personal and public how it affected you end changed your life a unit mission and? >> it gave all of us a window into what was happening with the state legislatures as well as congress. unfortunately we are not paying as close attention and as we've might have done. that was a moment translated into a long-term bull did throw the 2012 campaign where throat the country in the end you were paying attention on reproductive health of justice and human-rights. but now this should not be a moment that passes because the election takes that.

that is one of the places we are today with the status of women very much not only for legal control in that respect but also to fight for the economic ability to actualize that control that is what end of the moments that is not the end of the story. so did the women came to be few said i cannot believe we were talking about birth control. i thought the fixed liz? raise your hugh did you thought we fix to this. [laughter] thank you for all you did but unfortunately we are not done yet. this is a generational moment where maybe for the

women there was a reminder the fight the did to go on air perhaps for young women and introduction to this fight the have come to say they showed up for the fight finally. but 2012 with those events is a moment where young women and connected with each other more than they had the floor. so to tell you the membership increased exponentially and many were young women and a young band connecting to the mainstream organizations. id eleanor roosevelt said realizing 88 yourself from

the process to accomplish the goals but also to realize that we not only have to have leadership to our young people but give them opportunities as well. it is a writer for the whole country but a reminder of generations working together in this effort so we can make the most progress. but listening to what we've heard about the commission's report its is striking so much has changed but so much has not. you listen to the equal pay, but child care, equal rights amendment, these are

all still zero issues has evidently that they are still working on an end to are still fighting all the battles it is encouraging to see there are ways we are changing and the tactics to go into a different area. in particular thinking about the organizing efforts and the of fast food strikes i am sure you have seen those fish your web refers to open and today we've made reference 50 years ago the march on washington and we forget that was for dignity and jobs. one of the request was to dollars per hour but today it is right around $15 and

fast-food workers are fighting for a huge debt is not what you'd traditionally would fate of but two thirds of fast-food workers maybe they were single mothers and that is a very real example with organizing what it looks like today. and brains together the economic advisor rich the domestic workers organizing a campaign was sharing pair were rumors were supposedly she would get together then there is no one to clean your house this was one of the reasons shaber was despised on that point as well as many others.

so we see incredible progress there largely about the female work force but the ways and women's work quote-unquote is always associated with the women. we have to do with that like secretary hilda solis did the way that this generation we are moving forward on the issues of. >> talk about the issue of harpies. [laughter] >> your group the young infants abels i have heard that term applied to young healthy people that will not

show up to purchase health care. >> the young in vincible says one of the of groups not speaking officially but took the name for those who wanted health care reform because we thought we were invincible. we're the most undeterred generation is desperately in need of health care reform. to set up in droves because it is so important. and then relating to the affordability of education and employment. and to look at those affirmative action it in

terms of the status of women of color. and with a path for verge. >> what made you an activist? was said your mother? >> anyone who has a truce zero of the activist so i don't have an excellent answer to that question with a strong sense of right to andron from ignorance and

they were a little more conservative than i was. and we very much agree we're not allowed to be on the sidelines. pick up your to will and fight. >> in excellent answer former secretary of labor hilda solis has a long and distinguished career in electoral politics first elected to public office 1985 as the member of the unity college board of trustees and then became the first leg to get elected to the california state senate and then increase the minimum wage from $4 to $0.25 at $5.75 per hour in 1986.

still not the of living wage i am sure whatever it is now. and looking at several terms in the congress labor laws the environment but i would like to start with your view talking with the former fifth place of employment. follow suit responsory this event those that will continue to speak with the kennedy library foundation

the first to receive the jfk profile in courage award because of environmental justice and raising the minimum wage back when senator kennedy was alive this is the third time i have been here and i am dying those folks in congress and i could not go to the library because of the government employees were furloughed. so much happened in the last 50 years but so much more has to be done with an interesting person not mentioned is somebody that i've looked up to is francis perkins who was the first department secretary and she was able to have the

discussion at that time anti-in the room with others defending the rights of children to try to eradicate that and also create social justice in a way to placate all communities where they sit with a bunch of in a great young women and there was no way to escape because there is no safety protection and. and for those that were trying to make a living where we see many reforms in the workplace injury here

about those great things happening and there are cabdriver's out there but we see where women have spent stock and i want to give you a statistic. a woman of color who was african-american and latino only makes $0.64. that gap is there this is so noticeable to make sure we have good enforcement that the department of labor can hire up so the knicks do not

go into a pile and people actually get a callback and issues like this are resolved and investigated. it is required by law in any federal contracts that go out that they treat individuals fairly women, the people of color common disabilities, i seek what has happened is we got a comfortable we don't even and indeed an office for the women's bureau and a date goodness their voices were heard and that is discouraging because there is so much more to do. maybe if we are more used to the notion to be more acceptable but when you look

at the statistics it does not bear that out that is why do kids out the grants for jobs where contracts are things of that nature who moves up the ladder at the government level? there is the disproportionate amount that are not getting into the it senior executive management position and very few men and women of color and i say are they equally applied across the board? maybe we lose sight we pull back because of the era of so being hypersensitive to

talk about the white elephants in the room is time to bring those barriers down in my opinion help to set a standard by bringing more women and people of color into his invitation i had the opportunity to serve as the first latino woman. hopefully the next president , she or he could have the opportunity to truly represent the american end public best thing is never given and you have to work for it. don't believe for a minute blind dash minute that we don't have so far to go or other people looking up to us to continue the fight. young or old every corner of

this world they say please don't give up. read the to have equity, the family medical, to implement the public and private sector we have to change the behavior of corporations that continue to do discriminate in don't come pay compare bulwarks a we have a long way to go but i am happy the can have these open discussions with more men to control the of the average of power -- the leverage of power to do the right thing for every friday. >> while you were speaking earlier joining the obama administration there was optimism early 2009 but you watched that e. road and now

trail the gap workers that are furloughed a huge with the anonymous bureaucrats but they are real people all lots of them are people of color and government services is one of the great ways to insure the middle-class. >> for many of us that grew up we understood that the government could allow for more balance and a level playing field of education or job creation. now the public is very anti-government. not just federal but local. the tip of losses experienced over five years it is tremendous. 600,000 jobs were wiped out and most were women teachers, firefighters, peop le who do your local government. to see that the recession is

a slap in the face for people whose try to come up for those diverse communities. as our economy recovers we need to back fill the position and who is in line? and encourage people not to be down on federal or state government it is something more simplistic because someone who takes care of my mother or your father with the imprimatur care, pick up my dad, the veterinarian veterinarian, pads, the street corner, the lights are out. when there is a major accident? where people lose their lives? who inspect the poultry? we have a crisis in california right now.

