduct. i don't think anyone of our treaty partners that oh my goodness there has been a deployment of chemical weapons in norristown pennsylvania. i sure hope the united states that's up its treaty obligation and prosecutes this horrible deployment of chemical weapons. no one speaking in normal english would identify this as chemical weapons at all. >> is clear that the treaty was after enforcement as to individuals with respect to all the prohibitions. the treaty said go enforce this

as individuals and do it consistent with your constitutional processes and congress passes a law consistent with its constitutional processes and it completely narrows the treaty. >> two things just as kagan neither which will surprise you. i don't think this is consistent with the constitutional process. >> i'm still trying to figure out why. in missouri v. holland it's enumerated power and there's a necessary clause that functions to allow congress to give effect to that treaty power. you know this is a situation where there is a prohibition on the states in terms of entering into treaties and in terms of sharing that power in any way. it's just these invisible radiations that you think calm from the structure of the constitution and he specifically rejected this argument, the same argument that you're making.

>> justice cake and i think you have to read missouri v. holland in the treaty and the argument it had before it. missouri made a strange argument in missouri against holland that no modern litigant would make. they go out of their way to identify a conflict with treaty in state law that said therefore we went under the supremacy clause. he said no the treaty under article vi is supreme to state law and not the other way around. he also said this month sentence that bedeviled lower courts with said of the treaty is valid of course the legislation is valid. he had a treaty that direct fully prohibited conduct and a statute that individualize prohibition with criminal penalties so in that case i suppose it was right that the treaty implementing legislation stood or fell together and that's not the case here and if i could reserve my time. >> thank you counsel.

>> mr. chief justice may it please the court. the framers gave the government exclusive control over the treaty function to ensure it could knit the nation together as one and allow it to be fully sovereign in foreign affairs. petitioner ad hoc to treaty power can't be squared with the judgment the framers made. this courts president or consistent historical practice at the time of the founding and it would compromise foreign affairs and national security interests of the first-order. >> but suppose there is a multilateral treaty. the international convention to ensure that national legislatures have full authority to carry out their obligations i.e. the national legislature has power in congress passes a statute saying we have the authority to prosecute local crimes pursuant to this

international convention that the president signed. any problem with that? >> air may well well be and let me walk you through the analysis he would have to go through. i would make the point as to chief justice that it seems unimaginable that a convention of that kind would be ratified by two-thirds of the senate. >> the it's unimaginable that you would ring this prosecution but let's leave that harriet. >> to press further the point is it's a transfer of authority from the states the national legislature. i don't know why you look at the national legislature to say we would never do that. >> two-thirds ratification requirement was a guarantee to protect the interests of the states. there is no doubt the framers thought that would be an important protection but beyond that this court has said that there is an inquiry that has

never held a ratified treaty exceeds the federal government's constitutional authority and has never held an implementing authority never exceeds a ratified treaty. >> if the unimaginable thing happen it would be okay? >> my answers the court has said that there is an inquiry into whether it's a proper subject of the treaty and that inquiry could take your account whether it's in imposing a fundamental change in the character of government but that is not a question the court needs to hear because this treaty the petitioner concedes is a valid exercise with treaty power and implementing this treaty is coextensive at the obligations of the treaty. >> i don't know why it would not be a velvet exercise. because serious conflict with their obligations.

he doesn't have the authority and cause great strain in our international relations. nations could say we don't want treaty power to deal with someone in the province who has authority so every signatory does not reasonably related to international -- >> here mr. chief justice this is a valid exercise of treaty power and there is no daylight between implementing legislation and the obligations. >> i know that -- >> there've or that may be a question the court would have to answer for this case must present -- >> the purpose of my hypothetical was to find out if there's any situation which you believe the erosion or intrusion by the federal government under police power could be a constraint against an

international treaty? >> this case is nowhere close to it and it can't be a local exception to the treaty power. >> it seems to me that there may be an out of bound in this case is one of them. you are subjecting yourself to the same criticisms leveled against the other side that you are posing a case-by-case evaluation with respect to each treaty. >> i think your honor the question here is whether this legislation validly implements a valid treaty. the treaty to is valid -- >> i would like to explore that, your proposition that there is no daylight between the treaty itself and implementing legislation. it seems to me there is a lot of daylight between the two.

it relates to an area where the federal government has never fought, federal marriage, federal divorce, federal adoption. let's assume that an international treaty is approved by two-thirds of the senate and the president which requires the states to approve same-sex marriage. now, if that were a self-executing treaty, same-sex marriage would have to be approved by the state. if it is not self-executing however it may be up to congress to produce that result and congress would do it or could do it at least by having a federal marriage law and then he would have to have the federal divorce

law. i suppose a federal adoption law. i think there's a big difference between just doing it through a self-executing treaty and dragging the congress into areas where it has never been before it. between the treaty and requiring the treaty to be implemented in the fashion that you us cert is necessary. >> our let's make a structural point in a specific point. the structural point ,-com,-com ma if it is the case as your honors hypothetical concedes that a self-executing treaty that requires the president to negotiate and two-thirds of the senator rat way can we impose an obligation of that kind then it has to be the case that a nonself-executing treaty that has the same approval by the president in the same two-thirds

ratification and passes of less affliction by the senate and the house and signed into law the president can do with the self-executing treaty can do. >> i think it has to be the case. there is a great difference between requiring the states by a self-executing treaty to permit same-sex marriage and dragging the federal government or allowing the federal government to enter into this whole field of marriage, divorce , adoption family law with the federal government has never been. >> with respect to this treaty i don't think with all due respect there is anything like with respect to this treaty. the treaty obligates the united states government and the notion that the treaty obligation can be satisfied by relying on the states to an worse there assault laws which is the core of my

