on behalf of the constitution center integrates to see you. you honor the constitution center a few weeks ago by visiting us at the constitution center as you know it's the only institution in america that has a charter to disseminate information about the constitution on the nonpartisan basis. and i can't think of a better book to discuss in connection with the commission then your wonderful new book, six amendments how and why we should change the constitution. you propose constitutional amendments on the topics ranging from campaign finance and suffered in the unity and political gerrymandering to the gun control and the death penalty and anti-commandeering principle. all of these are cases where the supreme court ruled differently and you dissent in many of the cases. tell me why you decided to write the book and why you decided to oppose these amendments. >> guest: if a product if it could project that just grew that isn't the immediate cause

that is the killing of the schoolchildren in connecticut and "the new york times" story about the fact that the anti-commandeering rule places an obstacle in the way the governments are setting the total information on the background checks to see the purchase and i have not realized and read that in the industry that world is in fact increase the likelihood to be eligible would be allowed to purchase when he shouldn't have. it is a normal cause of that particular tragedy that likely it may have been a cause of other similar tragedies. >> this anti-commandeering rule that is the first amendment, and i dogeared all of them sounds technical but it's quite important in a way t and i'm god

the amendment of the proposed. adding just before the other public officials after the word judges and the supremacy clause would allow the congress to impose mandatory duties of the public officials and a free state. i think this privacy clause properly construed we've already allowed the government. i would have thought that they would have requested the local policemen to help the passengers othat an airline terminal or something of that kind. it's more serious than other people realize that they are not the kind of consequences that arise every day and they are

sitting in the backroom as far as i am concerned that may in fact indeed the action that can be terribly important in a natural situation. >> the case that you mentioned involved a gun free school zone act it was a federal law that was passed to regulate guns in schools. as you know they struck it down on the ground that federal officials cannot command a state officers to kerry out certain duties and you objected and said that there might be a future terrorist attack and this was before 9/11 and you said this would make it hard to respond to terrorism and other acts of violence. >> that is exactly right and i think that the rule in the place now interfering with the draft law for example where both in world war ii and in another situation the federal government has made important use of the state officials to help get the

army drafted. .. than people realize. >> host: you also said the court misconstrued previous precedence that before the court refused to endorse this broad states rights principle and prints change the law by exulting state sovereignty to a degree that was not justified. >> guest: that's true although it's interesting to note that the majority opinion in prints did not say either of the two cases would have provided better support than any case they did cite. one of them was a pre-civil war piece that had basically held that it was an anti-commandeering rule and justice marshall overruled that case and basically what he said was, it was the product of another part of our history that belongs on top.

pre civil war, pre 50 demint. >> host: this is a pretty big theme that runs throughout the book. this transformed the relation the trend federal and state power and gave the federal government broad power to -- protect minorities and solve national problems. you objected to many of these cases that many of your colleagues or adopting a pre civil war division. >> guest: of thing that is right. i really think, although i don't sell as much about this in the book, i think that president grant and some of his immediate successors are now categorically appreciated for the work that they did. a think there was an underlying campaign among some historians who are partial to cast doubt on the capacity of rant. at the key is a much better

presidents than people generally assume sabina you also think the reconstruction amendments gave broader power to the courts than is being recognized. >> guest: i think that is correct. >> host: in your discussion of sovereignty and unity, i know you feel strongly about it and it has big consequences. you will be allowed to explain it, of course, far better than i can. let me read the amendment you propose, and then you can tell it what you think it is important. it is not that tenth, 11th amendment, or any other provision of the constitution shall be construed to broaden the state agency or officer with immunity from liability for violating any act of congress or the constitution. what you propose that? >> guest: it is a long and interesting story. the doctrine that it is now in place, according to the majority