we have tuesday to about what that means to our society to pay some form of tax but people say it is almost us in to pay taxes but proportionately speaking people in the middle class and lower pay a higher percent they and the 2%. and the wealth of those has increased 200% is down to about 20. that does not equate or compare. people need to wake up the disparities existed and we have to correct them because people in the their voice is heard. i hope they are encouraged to get harpies out of spec also with the revenue reduced but your bio says to

encourage positive resolution of race, gender, and class issues. >> how is it going? [laughter] >> i like to say when i was coming up of a guy thought all of this would be historic to talk about how things used to be but we have not changed hands it doesn't mean we stop or stop trying to make things better. the things that i try to do

is every bet becomes in their own way and that is what we have to understand. not that i want run for public office but to those who have a function in life has the opportunity to promote. i said to a woman who was part time right now. everyone of us has a role that we can play. it is not easy in this era of post identity where most of us did not realize where all the of, ism is gone in and we have to be thoughtful where are the gaps of the

loss? what are the new strategies? who are the decision makers? what tuesday's me to go to make the best decisions? in the long term is it important is it necessarily that women are bottled as a group? out of course, not. i don't think we are but what benefit when we start to drill down to look at women's life experiences or their life cycle so we are not just talking about one say that leads for the big like child care but what needs to happen for with a bid from the time they are born to prove it to adzes of

successful outcome but the time we get older it become the board empoverish. we have to be smart and thoughtful and you'd look at the impact of race on a woman's experience. what is a like when you quote statistics of limited of color with the wage gap? what is it like to be a woman of color or $0.94 to the dollar? even in the terms of the judiciary one-third are women. but let's get all the federal judges that are women of color. so what does that to?

we have to look at this holistic lee -- a holistic play as of the complex so there are no simple solutions. but it does begin a and i thought about this things can change. i testified date to 91 and was getting lots of letters. i still do. i was between 80 and 90 percent of the letters that i got over from women. over time now going on 30 years from the field has changed. i am getting more supportive letters from been talking about the experience of the sexual harassment or to

speak out for what they believe. but they put it into a positive treated you fault the way that some men come through their experiences of their daughter, but what is there? some kind of sympathy. some ability to relate to what it is like to make a positive change and me confronted by people who do not want them to change. that is how we will be able to move. when brinded error and more ready to support their family everybody benefits. when did it can live -- everybody benefits if we have to begin to understand

those differences but not lose focus of the fact there is still a gender disadvantage in this country. it is interesting 50 years ago it is so one of the premise that they start with there is a disadvantage to being a woman in this country. is still exist. but we have to make sure people understand disadvantage is not criminal well but the entire society suffers because of that. >> you talk today about civil rights and women's movements i want to ask teeeighteen about organizing the first to the question here. >> as you pointed out before i made the women's rights awareness group in my

high-school. i ask one of my male teachers what he thought. he said if you make a feminism club then the boys to have to make a masculine club. i said with all due respect the united states of america is the of masculine club. [laughter] [applause] so the question is to part because i looked around i don't see enough girls at my age here and i worry about what i have to do as a leader to first be taken seriously because i did not feel that my activism was taken as seriously period

how do i take that to the cause but i feel they don't know exactly what that means >> i have so many things to say. [laughter] an excellent question. we are all. don't ask us. sorry. [laughter] tell us. towel us what would train young people into this conversation. item i am constantly trying to seek of ways to reach to various audiences to activate adequately and the key is to ask those groups of each of us a special young women in the conversation to take on the responsibility to figure that out and telling the

rest of the movement hoping other aspects of the of leadership on what it will take. i also want to offer another response to your teacher which jurors was very good. [laughter] but let's run the conversation was a feminism club would focus on and what the goal would be. 50 years ago with the status of women today we have the commission's with similar titles it an office in the white house to focus on women and girls but if we did not have that history what would we call it if we were starting fresh today? would be calling it more like commission on gender or sex inequality?

that is absolutely not to erase the you began disproportionate impact that discrimination as but what are the of ways we are harmed by a sexism? how can that's our women? . .

>> that type of thinking of how gender limits all of us is absolutely what that fight is about. that type of a frame, i think, is an interesting thing to think about for where we go forward from here because it does bring other people into the conversation and into the fight because why aren't the boys part of the feminism club or gender equality club? i hope they are. there were quite a few guys in my such group when i was a student, but that absolutely does not mean we in any way lose focus on what is still the disportioned impact on women in

this country, especially considering violation against women and those types of concerns. >> uh-huh, thank you. >> yeah, i mean, so does she go and try to recruit friends in school individually? how does one go about sparking a movement? seems to me what happened in your case was that the issue of contraception related to the affordable care act actually made young women think that they had a stake in this. i mean, it's believing you have a stake in some political fight that gettings people interested, and people have a stake in all these fights, but they don't make the connection so i guess the issue is, how do you get them to see that they can actually have an impact on washington? >> well, it seems that we're coming at it from the wrong direction; right? rather than convince people they

have a stake, shouldn't the question be that we ask what is it you're worried about, what's not working in your life, that you want to fight for, okay, let's organize around that. that's when we feel they have a stake, and perhaps that opens the door to further conversations of, well, you know, here's a policy that you had no idea was impacting your life, but let's talk about how that relates to this concern that you have, but it can't be a top-down, you all should know you're should be concerned about x, y, z. that's not going to gal galvanie people. >> i think there's a lot of ways to galvanize people. everybody's different. what reaches some people won't reach other people, but i do agree with you that when you have to get to people what they care about, what really do you care about some are concerned about things that are ideas, and others are concern about things

that are their data day living. -- they have day-to-day living, and so much is coming out of washington, that we organize -- i don't think we have to organize around the politicals. >> right, yeah. >> i think we need to organize around what is going on in our lives, and i mean if you want to think about in terms of what you're going to change in washington, that's one thing, but you might want to change what's in your workplace. what people are being requiredded to do, whether or not people are going to have vacation or sick leave or whether or not how people are being paid in their workplace or, you know, whether people are given leeway to go and take off and take care of a sick child or a sick parent. i mean, all organizing doesn't