friends argument here is directly contrary to the history of the framing. >> i can't get my mind to these dramatic questions were here at the local police power for some inherent state power beyond the federal government to enter into. it's a very big question. i'm not there yet. the reason i am not there is because there are some words in this treaty called other peaceful purpose and we have to interpret those words and the same words are in the statute. my question to you is what reason is there to think that those matters fall within those words? its infinitely long. a few things on it are in peasley, a great case on the attempted murder where he talks about paying a small void to

move a barrel of kerosene with a candle in it lived so that it burned down a warrant after a few hours. the kerosene is a chemical. he talks about the case where a person went to a racetrack and gave a horse if poison potato. he talks about a case involving somebody else trying to light a match which is a chemical and setting fire to a haystack. we can all think sadly of lance armstrong accused of unlawfully taking drugs. i mean, why do we think matters of list a fall within those words outside the words other peaceful purpose even though they are unlawful and by the way, did anyone say to the drafters of the convention i found nothing in this reef on the point where did anyone tell congress that poison potatoes,

drug -- performance-enhancing drugs, the example that justice alito used to give a -- to a goldfish. these are all chemicals not in the annex that they are chemicals and they are nothing to do with chemical weapons. why do we think we have to get the on that fact? >> there is a very important point your honor that goes to cardiff with the national interest is in this case with respect to this implementing legislation. the harm appears in the process of line drawing. what the petitioners asking under constitutional or statutory construction is that courts on a case-by-case basis after-the-fact with ad hoc judgments. >> there's an easy way out of that. all we say is the chemicals are

in the annex but you are not prepared to say that. i guess once we get outside the annex we either have to draw lines or we have to say well this encompasses a poison potato and the poison goldfish, the small boy with a candle and performance-enhancing drugs. between throwing all those things into it for drawing lines it's better to draw a few lines. >> we can talk about hypotheticals but the key point about them is that they are hypothetical. >> no, no these are real cases. >> poison goldfish is not a real case. >> they are not real cases because you haven't prosecuted them yet. if you told ordinary people that you were going to prosecute ms. bond for using a chemical weapon they would be flabbergasted. you know it's so far outside of

the ordinary meaning of the word >> that statute has an enormous breadth. anything that can cause death or injury to a person or an animal. would it shock you if i told you that a few days ago my wife and i distributed toxic chemicals to a great number of children? [laughter] >> your honor. >> chocolate bars. chocolate is poison to doug so it's a toxic chemical. there was chocolate all over the place. >> this is serious business with all due respect. the line that the petitioners asking -- >> i want you to answer. my question was a question to get your answer and the answer that i want you to address itself to you is the problem of

once you you are a part from annexes in defining the chemicals you throw into it a list of a thousand miles long and we can tell joke after joke but the fact that it's so easy to make up an example that seems to have nothing to do with the problem of chemical weapons like this eerie and problem. >> i understand that your honor. >> so what is your answer? that's what i want to know. >> if you would permit me to answer the question. the line that the petitioners asking the courts to draw is whether the particular use is warlike or whether it constitutes a peaceful purpose. under this convention and the implementing statute. one of the very things we are trying to sort out right now in syria under the chemical weapons convention is where the line is between peaceful uses a and

warlike uses. the phrase peaceful uses is not only in the chemical weapons convention. it's in the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and we are engaged in sensitive negotiations right now under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty trying to draw exactly the same line and it would be terribly unfortunate i would submit if the court went to announce in the context of this case petitioners asking the definition of what warlike constitutes it could happen unfortunate airing on those -- steve can you tell us what the line is we are trying to get to? >> the framers of the convention and congress implementing the convention made a judgment that there needs to be a comprehensive ban and you can't draw these kinds of clients. >> could i ask why that is because this convention and the implementing legislation is very broad in its broad because it

applies to a very large category of weapons and it applies to a large category of uses, of conduct. what were they thinking about about why they wanted these broad categories? why it's not more limited with respect either to the chemicals were the conduct? >> with respect to the chemicals , you can't predict in advance how chemicals are going to used and how toxic they will be in a particular combination and how dangerous they will be any reticular combinations of there for you need a conference of method. >> you are telling me i am attempting to draw the line. if you are saying it's against the national security interests which is the first time i have heard that, it's the national interest against the national interest of the united states for me to attempt to draw such a line then i guess the state department had better filing brief explaining why or why you want to push this case.

is that what you are telling me that if i write the opinion below requires me to write is somehow i would be hurting national security? >> i think there's a real risk if the courts get involved in defining a line for warlike and peaceful purpose. when the convention is perfectly -- purposefully draft did and the very act of bringing this process of line trying to bare case-by-case ad hoc judgments about what constitutes a violation what doesn't is going to undermine the ability of our negotiators to make treaties in the future. >> but you did not give the line to the chief justices question that intruded on the federal structure. you have a treaty where the president is required to set aside any state law if his view contravenes -- you have given us no principle either way.

>> what i think justice kennedy it would suffice to decide this case for the court to conclude that the two local limits the petitioners advocating here as applied case-by-case to a local limit is not one that is inconsistent with the constitutional structure because if you go back to the framers it is clear from the era of the framing that the framers continued to give the national government the power. >> is that the precept that the treaty cannot be cost -- [inaudible] >> this court has said that the victim repeatedly, the question in the treaty park part cases whether the subject matter of the treaty is the proper subject for a treaty. that is the question the court can ask and although i'm not prepared to cross a specific line today there may well be a line to be drawn.

here the petitioner has conceded and i think all of us would agree this is the proper subject of the treaty. >> there are a lot of treaties and particulate justice alito pointed out the world war ii era worry of international conventions affecting everything. we have conventions on the abduction of children and international conventions on human rights that cover a vast swath of subject matter and it seems to me the only thing you're saying that is a limit on what the treaty power can do with some determination. no less arbitrary between what's appropriate under the treaty power and what's not. i would just like a precise answer whether there are or are not limitations on what congress can do with respect to the police power. if there authorities asserted under treaty is there a power to intrude upon police power unlimited?