, implicit in the plan of the convention as part of the constitution. it started out in the chisholm against georgia, the question of whether there was a common-law immunity to protect georgia from paying its debts. and a vote of 4-1 that there was not such immunity. the 11th was adopted in response to that decision. for years, which regularly with the opinion by john marshall, the amendment really was construed very narrowly to apply only to cases in which the state itself is a serving sovereign immunity. he basically construed it in a way ahead relief would be granted against other state offices and the amendment would be no obstacle. that was basically the state of the law until after the civil war. during reconstruction the

process of reinterpreting bill greuel began, particularly in cases eisenhower the louisiana. they first fell of louisiana could not welsh on obligations. a few years later after there had been a change in administration and northern troops had been removed from the south, the court took the opposite view and cited a case which really is embarrassingly inconsistent with marshall's early ruling. i really think that it is not -- there is connection between the reconstruction of states' rights attitudes that developed over those years and the doctrine which later on became not only protective but developed over the years and now protect the states from having their agents

be required to obey federal law. and it no longer relies -- welcome my anyway, the area where it is implicit in the plan , the convention, even though four of the five people did not understand. but then it develops to the point where it required stricter statements of federal and -- federal intent to impose liability of state officials. and in response to that rule congress adopted several statutes expressly requiring states to obey federal and intellectual property area for the most part, trademark and so forth which was on a bipartisan basis. it was generally imposing these

rules may lot of sense. later on in the indian case, the court basically held that all those statutes were unconstitutional. that is one of the reasons i say this really should be a non-partisan issue because i think the history of development shows that congress did not treat it as a partisan issue were have much respect for the stalker and it goes back to early time spin england when they came presumably could do no wrong. >> host: if you help me understand, it was intended to prevent citizens a one state from suing the state for nonpayment of debt, but not about enforcing federal law. >> guest: no. >> host: have invoking this doctrine of indignity they added states is doing what john

marshall said it should not do speech to it is interesting. the opinions are really quite -- they do not explain why this doctrine makes sense except they want to fumble and use the word dignity as a basis which is it one of john marshall's opinions the specifically rejected dignity as a justification. >> host: you talk a lot nonpartisanship and neutrality which has been in your jurisprudence and are gearing that individual gerrymanders should be able to be challenged when they're not drawing individually in favor of campaign finance reform. you believe the state has of fundamental duty to act in a partisan and non-partisan manner. >> guest: i think that is the best way to interpret the will protection clause. it imposes on the state's a duty to govern impartially, not to

favor one sector or part of society over another. and focusing on that central requirement really makes things awfully easy. is a doctrine that struck me at the time i was working on a case for the seventh circuit before i came on the court, a case involving the discharge of a whole bunch of employees by the secretary of state of illinois who basically said, you switch parties or lose your job. and up was the weight of that system worked. it was accepted. but we decided that should not be the rule. consistent, govern impartially. since then over the years the court as a bout of that you.

originally it was turned of thought impossible to change something that had been in law that long, but they have, and fact, for the most part now all along with that change, again, over dissent in the course speeds -- >> host: he mentioned one area where your colleagues embrace this. there were others were it was rejected. you were particularly vigorous about partisan gerrymandering. i wasn't conference recently, and bill gates was asked, was the one thing congress could do to reduce political polarization in america. he said, eliminate partisan gerrymandering. this is a conversation with david brooks to respond to well, congress won't do that because incumbents want to protect themselves. that means courts are the only refuge. your book you describe that all

colleagues agree it violates the constitution, the court has tended to of hold that they are not billed to entertain the challenges. why do they hold that a what do you propose to do to solve the problem? >> guest: first of all, i think it is important no judge, as far as i know, have ever dissented the practice. the basic rule of what is going all right now is quite wrong, and it is not a partisan issue because the democrats are guilty of the same activity in states like maryland and california and so forth. the republicans have been guilty of that activity in pennsylvania and texas, for example. there will be a change to the administration in those states eventually. if the legislature and a master think a long run they will