have to be directed in washington, d.c.. we can change the way we live and the way women experience life. >> well, maybe that's the big difference between 50 years ago and today because 50 years ago government in washington and politics was seen as the most direct avenue for change, and -- >> well, -- >> an overworked term. >> we have to fight op multiple levels. i, of course, as a lawyer, yeah, women should be encouraged to sue for their rights. you know, is that so radical when you saw that as a headline? yes, we should be suing for our rights, but that should not be the only avenue. what we have to realize is that when you talk about people who are vulnerable, economically or socially, they are not going to

go to the courts because, one, they can't afford to or they can't even project what the outcomes will be. their ought to be other avenues for us to move people forward that don't require us to file a lawsuit. i'm all for the trusts, but they should not be required for us to move forward. >> right, right, well -- >> can i say something though? something i think is important as well. while we see dysfunction in washington playing out in the last four years, quite frankly, people have to be reminded that a lot of things happen locally, and that people shouldn't lose sight, especially women. we are losing so many good women that are now just waiting for running for public office. in los angeles county, we just had an election on the city counsel out of, like, 20 members, one woman. she's barely squeezed through. this is horrendous we are going backwards, not forwards. the california state

legislature, we lost ground in having more women state senators, and ask the questions why, do they not have money or support at home, is there structure in life such it does not allow them to have time to do that? these are questions we need to ask ourselves as a society and figure it out if we really want to see equality, and while i don't think everyone is made up to get into politics, it's an important voice because when you do have women who look at things very differently. it's about the group, and it's not about my having power over saying, gee, i won that one, and i think a lot of women in leadership in legislature help

groom and mentor other women and her effect so profound, really underestimated now, women in this day and age don't understand the contributions this one woman made, and in keeping at bay, also, people alongside her who would love to have her position, so, i mean, think about that, maneuvering the house, built, and work with the president at that time to get ledbetter and other good legislation. thank goodness we have good women in the senate in the and in the house because we were able to get the funding we needed at a time when the other side says, oh, no, the government is too big, and it's outrageous when the unemployment rate at that time was 10% and maybe 16 and 20% for people of color. in communities around the

country. i want to ask each of you, sandra, way you see on the horizon that can give us some reason to be happy about the progress we are about to meet. >> the raising of why, you know, aren't we seeing more women stepping forward into office and into leadership, you know, sometimes i worry it's because we spend a lot of time talking about barriers. it's good to acknowledge barriers, and absolutely, that's how we work on them, but we have to not get stuck there, and as individual women believing we can't do it because of all of those barriers we're aware of. you know, i don't want to run for office because i'll be attacked and vilified in the press.

>> well, we're all still here. if the three of us can handle it -- [applause] rock stars perhaps, but superwomen know if we can handle it, so can so many women, and we need a lot more belief in ourselves in that way because i suppose that's my optimism in the end is that we have the capacity to change all of what we've been talking about today. we will eventually. we will. >> right. i think fdr took criticism, it's a badge of honor, wear it as a badge of honor. >> yeah. >> you had your share of criticism. >> of honor. >> yeah. [laughter] >> i have. it's amazing, i always tell people if i'm optimistic, anybody should be. [laughter] what makes me optimistic, two

things. one, again, so much has changed. i've search it in my lifetime, and if i think about, you know, the fact that i grew up in rural oklahoma, not australia, but in rural oklahoma, the life chances that people would have given to me for on african-american girl growing up in rural oklahoma, one, getting to law school, garage waiting from college, yale law school to be able to move and work to where i am today, and as i tell people, i'll move all the way from oral roberts university so i've come a long way. all the way across the spectrum, but the chances of that happening for me were not great. they were, in fact, very small, so i know what we can do and know what's possible, and i also know that we didn't do it alone. i did it because there's a lot of people behind me, and flrp a lot of got programs, and there

was a movement bind me, and i've seen it mostly in my lifetime, and i can see it possibly happening in the future because when i get to fly around and talk to groups, i see so many people of good will who did care and are willing to work to make things better. other things that make me optimistic is alternative. i can't be pessimistic or give up. if that's the only alternative, i'm optimistic and just keep working. [applause] >> i think that's a nice note to end on, so thank you very much. [laughter] [applause] go forth and multiply. [laughter]

[applause]>> washington journal.

host: american university professor chris edelson joins us

now to discuss his new book. start by defining what we are .alking about often there is a claim -- a claim of crisis. the constitution itself speaks only to emergency power in the context of congress. article one gives congress the power. presidents have no express emergency power. the part of the constitution dealing with the presidential power itself, it is not get emergency presidential power is not listed there at all. right. article one, article two is a lot shorter. invested inwer is the president of united states or does not say anything

expressly that the president not having the ability to deal with in -- an emergency. it is clear they did intend for the president to have an ability for a sudden attack. records show they wanted to make clear the president could repel a sudden attack. beyond that, the text does not say anything. >> what are the other historical records and the debate that played out when we're talking about emergency presidential powers? >> just because it does not say something expressly, does not mean the presidents have not acted. the question is how you determine when they are justified and when they are not your the basic schools of thought i would say our, one approach acknowledges presidents have limited emergency power, basically limited to what the drafters -- when there is a sudden attack of emergency, the president can act unilaterally but later have a congress approval. that is a narrow view of emergency power. the broader view, taken during

the bush administration, and by the obama administration, the broader views presidents have complete power to do whatever is necessary to defend the nation, even in the broadest view, to set aside laws congress passed when the president believes it in french is on his or her executive power, that is the basic debate. quests we are talking about some historical records and applying today. is it worth looking at the historical record? how could the crises now what kind of the president today will deal with. is an excellent question. i would argue yes it is worth start with the constitution itself. what we know about the constitution. argument.e this we are in the 21st century. the framers could not have anticipated things like terrorism and sudden attacks. i would argue that is true but

they specifically understood the possibility of emergencies. the records show when they discussed congress has the power to declare war, they changed it from congress have the power to make war. they specifically said they want to make clear the president reserves the power to repel sudden attack. they did not know about terrorists that they knew about sudden attacks and they understood the president would need the ability. i believe the constitution provides guidance. it does not give all of the answers. some of the answers have been filled in by historical practice. the arguments made by executive branch is officials and what congress has or has not done as well. quietly will talk about some of asse changes in this segment we go through the history of emergency presidential power. is "emergency presidential power." you want to talk to chris, who

serves as the -- our phone calls are open. -- as we are waiting for folks to call him, in your book, 9/11, everything changed when it came to emergency presidential powers. take a look. guest: vice president cheney said everything changed after december 11. i am not sure everything really changed. united dates has face threats before. existential threats. essentialii was an x threat. i am not sure the united states has never faced a threat like this before. changed, is the