>> the way i would answer that mr. chief justice is it the treaty is valid. >> if the treaty is valid implementing legislatilegislati on that doesn't go beyond the treaty is valid even if it addresses the subject that would otherwise be within the police power of the states. that was the judgment the framers made and that's this case. because the treaty is valid this statute implements the treaty word for word from the obligations. so you would rather have the court determine if we are concerned about the intrusion under these powers whether treaties are valid or not then their particular implementing legislation is valid or not? >> no, i think your honor because it is perceived in this case that the treaty is valid the petitioner has elaborated an argument that would allow this court to make a judgment about when an exercise in the treaty

power is valid and when it is the beauty of to take it as a given in this case. >> the point of the hypothetical list i'm trying to get a general principle. i can imagine treaties that you would say are within the treaty power particularly in the post-world war ii era but that could give rise to implementimplementing legislation that i think would be extraordinary from the point of view the framers and the power to get congress to intrude upon state authorities so there is a structural limitation. as i said earlier two-thirds ratification requirement is real with respect to the treaties your honor just referred to on civil and political rights and the senate ratified it. it did use its power to make reservations to preserve our federal system so that operated in exact way the manner the framers intended to protect and save guard and there are 1000 ratified treaties on the books right now that don't have the

congress using the treaty power to usurp the role of the state. >> the whole point is some people think we do have exactly that in this case. usually when we have a case it in pocan significant and serious bilateral concerns would get a lot of these from our treaty partners. is there any concern expressed in any concrete way about whether ms. bond is prosecuted? >> i doubt that your honor. i don't think anybody would say whether or not ms. bond is prosecuted an international incident. the question is whether congress has the authority to pass the conference of ban and there may be applications of that band that don't advance the national interest in a profound or poignant way and we understand that but the question is whether congress can pass a conference of van implementing the treaty.

>> almost all the legal counsels of state department republican and democrat talking about if the argument works that could be would severely damage the united states ability to enter into and negotiate treaties. >> that is true, that is certainly true. >> i'm sure people overcome the national brands -- branch of government would like to have as much as authorities they can get to negotiate treaties. we are concerned about limitations from state legislatures, state authorities concerning the intrusion on their prerogatives. >> your honor this convention as the convention that all -- have decided. the legislation we have enacted as model legislation that over 120 nations have enacted as well >> this court has issued decisions holding that there are some limits on congress's power

cases like lopez. there have been legal commentators who have written articles saying that could be usurped in the use of the treaty power. do you agree with that? >> i don't think there is a yes or no adjective that. the question would the what if the -- what does the treaty power encompass? >> i will take back the word circumvention. could congress regulate possession of a gun within a school zone? by entering into a treaty that authorizes such legislation? >> the question in that case would be whether the treaty is a valid exercise. >> i don't mean to cut you off at some point you seem not to see the problem that i think i see and problem when you get

into the treaty area is this. given the power as there is in many you have some self-executing treaties that in principle your position constitutionally would allow the president and the senate, not the house, to do anything to retreat it. that is not specifically went than the ovations of the rights and protections of the constitution. that's missouri v. holland and i doubt in that document the framers intended to allow the president the senate to do anything. you asked us now to say whether the answer to that question is yes or no. we still have a democracy in other words in which the house is part. if you carry it to an extreme that is where you are and i'm worried about that and i think others are too. so i would ask you isn't there an easier way to deal with this case? you tell me.

>> no because it will interfere with some problem of foreign affairs that was never mentioned in any brief or at least for the first time when you said it. there you have an expression of my uncertainties at the moment and anyway want to reply to that would be helpful. >> i understand the point justice breyer, i do and i understand it's something that seems attractive and trying to think about this question of statutory question. what i'm trying to point out is it's not as easy as it seems and that there are real risks to trying to try the line of that kind. yes i understand that. that does raise the stakes some and i understand that but i think that risk is real and if that risk is real the list the advisory pointed out is real.

>> mr. verrilli you have not answered or a lee flied the bill of rights does constrain the treaty power and the implementation of it. why is the bill of rights different than what is expressed in many cases? the bill of rights is a check. >> there is a historical answer to that which in justice ginsburg which is that is how the framers understood it and i think that's clear from what hamilton said in the closer we have in our brief and other framers understood that is where the line would he and i think the reason for that is that the treaty power is itself a great and substantial independent power of the national government and it is not constrained by the two local limitations. that is the lesson of the

framing that there is not a local implementation of the exercise of the treaty power. >> those close contained to self-executing treaties. yes, there's no limitation on what the president and the senate can impose as a self-executing requirement, mainly that the states must give back to british citizens property that they confiscated or whatever else but it's a different question whether a treaty can expand the power of the federal congress into areas that it has never been before. it's a specific question and the other quotes that you referred to address that question. >> so long as it's a valid exercise in the treaty power i think if all you do is implement the treaty in hyperbole it's a