recognize both parties will be better off an alarm wrong by simply getting rid of this practice and letting the election contents work on the merits of their respective party . it may be ideas, of course i think just those blow was some of the approach the current rate of. [inaudible] practices largely, i think the the state and legislature may realize it is in their best interest of all long run to have their election fair retrieve the two parties. >> host: i was recently had a panel of the national constitution center where there was a bill proposed of require congress to created independent commission and all states to do redistricting, and you are a hero. read your book and found there would be more competition, constituents would be more

responsive, and they would also be more moderate because there would have an incentive to win general elections. >> guest: well, i think that when candid it's primarily half to beat the members of their own party and are not worried about the general election they tend to become more dr. ned and avoid compromise. i think the fact the primary is have become a big deal has had an adverse affect on their actual performance in office after election. i think that is all of the explanations for the even more partisan divide in congress today than there had been years ago when i worked there. >> host: when you worked in the u.s. congress? >> guest: yes.

i worked as associate counsel for the house committee on the study of monopoly power. and then members of the two parties did work together on much of the legislation. there were high-visibility bills where they tended to be much more partisan. this was a different congress then will we have today. >> host: of course, the congress of confirm due to the supreme court was by a unanimous to try unanimous vote as well. >> guest: 98. >> host: that counts. what has happened? >> guest: i then that it is. bill gates, i have not heard about that. >> host: the trick is coming up with a judicial standard for policing partisan gerrymandering you are sophisticated and

specific about how to identify an unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, and you have an article proposed. distance represented by members of congress are in a state registered body should be compact and composed of contiguous territory with the state having the burden of justifying in a departure from this requirement with neutral criteria. the interest and enhancing or preserve and political power is not such a neutral criteria. why is you choose the language? >> guest: well, in the book the house vote 35 a few examples. the the rules were plain as can be when he said i know it when i see it. it is true there are many

glaring examples of the odd- shaped districts that have no justification whatsoever. it is not just primary reasons, but no justification whatsoever except to give the party in power an advantage in the election. and that -- there must be a duty to govern impartially which requires government officials generally and legislatures more specifically, to have some the true reason for their action. they give up a campaign finances of the state treasury. they have to finance their action independently. similarly, they should not be motivated entirely by political considerations the standards for determining whether partisan gerrymandering is occurring that

i recommend are precisely the same as had been in place for a good many years with respect to racial juries. they can tell racial gerrymandering by the size and shape of the district. just look at it and see something is fish -- fishy. there is the same need to avoid gerrymandering in both racial or partisan grounds. >> host: you are consistent. in some of those racial gerrymandering cases you dissented and said the court should not police those matters. the court were to apply the same standards, would you be in favor? >> guest: yes, i would. i think that it would be a greater benefit from having a simple rule in both cases. the glitch in history was the

fact the original gerrymandering case, the trustees of alabama, the gerrymandering was designed to exclude blacks from but dissipating from voting in the municipal government. later on the court applied the same rule to gerrymandering designed to give minorities a better representation. i dissented because of the out that the basic rule of equality should not prevent rules that were designed to people not to cut equalize minority voters and majority voters. having made racial gerrymandering and other pro minority or anti minority, and violation of the constitution, is seems to me you should simply apply the same rule you apply in race cases of political cases, and the problem will easily be

solved. and i should mention, the fight in all our gerrymandering cases as the los are not we can develop standards no member of the court has said, on the merits this practice is justified. even justice scalia. he does not defend the practice on the merits speak with the practice that all justices they can be unconstitutional. people like bill gates and others say it is a sam political problem facing new country today , and if the court says there is no -- you do give examples in the book. a judicial opinion sheet. concerned that it was too expensive, but he agreed to do it.