scope of presidential power. the vice president cheney championed. that is something different. were precedents for that before, but it has never been accepted. what i mean is the arguments the president -- because the president has executive power, that means the president has all of the executive power. the president can define executive power and when congress passed a law that can infringe it, the president can sit with -- simply set the law aside. host: what about checks and balances? guest: it directly challenges that, and i would argue contradicts it. way, the precedents are not good ones. one of them is president nixon in the interviews in 1977, he says when the president does something, it is not illegal. he was talking about a critical -- enterprise. the premise, the idea that the

president can satisfy the law, the ideatradictory to of separation of power and checks and balances. --e of the framers were very they wanted limited power. let's go to the phones. john is in virginia on the line with democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. presidential power has been abused by george w. bush and barack obama. to war killing innocent americans, [indiscernible] ofre should be some kind [indiscernible] to see if the president is doing the right thing when they are doing what they want to do. just because there is terrorism out there, they can manipulate american people so they can achieve when it comes to

election time, see how we are doing to defend this country. we find out all of the thing was about -- they want some voters to vote for them. a great point. i think there is a watchdog. providesm expressively for watchdog. one is congress and one is the american people. one is the press. you are right there is a history in the united states. not just bush and obama. it goes back many years. president johnson during the vietnam war, presidents misleading the american public. it is a big problem especially with pratt -- when presidents act secretly. president nixon argued presidential power can be checked by impeachment. what if no one knows about it? drone program.he a really important problem. lack of oversight. absolutely correct.

the drunken phone -- the joan has two components. one is people are not u.s. citizens. when it is used to target u.s. certainly not a sympathetic figure involved with al qaeda, the greatest threat to the united states today, he was a it is -- a u.s. citizen. he was placed on a kill or capture list. his 16-year-old son was killed a couple of weeks after him and it is not clear why. no judicial oversight. yes, this is an important problem, i agree. to expand on what happened there. in your book, president polk i sadly -- actually pointed out a flaw by demonstrating --

-- the problem is, what is a president invents an emergency in a disputeded area. he claimed mexican soldiers who entered in u.s. territory and fired at u.s. troops, he went to congress to ask for a declaration of war. it turned out it was not true. he admitted it later. disputed area appeared americans were invading their territory. the were was started under false pretenses. that was a number -- one of a number of examples where it happened. this point out a problem. if you have a president you can trust and rely on to only use power during an emergency, that is one thing. framers understood human nature is, kiddo. this is one thing that has not changed. human nature is what it is. presidents seek power. the callerink -- mentioned president bush or president obama. it is not attack against them personally. residents seek power.

as a caller mentioned, it is up to the rest of us to set limits on their power. >> the book is "emergency presidential power." we are talking with author chris taking your he is comments. our next call is from georgia on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i do not know where to start. of the power of presidents going back to the first one. one of the things that concerns they the warmaking ability can exercise in these emergency situations. likeand things -- it seems congress has delegated power to the presidency in emergency when the president could seek a resolution asking for a blank check. , i am suressed a law you have got it in your book, in

1973. it seems like that law does not really extreme -- restrain the president all. they have gone beyond that even now. comments andr your answers to the question. guest: you are right on the money. everything -- every point you make is a good one. you mentioned there were times when presidents received after september 11. the invasion of iraq as well. sometimes, these were false pretenses. said somethingt internet was not true. that is one problem when presidents use false information . another problem you alluded to is what about when presidents act alone? presidents simply taking military action on their own. truman sent troops to korea

based on a u.n. resolution. and there has been a string of actions since then. the first president bush and president clinton. president most recently in libya and syria. in 1973 wason clearly intended to limit presidential power and to recognize presidents need that -- when the united states is attacked or u.s. a trip s u.s. troops are attacked abroad, the president can take immediate action. that is what the framers envisioned. the president does not have to wait for congress. the resolution says that has to be limited power. the president has to inform congress action has been taken and military action can only continue unilaterally for 60 days and in some circumstances up to 90. simply think it is unconstitutional. president nixon tried to veto it. many presidents simply do not

pay attention to it. even when they do, like president obama in lindy at -- libya, sometimes they find ways around it. president obama in libya sent in military forces or missile strikes and bombing raids on gaddafi. there were arguably good reasons to act. humanitarian crisis. what obama did not have, though, is authorization from congress. he found a way around the resolution and took unilateral action and the resolution did not work. you are right it does need updating and it unfortunately has not worked. >> who are the voices in congress calling for more restraint on the emergency presidential powers? guest: great question. more recently this past summer in syria, president obama again said he will order military action unilaterally. there is a terrible dictator. humanitarian crisis. deservedly, obama was concerned

about the use of chemical weapons. terrible things. could be good reasons to act. other presidents had done, obama said he would act alone. what was different this time and what i did not anticipate is obama was stuck -- stopped because people in congress wrote letters to him saying, he could not do this. directlynot threatening the night states. you need to come to us first. againsts public opinion obama acting alone and he did go to congress. i think problematically, he said, even though i am doing this and asking congress for approval, i reserve the right to act unilaterally. i think that makes no sense. what is the point of going to congress if you could do it anyway. what is positive is it shows congress can assert itself. congress stepped up and said, wait a second, you need to consult us, and they were successful. >> do you think constitutional

arguments were made against it or the politics of the situation? >> you are right, of course. constitution is a political document and the way it is interpreted, a lot of times, there is an artificial delineation between law and politics and purely objective and politics are subjective. they overlap and the constitution itself is not always clear. when the president changed the course of action because of a political argument, put argument could have an effect on the constitution. when lawmakers say to them, you cannot take action, the president is concerned about public opinion, that is clinical , a political motivation and reason, but it helps to define presidential power under the constitution. >> the author of "emergency of presidential power." talked isses he have -- he isl freedom

there to answer questions and comments as we talk about his book on emergency presidential power. in alexandria, virginia, on our independent line. the morning. caller: good morning. background about myself. here in the early 1980 classes. i have lived here 30 years. i am a pharmacist. i read on the u.s. constitution. the basic foundation of the u.s. is thent -- system government has limited authority. also, the government's duty is to protect the rights of its citizens. knowing that president obama is

a lawyer, how is he now surgeting the limitless of the citizen private information? by the way what he is doing here is now used to justify oppression and political discussion -- destruction. i am impressed by the questions. i'm gratified people take an interest in the constitution. you are right the constitution takes limited power. the constitution was crated because the article had to fair -- failed. it did not create a strong enough to appear there was no president. -- strong enough. there was no president. they were not creating a king. out xander said this.