valid exercise of congress's power and i said earlier that this is serious business. i understand the principles of federalism are serious is this also but federalism is a two-way street and with respect to the exercise of the treaty power the framers made a judgment that this power was going to be exclusively in the hands of the national government and it needed to be exclusively in the hands of the national government in order to ensure that the united states could he a full sovereign on the world stage. it is true the subject matter of the treaty is different now than it was at the time of the founding but the framers understood that. they were careful not to impose on the treaty power because they were wise enough to know they could not for c. what might be important for the united states to be able to negotiate to participate fully as sovereign. the chemical weapons convention

is deeply apt illustration of exactly why the framers were wise and ensuring that there were no subject matter of limitations on the exercise of the treaty power. the chemical weapons convention and the united states leadership in the chemical weapons convention has made a big difference in ensuring that this norm which is in our national interest and our foreign relations interest international security interests is a norm that the nations of the world have agreed to and we are not in a position to have leverage to assist the nations of the world abide by it. we are trying to exercise right now that this is critically important and i respectfully submit the line that petitioners asking this court to draw is not consistent with the intent of the framers and this court precedent or the national interest that i have described.

thank you very. >> thank you general. mr. clement you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you mr. chief justice and just a few points in rebuttal. first of all the senate's role in the ratification of treaties cannot be a sufficient political political -- and one reason is sometimes the precise role they play as a check is to make a treaty nonself-executing so take justice scalia's purported to regulate marriage rights one thing that senate very well might do in that case is to say we will ratify it that will make sure it's nonself-executing end-user spending power to get the states on board but we are not just going to impose a national solution so doesn't make any sense to say in nonself-executing treaty necessarily even if it's valid guarantees the validity of the enacting legislation. some of the reason you make a treaty nonself-executing is to make it federal. second is to respond to the argument which i have far to

explain why it's not correct that the suggestion there is no daylight to train the convention and the statute. there is huge daylight in the daylight is precisely whether it affects individual conduct and how it affects individual conduct trade with all respect everything on justice breyer's list a is not stuff that implicates the convention at all but yet under the governments unwavering theory that you can't make any limitations on the statute that is covered by the statute. there is your daylight and i suggest it's one way out of this. i think you have to understand the way peaceful is used in the statute is a term of art. i would acknowledge as the situation by two scientists in an arctic get in a fistfight. it's not something we condone but we haven't violated her pledge to preserve an art to confer only peaceful purposes and that the same way we'd like you to interpret the statute. ..

>> i think it has to do wit karen bass and nobody can possess that for any lawful use and edit something like vinegar or potassium, it could put it over the ledge for me in

ordinary chemical to a chemical let then and it is precisely its use. and not just displays, what was our thinking? it was were not focused on this issue. if you look at that come the chemical industry put in front of them the possibility the inspections of chemical production facilities that were authorized into the convention. when congress had the constitutional problem in front of the committee had permission had permission to build that constitutional concern, but the future it didn't have the same lobbying resources. they didn't averted this. >> this includes statements about the treaty. >> the case is submitted.

>> on the next "washington journal", we will discuss national security threats. president obama's nominee for homeland security secretary. our guest this the center for strategic and international studies. then look at the new health and human services role that health insurers must treat mental health issues in the same manner as physical illness. we are joined by ronald huntswood. c-span, created by cable. >> next, what role the u.n. should play during international crises. the "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

>> the tragedy of a grieving widow within 12 years. water program at 10:00 p.m. eastern and sunday at noon. and live, sunday, or three continues. >> the heads of state came to visit. we have a few things to speak to the connection here. one of the things that you want to highlight was a native american heritage here in this country and we do have a small collection of arrowheads here. this includes collected various items through the years and gives from various friends. and this includes the house of 1968 that you feature the china here feature that is very powerful. mrs. johnson spent a lot of time here at the ranch that was very

important because it provided a respite from the turmoil of water from her. >> the first lady, lady bird johnson, live at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> in a few moments, segments from this week's washington ideas forum. speakers include security adviser susan rice and charlie cook and any klobuchar and susan collins. and this includes 80 u.s. argument on me powers as well. >> issues ranging from domestic

policy to national security, label the washington ideas forum, this includes remarks from the national security adviser susan rice. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [applause] >> thank you very much for being here, ambassador. >> i heard david's question, which is this is going to be the country that is going to defeat the iranian nuclear program. and let me ask you the question. what happens next on the uranium deal? >> well, our approach remains, which is to ensure that ran will not acquire a nuclear weapon, but it has always been on aim if possible to resolve this problem through diplomacy. do we have been pursuing a policy and diplomacy and engagement on another. the sanctions were designed to try to change the ringing

calculus and to see if on the basis of that change we could reach a negotiated settlement. going back many years, including to the year 2010 when i was at the united nations, we were able to impose the sanctions on iran and congress have come a time, very helpfully, and layered on additional national sanctions and this includes the japanese and arkle partners and the canadians and many others. and this has been part of the currency that has fallen by half. and the pressure is significant

>> we have been negotiating as a group and also this as well. >> so the negotiating have led us to a point where there is a prospective deal which would occur in two phases that were agreed upon. and it has not been agreed upon it yet because while we presented a steal the steel in a unified fashion we all agree agreed that it is rational, the iranians were able to take it last week and we will see whether they are willing to take it. >> what is the holder? >> hold up is that this is a complex issue. there are elements of this that clearly the iranians do not feel is good. so let me give you a sense of how this works. it is a two-phase deal. and this will be a six month period of time in which all

progress on iran's nuclear program is halted and the program is rolled off in certain important respects. and this includes the plutonium in the processing of the rack facility and their ability to increase to increase the breakout capacity in all this will be halted or rollback and there will be unprecedented transparency and insight into the program. so the international community cannot have confidence that nothing has happened that we are not fully decided upon. in exchange for that, there will be limited temporary and reversible economic beliefs provided for the radians. and so this first phase and this would achieve a comprehensive solution. because the short-term is just to ensure that we don't get into a protracted negotiation.