so what is it about this district? instruct your notice. >> guest: if you look closely, you can see that some of these do not make sense. district five, for example, all around. in fact, several districts are without any rational or justification, if you just look of the shape. i tell the story, this is another instance where it may benefit one party to day by then the elections may change. and that particular benefit is for the democrats to my fire rubber correctly. even though ronald reagan was very popular, the gerrymandering kept the democrats in control. >> host: great example. i should say, during our panel of the constitution center i said gerrymandering and someone

corrected me and says should be pronounced gerrymandering because of the originator. please tell the story. >> guest: he was -- by guess he was the governor of massachusetts at the time they developed -- i guess we should call it gerrymandering. it is funny. i think it is generally called gerrymandering. we tell the story of less than the majority of voters, he was able to retain control of the state by trying very strangely shaped districts. he did. he is the originator of the practice, as far as i know. it bears his name. >> host: the district looks like eight salamander. >> guest: it did look like a salamanders'. >> host: but you just explained to as quiet as such a

serious problem. you can have a situation where a minority of state voters controls the majority of states seeds. >> guest: that is right. am i am not sure, but i have been told, i believe, but the majority of the voters in congressional elections actually were democrats or voted democratically. the republicans got the majority of the seats. >> host: remarkable. could that be -- that might also be a violation of the republican form of government clause the says all states have to have emerged -- republican form of government which means majority rules. >> guest: it is certainly inconsistent with what we think should be the view that the majority should be able to have a majority of representatives. >> host: taxes, i think this is the one in shaw versus reno. it's makes down and gives big and then again.

the joke was a few drove tell the district with both car doors open you would kill everyone in the district. the escort ship -- struck that down as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. >> guest: republicans and democrats came up with the sec with the same. we cannot do anything about it. >> host: you expressed to me inspiring things that when citizens here your arguments there will adopt the. you say in your prologue, i am confident of the soundness of each of my proposals will become more and more evident and ultimately adopted. do you believe the citizens will adopt the anti gerrymandering amendment? >> guest: i don't know how much time will elapse before that happens, but, you know, taxes for a long time was a democratic state. it became republican state

actors civil-rights legislation was adopted. other states have changed. one of the things that may cause change this dissatisfaction with the views of power but the majority has engaged in. >> host: california and arizona were independent commissions with bipartisan reform was embraced by both parties, but this tricky for incumbents to vote for it. is it possible we could continue dallas situation in the short term where they're is a big political or constitutional problem but no congressional or judicial remedy? >> guest: i think that's right >> host: frustrating. i think we're born to take a short break and return in just a moment to continue talking about this wonderful new book, "six amendments: how and why we should change the constitution". >> on the go, "after words" is available theropod cast for itunes or axa bell.

a visit booktv.org and click broadcast. select and listen to "after words" while you travel. >> host: justice stevens you are especially passionate about the subject of campaign finance reform. do you propose a constitutional amendment that says the following? either the first amendment or a go provision shall be construed to prohibit congress or in a state from imposing reasonable limits on the a lot of money that candidates for public office for their supporters can spend in election campaigns? you say that this is consistent with the history of the first amendment and note that president teddy roosevelt opposed to the bill that was passed this of a corporation should be treated differently than individuals when it comes to campaign spending. tell me first about the history of the first amendment, campaign spending, and why you think it is appropriate to treat

corporations and other nonvoters differently than voters. >> guest: well, the framers decided that the voters should elect the representatives. and i think that and the history we have emphasize the fact that corporations don't vote and have business purposes that motivates most of their action. i think a lot of the debate in this united case and others has been whether or not corporations should be allowed to spend their general funds or even special organizations that they shed -- the shareholders support should spend as much money as they do. but actually, as i reflect on it, i don't think it is just a corporate problem, although that has done most of the attention. .. although that

has gotten most of the attention. i think individuals also get involved in election contests in jurisdictions where they do not have the right to vote. it does seem to me that one of the key cases the court overruled in citizens united was michigan against the chamber of commerce or austin against the chamber of commerce in which michigan put a prohibition against corporate contributions. actually it seems to me that what they were really concerned about was money coming from nonmichigan sources and of course corporations generally represent out-of-state interests frequently. it does seem to me that there's an important difference between the right to participate and support candidates you have a right to vote for in candidates

from other jurisdictions. the holding that is critical in my chapter on this issue is part of the decision in buckley against vallejo decided the year i came on the court but before it was decided when i came on the courthat i s not eligo josé has been argued before and that the equal to be coequal limits on the campaign expenditure. the descendent and that holding was the only justice who did end up holding has been followed.