protectionsutional apply to persons. without due process of law. it is an even broader protection. the caller was alluding to the nsa program. this is an important concern. the metadata collection was revealed first by edward snowden. there have been a couple of court decisions on this. there, it turns out the government, this was something done in the bush administration. the government has been collecting metadata about basically all americans phone calls. not the content of the calls, but who you call and who is calling you and how long the call last, when the call is made. it puts us in a database. they store information about virtually all phone calls americans make for up to five years. this has been approved by the fisa court. it does not necessarily mean it was right, but that was the conclusion they reached. when the nsa believes one number is connected to a terrorist

group, they have authority to run a search for all other people who interacted with that number. three, what they call it. whodid that person calling call them? who call those people and those people? a recent opinion, judge leon said the approach is unconstitutional and pointed out you can search of to one million records. he called it -- he said the program is virtually orwellian. another federal judge upheld the program. this issue will undoubtedly go to higher courts, very possibly the supreme court. >> in terms of how these are justified and how people can question them if they do not know enough about the programs, on twitter --

how can people be able to question these programs if there is so much information that is classified? guest: the last caller pointed out that president obama is a constitutional lawyer. when he ran for office he said the bush administration had violated the rule of law, i'm going to restore the rule of law. he has been pretty close to the bush administration in a lot of ways in taking broad actions, not recognizing clear limits on power. host: that probably shouldn't -- guest: that probably shouldn't be surprising. kings and presidents and the executive would try to use as much power as they could. we have to set limits. how do we do that? if information is secret, that cannot be done. that was especially troubling during the bush administration. i talked about the unitary executive. that was spelled out in secret office of legal counsel memos

that people didn't even know about for years. how do we set limits on presidential power if we don't know about this? we cannot. host: some of the memos are included in the book, if you want to read the primary sources. guest: when obama took office, i hoped and a lot of people hoped that he would create -- he has relied on an argument called the state secret privilege, which is an argument recognized by the supreme court. i think it is problematic doctrine. the supreme court said when the executive branch claims that providing information in a lawsuit would reveal information related to national security, it doesn't have to turn it over. the obama administration has taken his argument in some ways further than the bush administration to conceal information. it is a balance. the president needs enough power. there have to be limits. some things have to be kept secret. the framers understood that, too. but legal opinions -- the

targeted killing program i was talking about, there is an office of legal counsel memo that is still secret that explains how this is justified. we have to be able to see things like that. if there is information that relates to intelligence gathering operations, that can be redacted. "besidestwitter, impeachment, could congress sue obama over libya, for example?" guest: excellent question. they could. the courts probably aren't going to hear that case. courts are very reluctant, understandably, to get involved in disputes over warmaking powers. the government says this is a political question. it is a question committed by the constitution to the other two branches. there are other things congress can do. they can hold hearings, gather information, pass laws, make sure laws are enforced.

arguably authorized by law. if congress doesn't like it, they can change the law. they can exercise oversight. this is harder to work in practice. in theory, they can defund the military. the mattel eric -- the military is only funded two years at a time. interestingly, some advocates have brought -- of broad president of power say that is a limit on presidential power. i don't think it is, but, technically, it exists in the constitution. they sent letters to the president, making this a public issue. they were successful there. host: robert is up next. you are on with chris edelson. author of "emergency presidential power." caller: my proposal for restoring the president from escaping -- exceeding his authority and lying to the

government would be a constitutional amendment changing the essential nature of the presidency. instead of having a single president elected once every four years, we could have a three-part presidency, three copresidents, each elected two years for a six-year term. , anyrtain matters individual copresident could act, for example to grant 2/3ons, legislate, have required -- legistlate, -- legislate, have 2/3 required for veto. action wouldde require unanimity. guest: it's an interesting point and one that has been raised. there is a professor who has made the argument that there

should be copresidents. i personally don't think it is a great idea. the framers did talk about this. are those who say we need a plural executive, not just one person. said thathamilton wouldn't be a great idea because -- he was concerned that it would prevent presidents from acting during an emergency when they need to act. he said there is good reason to have one person that can act without debate during emergency. he said having more than one president could make it harder to limit their power. if something goes wrong, the copresidents could say it is this other person possible and it would be harder to hold them accountable. it's a fair point. there is a book that has been written about this. it is certainly something the framers debated as well. they ultimately rejected it. host: you brought up the war on tower and some of the powers that the recent presidents have used to fight the war on terror.

i want to talk about that in the historical context. there is a passage from your book that talks about the cold war and the presidential powers. -- lincoln and roosevelt's expanded powers might at least be limited to a finite amount of time. seeing rightwe are now in the efforts to fight the war on terror? guest them a i think so. you mentioned this idea of everything changed after -- guest: i think so. you mentioned this idea of everything changed after september 11. it was a political scientist who made an argument called constitutional dictatorship. i don't agree with this premise. his argument was during an emergency situation, a president should be able to act like a dictator, like lincoln did during the civil war. i don't agree. i don't believe that is necessary. i don't think lincoln actually did that. the argument would be for a

limited period of time. lincoln said this will end when the war ends, and they essentially did. you have cold war, if this undefined crisis that goes on in definitely, when does it end. end? if you could argue that presidential power should be extended during an emergency, what if the emergency goes on indefinitely? that's a good reason to argue for limits on presidential power. and onhere is this, twitter, "is the constitution relevant anymore if no one in our government bothers to follow it?" relevant.hink it is people have made this argument. there are a couple of law professors. they wrote a book called "the executive unbound after the madisonian republic." they argue that the constitution doesn't matter anymore, that it cannot and should not control presidential power, presidents should only be limited by political restraints like

impeachment or election. i disagree. i don't think that should be or is the case. presidents sometime takes action -- take action that is incompatible with the constitution. it may be a bad argument, an argument that is not plausible, but because they speak in constitutional terms, it shows me the constitution matters and that they can be persuaded. secret program, warrantless wiretapping, clear violation of a criminal law. nobody knew this was going on outside the government. some executive branch lawyers in 2004 said to president bush, wait a second, this is illegal. it violates the constitution. he listened and change the program. it does show the presidents -- i don't think they do ignore the constitution. you see from the collars and writers, because americans -- writers, because americans care about the