and there i outlines on the table and the deal that is reached our own mess and there will be time and space to negotiate a comprehensive solution so that we can all be fully satisfied that ran in the future will not have the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon. >> is it helpful that benjamin netanyahu keeps the this? >> i think it's important that everybody understand what the deal as it needs to be reached. then they can make a judgment. >> do you think that he doesn't understand the deal? >> the deal is not done. so by definition they outline this and it has yet to be finalized and we have said that no deal is better than a bad deal in any deal that we accept is going to be one that we have

confidence in our interests in the interest of our allies and the region and beyond and not give the square d that the iranians cannot make progress and we will indeed see the program rollback. and if any point along the way, they are not meeting the obligations in this includes the pressure from a potential multilateral basis. >> book where the objections that the french had? >> the french are fully on board. some of the reporting has been misleading. indeed, president obama spoke to the individual today affirming the unified support for this deal on the table and this has been a process both within this

in-between the p5+1, and the deal that we have. this includes p5+1 in the agreement that we have. >> after the conversation,. >> guess who else may have been listening in. we won't go there. [laughter] >> do you think that it's more likely that there will be a deal the next round or a framework deal in a record two? >> it is the 21st and 22nd of november. the short answer is that we have to see. we think what is on the table is a rational framework. including the time and space that gives us the assurances that we need. we think of the iranians were widely would take this deal because the alternative is

heighten pressure and isolation for them. but they have not taken it yet. so they have to make their own populations. >> if they take that deal, do you think it would be improper for israel to be too strong of a pushback? >> we think that israel and all of our allies and partners have the same goal, which is to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon and if we can achieve that through a peaceful negotiated settlement, that is what the american people want, i think that is what the people around the world should want. we would hope and expect that in that context that all of our friends and partners would see this kind of outcome. >> how are we dealing with the saudi radians because they have been seeming to be bolting on this. >> the saudi's have been in very close communication and we have dialogue here in washington, secretary kerry was just out there and we are constantly working with them on a range of

issues. >> has the president been in contact? >> yes, the bottom line is that i think that the saudi radians understand that we have the same strategic interest in the same strategic objectives and sometimes we differ on tactics around syria or egypt and we have been working through those differences, and i think that we are very confident as well on the cabinet that was announced yesterday that the relationship is on strong footing. >> what causes to get off the putting? >> i think that there have been issues of difference over how we deal with certain challenges and issues that have arisen in the region. for example in egypt. saudi arabia and view has been that the interim government which came to power, to put it diplomatically, they ought to have a complete and unreserved endorsement of the united

states. and this includes even though the democratic government was removed, that removal came with the support of the vast majority of egyptians and that includes poor policies of the muslim brotherhood. in this includes transitioning to an electrically democratic government. and so in august in the process of trying to clear the protesters from some of the squares in cairo, over a thousand people were killed in the united states, i think rightly so, they said we have a problem with that and we can't

pretend to conduct business as usual in the context of a government, however family. we met how did you make the decision to cut some of the assistance being done in is that reversible and we are keeping under the assistance that is going to benefit the egyptian people and this is part of the democratic transition. and this is every prospect in

this includes interest and we want to support the egyptian people. >> it is america's policy. >> we are making progress towards a palestinian peace. and they are progressing and they are hitting their bombs

here and there and this includes what we are trying to support for tomorrow. we recognize, as he pointed out and this goes back decades of multiple administrations and this includes many sides that we have urged them to create a climate that is conducive to a successful negotiation. >> all the issues we have talked

about. i think that in all honesty, it is stronger in many ways than it's ever been. following the president's visit which was highly successful to israel and to the west bank in march. i think he had the opportunity to communicate with and relate to the people in a way that he hadn't before. and i think if you asked any israeli official, particularly those involved in security and defense from the looks are that the nature and the security of those cooperations has never been greater. and whether it's pryor byron brown or the nature of our existence and it is unprecedented and that is a very important part of what bonds us. but beyond that, we share interests and shared values and those remain very much the case

and we have differences here and there over issues. and we have talked about egypt and we have differences also with israel over how to approach the situation in egypt along the same lines. >> did we adjust the strategy based upon the advice that we were getting from the saudi's and the israelis? >> chronologies tough challenges, we talked referencing partners and we hear their perspectives and we factor that i'm. >> on syria, i think that jeff goldberg pointed out to me in samantha power's book. a very moving passage on rwanda in retrospect, and i wish, and etc. we cannot let it happen again. do you feel that the sheer macramé have been able to get away with too much and is there some feeling that you may have had that we should have done more to punish them for what he

has done for his people? your it is past time for him to have left and then his atrocities are enormous and estimated 150,000 people have died in this conflict and that is horrific and one of the very important things we have tried to do is to put in place mechanisms so that there will be accountability for these crimes. but i think that we have to separate a few things. first of all, the policy of the united states has been to try to resolve the conflict in syria at the negotiating table and the reason for that is the following. but the lasting that the state institutions have fragmented and for syria to become a fully failed state in a safe haven for extremism. the only way to prevent that is for a negotiated settlement believes the institution of states intact and bashar al-assad and those that have been his henchmen out of the picture.