in the years following the decision it has been consistent they interfere with the total quality of the speech for the campaigns and to correct the citizens of the united states itself you basically have to correct the prohibition on the use of expenditures. it's been almost unanimous in the prior year's in its prohibition accounts and limitations on expenditures voters contribute in their own elections including both corporations and foreigners.

you told the congress that's not right that they were actually trying to contribute money for other people's elections. tell us about your criticisms. it was decided after i'd written about that chapter. but i've included the word reasonable in my proposed amendment because i think that the actual limits that were imposed at the time of the buckley decision.

that's why they said there should be the reasonable list requirement which would solve the problem because i do think that if congress focused on the reasonable amendments and i don't think that there is any danger that my colleague whatever concluded that any limits whatsoever is unreasonable after the amendment was adopted to correct the heart of the problem. >> host: reasonableness is not self defining and atom for "the new york times" recently asked you a question. he sai said said what about reasonableness requirement allow the restrictions to write an editorial on the half. what was your response? >> guest: it isn't necessary in court that would be the defining reasonableness.

the court with the refueling a congressional decision as to what it thought was reasonable, and of course there would be a presumption in the choice made of that was permissible but that does the fruit of the legislative judgment at least in the first instance. and it was so obviously that would be unreasonable. but i think the amount of discretion if that word would permit the congress to exercise it would be far different from the present rule that says any limits or contribution whatsoever is impermissible. >> what would be an example of an unreasonable limits? >> guest: there are two or three examples. one that prohibited papers from endorsing candidates.

one that provided a attitude for the incumbents and the non- incumbents and one that provided a different amount for wealthy candidates into different financial circumstances and not for allowing the different limits that wouldn't be a reasonable action. >> you also gave the example of how the press is different and the press calls itself suggests that it should be treated differently than other for-profit corporations. >> guest: it might provide an adequate justification for treating it differently from the candidates themselves. >> host: it was asked of the solicitor general at the citizens united argument could you restrict the circulation of the book lacks

>> guest: theoretically you can't come up with an answer to every hypothetical that you put. you actually have concrete proposals in front of you that you can identify what is unreasonable. >> one of the things i learned in this chapter is the discussion of president obama was statements. the justice thinks that he shook his head and said that's not true. it is the citizens united to strike down the restrictions on the u.s. elections.

>> guest: i think at the time after the decision that was a reasonable interpretation of the decision. in the case that i cited. it's not just the contributions. into the underlying rationale for the three-judge district court decision written by the judge they have a justified

interest in running the election and having the outsiders it is precisely the same rationale that we wouldn't let the citizens in indiana and wisconsin. >> host: how would you state the constitutional committee is the state have an interest in preserving the integrity of their own elections? >> guest: there's a powerful state interest in having fared elections and it's an interest that can trump the first amendment right in certain situations and in its views that sort of treated the first amendment issue as trumping everything else.

they fail to give an adequate way to the interest in people running their own show. >> host: it goes back to this theme throughout the book of neutrality, nonpartisanship, the government has an obligation. you really believe that strongly? >> guest: the rival candidates and an equal opportunity to persuade the voters. >> host: they focused not on that interest in fairness pin the interest of avoiding the corruption and its defined corruption very narrowly to take quid pro quo. is that a broad corruption or do they have a broadview? >> guest: the basic mistake is