constitution -- i think it does matter. host: randy is waiting to talk to professor edelson. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. the affordable health care act was signed into law by our president and it did pass a constitutional test with the decision from the supreme court. my question is how can we change the rules single-handedly as this goes along? a good example would be that businesses have a year delay for compliance, where as the individual still must comply. there are some other examples. changing of the rules by our --sident without another act without congress being involved, i question. i will hang up and take your answer off the air. guest: it's a little bit off- topic, but i understand the question and i think it is important. you are right, presidents take that context, too. president obama's decision to the mandate put out

is controversial. i think it raises questions and problems. president obama argued he was putting off the deadline in order to make the law worked. he wants the affordable care act to work. it is his signature piece of legislation. what if some future president decides not to implement part of the law in order to undermine it. i think that is a problem. a constitutional scholar who i respect quite a bit, who wrote the foreword to my book, wrote an article about this and argued that president obama was not acting illegally. his argument was that other presidents have done this, too. they have discretion to do this. he thought it was a political mistake the way obama did it, because obama did not explain well enough why he was doing this. the main argument was republicans are intransigent, he can't get changes from them. there is a lot to be said about that. but the argument, which i think is a good one is obama needs to explain to the american people

why is what he is doing constitutional. he is a constitutional scholar. he should explain this. he does have an argument. he probably should make the argument much more clearly than he has. "what happens when the president asks congress for and receives the power from them to declare an emergency such as president roosevelt accomplished according to the church commission in the 93rd congress? can congress take the power that they have given back?" guest: i think it was 1974. ingress had this still effect. they passed the national emergency act that tried to change that and tried to undo that and say, no, the emergency is no longer in effect. we are going to pass clear rules about how emergencies of fly and what powers congress has. just because congress has ceded power does not mean they cannot take it back. just because presidents since

1950 have acted unilaterally in ordering military operations does not mean congress cannot assert itself as it did most recently in syria. the fact that congress has let something go for a while does not mean it cannot change course. host: robert is in maryland on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. just because other presidents have done it in the past doesn't make it constitutional, legal, or ok. i consider myself an anti- federalist. i want to correct a point. articles of federation did have a president. it was effectively a head of state. congress however appointed a commander in chief. they appointed george washington every time. it made it clear that the authority of commanding military belonged to the states through the congress. and i wanted to point out that the 1787 convention was a power grab. alexander hamilton wanted the

government just like great britain. he wanted a king. that is what we have. you had a great color, the ethiopian -- great caller, the ethiopian caller, talking about our government is one of limited power. we have our president refusing to acknowledge that. power is not delegated to the federal government or reserve. when we don't have a government that recognizes that and says these are things that we cannot do because the constitution does not give it, you have a to radical government. tyrannicale a ta government. guest: there was only one branch of government, the continental congress. there was no executive. there was a president of the congress, but it was not an executive position. you can describe the constitutional convention of 1787 as a power grab.

i would describe it more as an attempt to fix the failed articles of federation. hamilton liked the idea of a constitutional monarchy, but he was persuaded it would not work in the united states. anti-federalists argue by creating a president, we will have a king. hamilton explains why the president would not became. the british monarch is hereditary, cannot be removed from office, has all power over domestic and federal affairs. the president can be removed by impeachment and is only the first general of the admiral of the army -- first general of the army and first admiral of the navy. there is some confusion about this. the 10th amendment says powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or people. the articles of confederation said only power expressly delegated to congress belongs to it. the draft of the constitution removed the word "expressly."

they did it consciously. was toson they did that make sure they were doing two things. they certainly wanted to limit government power. that is very important. they did not want a tyranny. they wanted to limit power. they were people who learn from experience. when the articles of confederation -- of federation did not give the government enough power, they knew they needed to give them more. one way they did that was i change in the articles of confederation. chief justice marshall said that has givenl government implied powers to you. implied powers must be tied to enumerated powers. the constitution clearly gave the federal government more power than it had under the articles of confederation. you can argue that is a mistake, but that's the decision they made. it does not mean they are correct. host: george is on the line for democrats.

good morning. thank you very much for this high-level discussion. i wanted to ask -- let me make a comment. it sounds like there is a great deal of agreement to train you and jack goldsmith -- agreement between you and jack goldsmith, but you might disagree with robert david johnson in his "cold war congress." , it seems to me that the fourth amendment is a response to the general warrants . i wonder how, whether you agree with it or not, how you will try 215,uare section collection by the nsa, with the fourth amendment seizure clause. excellent question. thank you and all the callers. incredibly informed people are

calling and i appreciate that. jack goldsmith was a government lawyer during the bush administration. he is one of the people i was referring to who helped set limits on the warrantless surveillance program. host: did you study under him? no.t: i think he was at university of chicago at the time. he went to harvard out -- after he got out of government. he said that this violated the separation of powers and rejects the idea of limits on presidential powers. he rightly acted to rein it in. he wrote a book that describes a lot of the excesses. i agree with a lot of what he says. one thing i disagree with -- he wrote another book recently. what he argues in his more recent book is that the bush presidency and the obama administration have been constrained, that they tried to extend -- exceed the bounds of constitutional power, but they have been reined in by congress,

the court, nonprofit groups, the aclu. i'm not sure i'm as optimistic as he is. i think the obama presidency has continued the bush administration's approach in many ways. unfortunately, it has not been effectively reined in. the caller mentioned the fourth amendment. excellent point. glad to talk about that again. the origins of the fourth amendment -- i'm from boston. i grew up seeing the history about the revolutionary war. the revolutionists were concerned about general warrants . british soldiers and british officials who were stationed in massachusetts before the revolutionary war were conducted -- conducting broad searches of people's houses pursuant to a general warrant, which gave them the authority to tear up the persons's house -- person's house. they were looking for contraband. when the constitution was drafted, the fourth amendment

said no unreasonable searches and seizures can be allowed and no warnings issued except it -- except upon probable cause and it has to describe the specific area to be searched. i do believe the current program that has been described in the recent court decisions, the nsa metadata program, as purportedly justified by section 215, i think it does violate the fourth amendment. the nsa has broad authority to search hundreds -- billions of records without a judicial war and being granted. i think he is right. it does violate the fourth amendment. when he said this is virtually orwellian, i think he is right. the government has too much power in this area. host: good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i'm curious about something. we discussed the legal and ethical attitudes of our government and the constitutional attitude, but the truth of the matter is those