>> i'm sorry, a negotiated settlement would have to leave with a sob leaving? >> no, i'm sure that many of you in the audience know that over a year ago when we gathered at geneva out at what is known as the geneva conference, that dealt with the future, it was agreed with the russians and the chinese and all of our allies and partners and neighbors of syria that the way that this crisis will end as to the establishment of what they called a transitional governing body, meaning the transitional government formed on the basis of mutual consent, which means the opposition and those representing the government at the table had to agree and that it would have full executive powers, meaning it would control the security apparatus and the other key institutions of state and that transition would then call an eight on the elections for a new government. bashar al-assad cannot be a part of that. >> to the russians understand, like you said, everyone.

but they fully war that they can be part of this? >> they signed up to geneva knowing what it meant and they reaffirmed that actually, again, just this past year, but the russians are not in a hurry to compel bashar al-assad to step down and that is part of why it has been so hard to get to geneva as well and get the opposition going on the basis of the plan because they don't have confidence when the syrian government shows up they will be willing to talk about the future without bashar al-assad. >> i haven't hear one of your predecessors talking. >> which one? >> kissinger. >> okay. was it before the whole resolution, russia doesn't want chemical weapons.

>> bold, frankly. there are areas where we allow it and that we do share a concern about extremist and syria becoming a state pays him. we do share a concern about chemical weapons, which is why when the united states indicated a readiness to use force, it has deterred the further use and eight inspired russia to get energized about brokering and working with us on a deal that would assure that fishermen cannot keep this chemical weapon. >> this includes when we have worshiped off the coast of syria. >> so was the credible threat and the use of force that i think that motivated the

russians to pursue the syrians that they can't keep their weapons. what has been remarkable is we were able to negotiate the details in a binding security council resolution and as of october 31, the syrians actually have allowed the weapons inspectors to visit all of the sides that they wanted to visit, which they couldn't get to support security reasons. and the carrying capacity to manufacture that and maintain the chemical weapons has been disrupted. >> by the way, that is a remarkable achievement. >> yes. >> last question, in a more broadway. what is your daylight, and what is it like to work in this administration with so many incoming missiles and how do you think those strategically tackett individuals -- can you

tell us about your job? >> i love my job and his great work in this administration and were president obama. i love doing what i was doing in new york at the united nations and that was a lot of fun and a great deal of talent, being inside,, being able to support the president firsthand every day is a lot of fun. and i work with a great team and i understand that there is sometimes bouquets being thrown and that is the nature of the business. this is not the first demonstration that i have worked in. i know that some days are better than others. but it's a huge privilege to get to serve our country. and to do it on behalf of objectives that we believe are vital to keep america safe in making her future brighter. >> it's a privilege a privilege to have inherited yesterday. >> thank you, madam ambassador. >> thank you, madam ambassador. >> thank you. >> next coming conversation with

americans for tax reform grover norquist about the republican party outlook for 2016. this was also a part of the washington ideas forum and it's 20 minutes. >> it's great to have you back this year. and i thought i would start off in territory to be a little bit of fun and get behind this. and you recently competed in comedy and i heard the one. how did you win? >> it's funny because the celebrity is not the same thing in l.a. it means you've been on c-span. >> john lovett one in night a few years ago. the speechwriter by imitating us. so what was the strategy? >> i think that politics, half

the audience is less than half his right i think the comedy works in some sort of a basic understanding. >> i open with -- well, i walked up with a glass of bourbon. and i sat down and said that bourbon, neat, no ice or water, never drink water,. >> okay. >> and i just wondered when midgets played miniature golf. do they know? [laughter] >> and i wanted to make young people feel better and i said 25% of young americans can't find this country on a map, the country of france, and i wanted to assure them that this was not

something that i had been required to find. you go to the nice people at american airlines and they find it for you. >> any ted cruz references? >> no political references beyond that, it was a discussion >> okay, let me bring you to ted cruz. >> the founders and apologies. this is grover norquist citizen happy happy with the defenders committee americans for tax reform president told reporters that they have a lot of apologies to make and bridges to rebuild. and this is grover norquist talking about apologies and it would be a good idea if they stop referring to other republicans as hitler appeasers because they propose a strategy that failed and i think if you make a something that filled his biggest them, you owe them a big apology and the constituents as well because nothing that they did advance the cause with

dismantling obamacare. could you please take this little further and who are they and in this. and are they atr members? >> what happens was there was a republican strategy going into the continuing resolution. and that was to move everything past the debt ceiling so you had one deadline and not a soft deadline that was going to be pushed through. and then work on whether there was spending reform that you could get on part of the debt ceiling increase. there had been spending reforms in the debt ceiling and never as big and significant as the sequester in 2011. >> he said that he'll wandered into traffic and wandered away. >> he said that i had a strategy

in my strategy is that the house will vote to appeal obamacare. and then the senate will pass it and then the president will sign it. that was his strategy. and we would invade iraq and, you know, that is not a strategy. but it was a tactic with no seconds after that didn't take into effect in effective together to get through as well and you can't plan out these moves without recognizing that the other player gets to move as well. and sometimes it is done just to annoy you. and the argument of that the president was going to sunway obamacare because i asked for a was not likely to actually win this alternative and i think you would've loved important when everything would have worked poorly as it did.

but i think it was a mistake. >> did they play -- you think they played any more responsibly >> everyone understands that it was in error, it was never going to work, it was a distraction. it may have cost us the governor's race in virginia. and we should've been talking about the failure of obamacare. but we did get to talking about obamacare, company saw a resurgence of 10 kuchen ali, stronger and stronger, and it wy

united republican caucus in the house and senate for the next step in the budget fight, keeping the sequester, don't raise taxes, and be willing to do something, not everything, but something undulating all parts, some of obamacare, whatever the democrats are willing to conceive very at. >> the idea that the houses and make the senate do something or the other way around is silly. >> and there is obamacare that is not part of the way that it was sent to. assertions were made were never true. this is a problem and it's embarrassing. and it's not good and you don't

need this. >> a year ago, on that stage, chuck todd in an interview with you into things were going on, everyone was wondering if there is any tax that grover norquist would sign up for. >> the sales tax, once you have set that rate, there is an effort by the democrats to increase the tax as well. and to that, the answer is no one you set a reasonable tax, like a sales tax rate.