the only justification for regulating the campaign-finance is to rely on the bribery laws to take care of it it's nothing to do with corruption and having the elections fair and giving them an equal opportunity to compete. it's not a question of -- it is a question of identifying reasons other than corruption for the requirements of fairness in the context between the disciplines and parties. it's the same interest that justifies the limiting speech and litigation. you can't go on and on and on forever in their authorities it

is the main criteria that is fair procedure, fair treatment of the adversary. >> host: you also give the presidential candidate. >> guest: it donned on me and watching one of the republican debates in the primary before the last election that certainly they have a duty to treat the candidates equally. >> host: it is also the readers of the constitutional history. history. you talk in the citizens united about the concern of the government being responsive to the people and not just a few. >> guest: that is exactly right. does this have any biographical source on the corruption in chicago in the case where the judge was alleged to have thrown the case in exchange for the

bride to the great acclaim the dissent had been issued in this case it might have been avoided into the concern of neutrality and concerned with fair treatment effect things like that? >> i suppose it does. in that case it was also involved in the appearance of the neutrality because it certainly judges shouldn't be buying stocks recommended to them and the illinois supreme court justices but the appearances of the impartiality is very important to the proce process. >> host: we have two more big topics to talk about and the first one you propose an amendment on that score as well

and i'm going to use my filing system to find it. it should be required or finding in the post on the cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty you were not always of the belief that the death penalty violated the constitution. what made you change your mind or feel that it should be amended to prohibit the death penalty? >> first of all, the federal judges and supreme court judges nobody likes, they are very unpleasant and expensive, time-consuming litigation. anyone that is exposed is bound to develop a distaste in the whole process and the things that change my own views in

particular are the fact that it's now available in the punishment of life imprisonment without parole so you don't need the death penalty to avoid r2-d2 or those that have been convicted. the second thing that has happened over the years is the court has adoptecourt has adoptf procedures which actually strengthen the hand of the prosecutor. in an area of the law is an extra precaution to avoid the ever. the third thing that happened is that dna evidence had made it clear there had been a number of people on death row who should

never have been there and that therefore it is now true that every time you sentence somebody to death you run the risk that you may make a mistake. the system should not allow the possibility of the mistakes in the capital case. the other thing that happened as the couristhe court has develope rules that require states to impose the death penalty in a totally painless manner. originally years and years ago the death penalty was whatever the descendent of david that was victim to suffer the same consequences. but you cannot impose painful punishment even administering the death penalty which means

and it made the penalty painless, so it is not a form of retribution that does equal the pain that the defendant and was on his victim but the critical thing for me frankly is the more i thought about it because everyone agrees there is a risk of error even in the wonderful judicial system that we have as long as there is a risk of error to be executed in to death by the state is in fact innocent but is not an acceptable risk that is in the federalist society to accept because the games do not justify taking that kind of risk.

>> host: 0.2% or something like that. i take that is too big of a risk for you? >> guest:. most of the countries in western europe have long ago abolished the death penalty. >> host: you talk about the fact all of the members of the court think that it's not permissible to inflict execution that is deliberately intended to cause pain until recently to try to minimize pain and yet right now we are having a dramatic debate about whether the existing available chemicals do in fact torture prisoners. what's your view on that? >> guest: the professionals

like the medical profession and nursing profession and so forth do not permit their members as a matter of ethics they do not participate in the execution itself so you necessarily are not dealing with the most skillful people to put people to death and there is a danger of botched executions like we had the other day partly because the professionals don't think it's a good idea. >> they won't make them available. is it the case if the current court were to hear a case involving an execution and clearly caused torture would everyone agree to that?

>> guest: i'm not sure that they would include that it's going to happen enough. it does seem to me that the more people think about it and the costs involved. people down in florida have been on death row for 20 and 30 years and certainly satisfy the public interest in richard duchenne -- retch revolution. >> host: did you have any doubts about whether the convict was innocent?