people don't pay a bit of attention to that. i think it is a red herring. president obama is carrying on the decisions made by president bush peered we have proven that president bush's decisions, vis- à-vis the iraq war, was incorrect. there is a tremendous amount of debate around the 9/11 to vigorously -- the 9/11 conspiracy. my father was a content -- and myelligence officer -- father was an intelligence officer a year after the attack on pearl harbor. i asked him if there was the possibility anything else had gone on. he said, "the two aircraft carriers that were supposed to be there were rerouted and the flights that were flying out to check on the areas to the east were re-tasked and sent toward the west." they would have spotted the japanese fleet. these people have some sort of agenda that they -- when we

bring up these questions on constitutionality, i think they are having a good laugh. we need another attitude, answer, party, another way to get things accomplished. we are in serious trouble. guest: two points. one, i think you are right about the problems. i think you're going too far. conspiracy theories about pearl harbor and 911 are not justified. there was an argument that roosevelt had somehow wanted the attack on pearl harbor so the united states would be forced to enter the war, there was no evidence. the 9/11 conspiracies, no evidence for it. do f6 matter? there is certainly a reason to matter -- believe that presidents do act unethically. they do what they do. they seek power. it is up to us to limit their power. they may not care about ethics. what they do care about is how the public responds, what courts

do, what congress does. if the right kind of pressure can be exerted, they will change their behavior. i don't think it is hopeless. "emergencyook is presidential power, from the drafting of the constitution to the war on terror." the author is chris edelson.

>> i hope we have a good discussion as this topic provokes. i will start by reading from chapter one the end. before where do that i will give myself water. you can tack amongst yourselves for a moment. this brand of water is in the book.

these were delivered to haiti. it comes from fiji which isn't n caribbean. it was spent at a lot of expense and effort. it was a beautiful project for photographers to take pictures of the gleaming bottled water coming off the planes with the concept there was this incredible water and food crisis. the way it was reported was that haiti was on the verge of famine and there were real problems and you know there certainly needed to be a response but this is an example of a response that wasn't thought out. it was a nice gesture from the

fiji water company but it was ridiculous because they have water in haiti. it is an island like fiji but the water needed to be cleared up and for the existing system of water in haiti to be improved. long before the earthquake they needed a system of water to be implemented and for government to be capable of doing that. and that would have eliminated a major part of the crises when the earthquake struck. and could be done to help eliminate present crisis including the cholera epidemic. thank you for the visual aid,

fiji. i will drink some which might make be a hypocrite but that is part of my character as you will see in the book, too. so, the end: it was a hot june afternoon in the hills above port of prince. and there were few distractions. a pee house was quite and my housemate was on home leave. my translators and driver was on the phone. the only other person around was a mechanic. the call i was waiting for was

from someone at ap -- maybe they are sitting in the crowd. but it was someone telling me i could ship out. after two and a half years of disasters and riots and money picked cars and not one utility i could count on i was done with haiti. friends were great and the house was nice as well. from the slum rising behind the, the sounds of children filled the day and i would fall asleep to hand claps from the church at night. but they talked about getting rid of the house and most of my friend were shipped off to the next crisis. they told me i could pick my next position. i chose afghanistan. sounded like a good place for a

break. all that was left for the phone to ring. i played online trivia against my united states friends. i was sitting in boxers and a shirt sweating off the heat. name a human body part for every alphabet of the body. i heard a rumbling outside. then the bed started to vibrate. i heard plates vibrating, medicine bottles and bug spray shook. there had been a rumble before

on the island. i felt nothing when i stood up. the roar outside was louder and then the floor moved. the vibrations were thicker. christ what do you do in one of these? a doorway. something about a doorway. i walked toward it but kept going into the hall. i lowered myself or maybe a fell then a shove and another and another. suddenly the house was appear airplane in a storm. everything was falling. a framed photograph barely missed my head. there was a contest between the up and down and side to side. who was going shove harder and they were both winning. the world turned gray and everything blurred. things falling after there should have been nothing left to fall.

the horizontal slots from the house bursted across the floor. the floor disappeared and reappeared it was going to fall. i was going to fall. i heard a sound like trees being mowed down in a forest. i thought about running through the shattered glass but there was no time. when the second floor went i could be under or on top of it. i went with being on top. that was the beginning of the end. luckily not of me at that moment. i will jump forward and read a couple short sections. the book takes a large step become from the first chapter and goes through haitian history back 60 million years and comes

back forward and talks about the immediate aftermath of the day after -- the first chapter goes through and there is much more of that. and then we come into the a chapter called the cross roads and that is about the immediate tip of the spear response when the things that most of us outside of haiti saw on television of the respond coming in. so i talk about a lot of things happening, but one thing i will talk about is search and rescue. and i will explain why with the first sentence: search and rescue was the highest priority of the responders. it was called the most urgent needs and obama noted the teams

in his speeches. not hundreds but thousands needed to be extracted from the rebel. the rescue teams showed the advantages the developed world helped haiti. news coverage centered on the rescues. a successful rescue was like the earthquake in reverse. from destruction there is life. the tone of the reporting took on a religious tinge. two miracles from the rebel were pulled from haiti. the governor of california said quote many of us were able to watch the rescue live. the first rescue pulled out a body guard with minor injury.

other crowds scoured the super market. and then there was the hotel montana that had mostly foreigners when it fell. the head of the military response boasted the hotel had 16 teams alone because of the number of people trapped. many places with locals got far less attention. one hotel over from the montana the team tried to free a girl whose legs were stuck underneath the concrete. they thought about severing the leg but without blood that could kill her. on a neighboring hill there is a

posh hotel a lot of foreigners were staying out and there are a dozen people working to help rescue a girl from the rebel. it took the rest of the day to find a generator and pull the girl out. she died from the injury two days later. the haitian government had no reporting for those in need and there was no coordination between the united states task force and the haitian government. foreigners knew the super market and one of king's own men were buried. those in port of prince faced language barriers and civil

unrest. the coverage of the few sites provided uplift broad. the luxury high end hotels and super markets were broadcast to the world and the new rescue mission efforts knew where to go after seeing them online. i will jump to one more in the middle of the book. i cannot explain the chapter -- well i could, but buy the book. it talks about an important donors conference that was held in march of 2010. at the end of march of 2010. and the international organizations like the red cross came together in new york at the united nations to make pledges

for the long-term rebuilding of haiti. the organizers went to haiti to describe what they considered to be a priority. the days were getting longer. farmers awaited the rain to nur rgs their foods. it was hard to say how many were sleeping under the open skies but they estimate about a million. the camps were not going anywhere and they were being presented as being a risk for calamity. the highlight of the secretary general's trip was a visit to one of the camps.