and they were describing the most powerful man in washington, and you are being blamed for her everything dysfunctional in government. and what is the state of the tax pledge today. >> and started talking about taxes, and as it was said, there is not going to be a tax increase. you have united republican house and senate that would not allow it. and people thought that the old

paradigm, simpson-bowles, which for years and decades people said sunday we will have its entitlements someday. and the democrat requirement agree to that bipartisan support. would have to be a tax increase. and that is the the grand bargain. into this moment someone said you could get the grand bargain, but all they were offering more temporary spending cuts and imaginary spending cuts on the table that were not really going to happen and you can see the new deal. the new one is in the choke

collar, the democrats think it's a very tight choke collar. >> i think that that is something you could tweet. [laughter] >> you could put it on the oxford dictionary. >> so they -- they think that the level of spending is so low that it's problematic in the kennedy kids are part of this and they've never been so mistreated. and they have have more resources. and not a tax increase and it will not take off the choke of the sequester, but loosen it in return for trillions in unfunded liability reduction. >> so you are up for a grand bargain? >> this is the republican party. >> listen to you, you would be

up and grover norquist would put his blessing on us. >> yes. i written an article stating this in paul ryan has also said that as well. thing that we will reduce the sequester as well if you are willing to do it entitlement and we are not willing to loosen the sequester or promises of discretionary spending cuts in the future. >> what about the presidential race coming up for us? >> chris christie looks like he is the establishment candidate. you have ted cruz running for the ring, all first-term senators. and normally there is a genuine opposition candidate who comes against the situation. how do you handicap them in 2007? >> this is a strong so they have

had. >> is the only republican running in those races at that time. in the last election cycle you have 10 republicans on stage. remember running for president and the three that were running were the romney of massachusetts and talk plenty of minnesota and governor perry of texas. they could run nationally and they could have been part of this for eight to 10 years and they were serious candidates. he didn't catch fire in iowa and he dropped out. because he was running for

president or the other guys didn't drop out because they were running for president. and this time around, look at who is around the table very chris christie for sure. significant reforms in that, $130 billion in unfunded liabilities and no tax increase. >> so he fits the grover norquist older? >> yes. and i think that what you're looking at a someone who can finances all the way through as a confidence seriousness -- then we would do the three senators. because i think the advantages is that they can raise money, show individual combatants and they say it will do what we did. >> chris christie serious. >> certainly he is. skywalker is also serious and

constant, yes change that state into a red state, and all sorts of other things fear. >> were you more enthusiastic about between them? >> as long as they are willing to run as non-tax increase canids, i'm cheerfully agnostic. [laughter] >> governor jeb bush of florida, it we are grading on a curve and he didn't have any republican state legislature, but he governed well and governor rick perry will run again. and he had defaulter this the falter this last time but he is articulate and bright and will have been government for 14 years. remix of rick perry gets through the grover norquist older? >> i think so. no significant reforms in the state. and bobby jindal, and many have

a result of this that they passed from the efflux line and that actually has teeth in and the legislature will never forgive him. for tying them into that. so there are some that could surprise this as well and governor brownback of kansas, and others as well. and they could be sustained. three senators that you mentioned one with the disadvantage of being senators because you can give speeches as senator, but little hard to say this. that fits fix this right in raise taxes or etc. so, you know, it's just tougher to do and certainly rand paul represents a small libertarian republican party as well. and i think certainly marco

rubio in florida and others, they have been speaking well as well. ted cruz needs to be famous for something other than the bellyflop of this or nothing. because it didn't work. but that being said, he has come back and all of them are on board for a more measured approach with them on how to fix obamacare. >> tomorrow we have karl rove coming in to join us in the final act of the washington ideas form and i think i told you previously that he really lambasted the republican party and leadership were was hosting on things like immigration and even things like gay rights and others who said that we are getting ourselves into a smaller corner and getting boxed in. i had the privilege of inviting

you and you said you were in the same chair with rahm emanuel, talking about them and i'm interested in the outreach that people like you are doing with things like immigration we just have a couple of minutes and i'm interested in how you basically preserve the important parts of the gop and not get washed down into the gutter with some of us the stuff we have been seeing lately. >> yes, the winning message is that it won't cost so much and we will have a strong national defense with canadians on their side of the border with countries that can't be pronounced. and that is -- that is reagan republicanism and the good news is that the republican party house and senate governors is a reagan republican and that being

said, the republican party needs to do a chris christie and. >> candidates as well. they can do it easier than they need to reach out to the immigrant communities in their states and their cities and their congressional districts and i believe that we will see an immigration bill and it comes from other obama really wants a bill or not. and and they are talking about this for 365 days. >> you have to talk about people like marco rubio and others.