>> guest: there were cases but most of the time you didn't get into the merits in depth. there is a few, there is one in pennsylvania that but i remembr correctly there was a serious doubt about the complaining witness for the defendant. >> host: how did you feel when the execution took place. the final amendment that you propose has to do with the amendments to the second amendment and this is one of the most constitutional questions and you've been at the center of this debate you add some language to the second amendment and you would say a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the

free state and the right of the people to keep keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. it is really about the purpose to prevent the states from having the federal government basically take over their own militias and to discern the state. and it was that limited purpose that was the source of the second amendment itself and it seems to me that the debate about distorted by the notion that it was motivated by the desire to protect the individual to pretend to themselves.

but it has made not to state legislatures but rather the federal judges to have the final say on what kind of gun control registration. it should be the province of state legislature and that is the central message of the chapter. >> host: this chapter doesn't fit into neutrality of fairness. it sort of dive straight into the historical debate that they protected the individual right. why did you decided to include this? >> guest: i think it may well be that it will not resolve

itself in the foreseeable future. even in that the other civilized country have it right but they are basically banning the firearms. we have amendments that we think are necessary and needed this one out. i think in time the reason to prevail that i am not optimistic about into bringing it to a conclusion in the next three years. >> host: when we last talked you just celebrate your birthday into or going t were going to ps the next day. did you play the game and how did you do? >> guest: i was able to remain vertical and i enjoyed it because i had a good friend on the other side of the court but it's nothing to be proud of.

i think that it's spectacular that you are still playing. justice john paul stevens it is an honor to have this conversation with you and congratulations for writing this new book how and why we should change the constitution on behalf of c-span and the national constitution center i am jeffrey rosen. that was "after words" booktv program in which authors of the latest nonfiction books were interviewed by journalists, public policy makers, legislators and others familiar with their material. "after words" airs every weekend on the tv at 10 p.m. on saturday, 12 and 9 p.m. on monday and 12 a.m. on monday. you can also watch online. click on "after words" in the book tv series and topics list

on the upper right side of the page. booktv asked what are you reading this summer? >> i'm reading a lot of things that are not particularly new but i sort of ticked off a list of them and they start with two sort of life rescue stories from world war ii. it's frozen in time about the american aviators crash during the second world war and after them and another when the disappeared and they finally did rescue them for months but it's a gripping story and the second part is about an expedition to go back and find the people that were lost.

so it is a great story. but in reading that of course you read the book jacket and they have another one lost in the file but again it's about a mission that was supposed to be a good flight over new guinea in 1945 and the plane went down and the rescue was pretty harrowing and it took months of people surviving. so they are surviving desperate situation as a good rating for congress in the election year. then i had the opportunity to meet him by name is pronounced his name the deputy put together a group of about 15 of us and they gave us all the book that t

he's always been a compelling figure i think for any politician and to the greatest in the history and i love the way his political skills have so much to do with holding the country together and this was a republican majority in the 1860s that had never been in the majority before but now you have the majority in the house but never functioned that way, not a single person had been in part as a republican majority so how do you act and how do you relate and what is the appropriate balance between the presidential power, legislative oversight and critical situation and this linkage here in this political skill and the

manipulation so again i think we had a wonderful discussion about that. one is william's book on grant. we were going through a period of reassessment. nobody has ever doubted what a great general he was and how critical he was to winning the civil war but there's been a lot of questions about past president. but i think that he's going through a rehabilitation right now so i'm interested in mac. i promised myself i would read and this is something that the senator from missoursenator froa great leader and a good friend brought to my attention and that is the biography of eisenhower and wrote ira member reading back in the 80s a dual

biography of lee and grant that is very famous and so he had been telling me what a great book this was on eisenhower and i happened to catch a lecture on c-span. i thought while my buddy has been inviting me to read this book and one other experience i had it was 20 years ago but it was great stuff so i'm going to read this book. when you're my age you remember eisenhower said h so he has this historical figure that lincoln as a real person so i find i feel like just because my life experience i have some connection with either having