he picked the most famous of them all. three quarters up the will on the golf course. it was a base of the 82nd air born and young power troopers peered with curiosity. and waiting out front the bearer was becoming a force that was more powerful than the soldiers. sean penn arrived to haiti and for a few days the landing team of the jphro distributed water filter and army aim. of everyone on the team soldiers were most excited about mario bello who played a bartender in

coyote ugly. they lived in a barn that protected them from the elements. they stopped to tour the camps and at the clinic he highlighted the ongoing need for aid and showed the need to protect the women and children from sex acts. cameras they called out before the tarps and everyone were in place. i am concerned as the rainy season is approaching. what happens to the people living here? the secretary general led to the 40,000 people below. we have to move the displaced persons to a safer place. it was important to understand the threat and limits. on a normal day in port of

prince it is dangerous. there is one drop, then a thousand and then a river falling from the sky. street merchants will sit patiently in gunfire but one if there is a drop on their head says an old joke. it was an overstatement to believe the rains would cause quote a second round of death unquote or the ground would be more diseased before the quake. the rain can be bad, but it assistant that bad. no monsoons. it would be greater when hurricane season came in the fall but in march there were months to mitigate the damage. bam expanded on the concerns in the "washington post" and wrote the steeping sloping ground

would soon quote turn to mud, dangerous and disease. he joined the drum beat of warning about the approaching rains. they are in a race against time for the rainy season. it was as if the only way to get the aid groups to act was to create panic. when the first shower hit in february i was rushed out to the golf course in full gear with a water-proof network and headlamp. now no mother would want to spend her crying baby in two feet of bleep filled water. you can find out what the bleep is if you get the book. why the wind blew crashed over the tarp, no one would stand by

unless they had to. there was a minimal global standard that people are sususpicious -- sufficient space -- to be under cover. that is what bill clinton meant when he said haiti should build back better. if they had not panicked though and had the strategy to take part of the 60000 people who went to the zone after the earthquake there might not be big camps. the haitian governments attempt

to try to find space was stalled because people refused to donate it. it seems they knew something we didn't and i ran to ask them more but then there were cameras and i saw penn walking alone. i reached the actor before a un spokesperson came over and asked questions. what is the plan for the rain? and to my surprise the actor an answered in detail. what is the plan or what should be the plan penn replied. he started giving the extended answer. he was handsome if weathered by 49 years on earth and two weeks

in haiti. he had tattoos and a pair of avi aviator sun glass. he reminds us of stark the louisiana governor but penn and haiti were modern. he said quote another thing i think that needs to be clear is a tarp is not a tent. a tarp structure is on toxic dirt that carries life-threatening bacteria. this is a camp that should be relocated and frankly in my view we have to work to understand how the relatively

unlive-account of his city. every good deed today is a cancer patient tomorrow with what they are breathing on the streets. outside of port of prince, not in the flood zone, large scale urban camps and the ability to build communities unquote. it was a passionate plea and it came from a newly arrived aid worker. but perhaps it wasn't so hypothetic. when asked if penn was helping chose the spots he surprised me by saying he had a meeting in washington and extended the members of the government to us who can advise this.

we are going to be shown some of the sights. i was confused. penn had a meeting with the washington members? granted cloony was a spy master later that year organizes private satellites to monitor troops in sudan. penn was taking the next step and contributing to policy making. perhaps there has been more to the choice of camp to visit than a one off round of publicity. that is all i am going to read. [ applause ] i think the best think to do because i will find a way to talk about any topic whether it is my choosing or yours is to

open it up to question. there is a microphone going around. and also please speak up so that everybody can hear you. >> are you planning to go back to haiti very soon? >> yes. >> so i understand that wycliff jean started an organization to raise money and the money disappeared. he is under investigation. can you talk about that? >> he is in the book, too. very interesting guy and character. he was best known for he wanting

to be president of the republic of haiti and mounted a campaign until he was left off the ballot at the very end. depending on who you ask you will get a different answer why it happened. his financial problems and his charity were factored into that. even though it was quite common knowledge in haiti that there was widespread allegations of unpaid taxes and misspent money that went to his aid group, most people that i was talking, haitians, didn't care all that much. they were more interested in his promise as somebody who had lived the dream of growing up poor outside of port of prince,

moving to brooklyn and then making it huge and coming back as a major star and a major force. i have a conversation in the book here where i am talking to somebody who is a waiter at a restaurant and you know i was saying who do you support in the election and he was like jean and i was like he is an american, though. and he speaks creole like i do. and i don't know which of us sound flattering more. and he said yes, i know. but if he is american that means when he is elected president we are all getting visas. he said this. and in terms of the allegations about this, which are only worse

with time, it is hard to say. there hasn't been any proof brought forward the allegations are wrong. the allegations are mostly based in paperwork and filings or lack therefore with the irs. one of the nice things about the way business is conducted in this country there are filing and oversight agencies. so when you have done something wrong, you have probably left a paper trail. and he seems to have gotten caught up in that. and it is interesting when you talk to wycliff, like a lot of people haitian and otherwise, he has big dreams and means what he says when he says he wants his organization to help life get

better. but there organization doesn't exist anymore or it has been shutdown. i don't know if there is going to be a criminal follow-up to what happened but it is ugly. things didn't turn out well for the organization or the people it was supposed to be helping. >> with all of the problems that occurred during katrina why do you think they didn't do a more effective job particularly with the engagement of bush and clinton in haiti? >> everybody hear that? >> the question correct me if i am wrong, after everything with katrina who wasn't there a better job with the engagement of president bush and clinton in haiti and that is a good question. this isn't the first time aid

has gone wrong. people that work in aid and development can tell you story after story of places they have worked where they came in and thought it was going to go another way, came in and it went the other way and there are problems with the aid regime. it isn't a surprise to me or to anything who knows haiti or disaster relief that many of these issues occurred. they occur here but in a different way after sandy. i was playing close attention to the news as the storm was coming up. and you saw the same tropes come

and you saw the fear of mob mentality taking over. and people were looking for the any sign they could find of society breaking down, the looters coming in, and usually blowing it out of proportion because as there are isolated incidents here it wasn't a big deal. in katrina, that attitude had major implications. you have people who survived a disaster and are trying to stay alive and are getting shot to death by the police because the police assume they are stealing something they are not. so that is a