>> i'm talking about the publicans need to be there in a bill passed out in the senate. and this includes getting the conversation going. because they are not 47,000 troops on the border, but we do have border security and we have something there for high-tech and the farming industry and you want to do something for the people who are here so they don't have to live in the shadows and regularize this. >> i know that you and i think that one of the things people don't know is that you are not part of those very enthusiastic rockport, afghanistan war, is very divided between grover norquist on the national security side of the republic of party within 18 seconds? >> answer is no.

i was not in favor of the occupations that took 10 years after this and the question is the second was unwise and put us in the worst position rather than before. and we need to look at this and say let's not waste any money and let's not spend any money that we need to spend. >> with that, i would like to let the audience know that the price of him showing up today was my dream to be in the context of nestor and i'm not that funny, he has assured that we have another winning invites people that he knows he can clobber. and i'm sure the dead. i will be working to try to work on it. please give a round of applause to grover norquist. [applause] >> more from the washington ideas form with political analyst charlie cook and white house correspondent chuck todd.

they talk about what to expect from both local parties as well as who they see as likely presidential candidates in 2016. this is little more than 30 minutes. >> when i first met you 30 years ago, charlie, we were talking about a republican lock on the presidency. we knew that was a center country and we need that social issues worked for the republicans and we wondered when a democratic candidate could ever carry california again. and we went through a time when we were exemplified by bush and gore when he had an even 5050 split and it appeared in the selections me as if we saw it revealed the plates had shifted and democrats were on the high side driven by demography and are we headed towards a democratic lock in the white

house and what you see in terms of the bones were balance going forward? >> that's a great question. and earned her 15 out of six times and in this is about 9090 or 1991. and i think that if republicans don't fix their problems with younger voters more moderate voters and young women and moderate minority, if they were

a business you have an they would have an unsustainable business model much they changed this and you would tell me whether or not they introduce these challenges. >> i was asking charlie about this, about how when we started covering washington edited talked about this law, my house. >> when you start with 242 electoral votes, and that is a pretty good baseline. that is their biggest problem. it is always interesting about virginia is that essentially vacate and tramp laid out like a federal election in the military mccullough attempted to know they were essentially rejected and i live in one of those

republican precinct in arlington county. and all of my neighbors at the big qualifications are part of those voting attitudes and those are people there were basically the republicans that you hear about. and that, to me, that is -- they have -- i don't see how they can fix that by 2016. and you look at these individuals in virginia and colorado and florida and these are the closest of the swing states and they are demographically moving away from the republican party. so i hesitate to say anything has a lock on the white house and there is a great book that i remember buying right when i was leaving high school to go to

college. right after the 88 presidential election. the archivist by peter brown? >> yes, that was the book. how the democrats were going to be that permanent minority party and they were basically -- they only lost one popular vote presidential election since the book was written. >> soothes the permanent minority. but anyway, this demographic issue, you can't overlook it. >> the message of peter's book was that the democrats had been so enthralled to the interests of marginalized groups including racial minorities they were not able to appeal to mainstream white voters. what we have seen is the profession of white voters has steadily gone down. we went down to 72% and what implications that the fact that the republican nominee had 60%

of the vote, the democratic nominee got 80% of the nonwhite vote, read headed towards the kind of racial polarization in voting that is going to create other problems. >> it will be part of the rest of his career. and as you can slice it and dice it demographically. and if you would've told me they can woodwind the end independent vote come i would've guessed that he would've won the election. but what we see as the gap between democrats and republicans, it has gotten so wide that winning this vote is not enough for republicans and that is a function of

demographics. so there is a difference between independents and moderate. you can look at it in terms of ideology in terms of this and republicans are not -- they take some solace in knowing that they are 10% more conservative than they are liberals. but they forget that they identify themselves as moderate. >> what about the geographic aspect of this? >> but if you look at this by geography, romney wins by 11 points and obama wins by 10 points everywhere else. so if you are a republican, how do you figure out how you can break out of that, which at one point swung the electric it to the republicans? >> they are part of this.

and this means they will be surprisingly competitive, because the republican party candidates are weak. in the play, that's it. everyone else will be come turkey carries and if i were the republican party, i would not be worried about virginia or florida. i would be living in a state of colorado.

and they are figuring out how to do this multiple senate race come a governor's race, and some house races there in the have to figure they can solve the puzzle in colorado they can solve the puzzle everyone else. and this includes your rural upper white vote, versus your other income white vote. that they've have a problem with his republicans.

and to a lesser extent, and you have to do 20 miles, it's when they welcome you to the state of virginia. >> they are talking about the suburb of raleigh, which stands for a containment area for relocated yankees. and they lost it by these points. they have the big influx of outsiders which i think you could save her colorado as well. >> it's like pot smoking

california. >> let me talk about a very practical problem within the republican party. and we know that with redistricting, we have a lot of members who are very committed to one constituency and who could be caring less about this broader national constituencies. >> and i would say this is part of the house republicans can retreat. the conclusion at the end. >> evening who advised him on the shutdown? >> no, they had me, and they had the ceo of domino's pizza explaining what they did when they found out that the consumers other pizza sucked and how they had to reformulated. but anyway, i walked through the exit poll data and the election results, and then the conclusion

at the end. if republicans are satisfied with the house majority, you don't need to change at all. not one bit. but if you want to win a majority in the senate, you're going to have to change a lot, and if you want to be competitive in the presidential elections coming have have to change a lot, and so these members in the ideological partisan cul-de-sacs committees very protected districts. and the ones that don't look a whole lot like those jurisdictions statewide and so they have to decide what they want to. >> chuck, you and i have been on calls recently about pollsters and the nbc and wall street journal poll that have been talking about the incredible this effect of the american people, the belief that washington is not working. which points to a problem for democrats. they are the party of government and right now we have this huge mess and help him and wondering

how big of a political threat. once we get beyond this issue of implementation and the health care law, how big of a threat is it to the democrats to be attending this process looks to the american people like another government? >> if they can't get this right, we will assume that they can't get immigration right. and basically when you look at this, they are angry that the republicans don't want to govern. .. and that is the fundamental flaws of both parties