i'm an american. there is no evidence. he lost six through code free. for a while i thought they didn't understand the footnote. then i read the transcript. you will know the lawyer here who was representing the japanese american defense. they keep pointing that out and they said read it. six through code free. black, douglas, frankfurter, the people that were on this committee decided brown v. board. the governors were murphy and jackson, roberts. very interesting. and why? i thought the reason must be that some of this is generally viewed as one of the worst cases in the report. it must be the justices of the majority but somebody has to run this court.

roosevelt? they said we can't. i guess roosevelt has to. i thought i had made that up. it seems like the best inference and two weeks ago i met a historian who said he got a hold of the notes from a conference and that is exactly what he said. it's not in the book because i didn't know it but it was a logical inference. so, now what happens? we have that case on the books. steel seizure jackson gets up and says no president has gone too far. and that's the majority. the majority say he's gone too far. why come and maybe they are reacting against. maybe they are saying we think roosevelt goes too far. we can take that up against

truman. [laughter] i don't know but that's what they said. you look at the guantánamo cases, and the guantánamo cases say four cases, for detainees, every one of them wins. the president loses. congress passes the law saying that those detainees are enemy combatants than enemy combatants some of them are but not many can be held in enemy combatant during the time of shooting war when you are in the shooting war. those were the detainees at that time. congress passed the law saying they can't get to court. they were struck down. and the key since they won each of those cases -- they were not popular pieces. bin laden's's shofar is not a popular person in the united states. sandra o'connor writes even in

time of war, the constitution does not write to the president a blank check to run over traditional civil liberties. it's easy to sign that. it only becomes hard when you have the obvious next question. what kind of check does it right? and there we are and it is a long lineup for a very short pitch. that wind up you heard in the short pitch is simply that's where we are now. what kind of check you want to say no check for the criticisms, many criticize those guantánamo opinions into some and some say the interview with the president. what do you want? no review of any kind? than the civil civil liberties civil liberties side says why didn't you write a little bit more, explaining what they can

and cannot do? why is it so narrow to which i say why didn't we write more, i know why i didn't comment because i didn't know the answer. that's why. and so there we are. how do you want to solve the next cases coming up and isn't it a good idea that we know something about the national security before we start getting getting out of their pronouncing on what the right balance is between the national security and civil liberties. and maybe it is even a good idea since we are not the only ones to face this problem that we learn something about how other countries are facing the problems, to back and how it works out and a little bit of better decisions unless you want to draw and withdraw entirely in which case their lives korematsu , or which case if you want just arbitrary decisions and then what happens in the security of the country?

>> i want to push of a little bit on the relationship being the first section of the book, which deals with the national security and civil liberties balance batters and the subsequent sections of the book which deal with respectively treaty interpretations and u.s. statutory interpretations and interactions with the rest of the world. ..

the without reference to the broad defense of the year we told it as a separation of power story appeared president gets too strong. the court has gotten more aggressive about doing so as the imperial presidency has become more imperial. my question is why should we think about this first section is part of the story. it doesn't involve foreign law or legal institutions. it involves a much older struggle. the only foreign document to

wind up talking about in these cases is a 100-year-old lease of a plot of land in cuba. my question is, is this first section really an example of the thesis or is it a graph of a larger dash of a different debate of how presidents should be in wartime unto a certain globalization discussion. >> very good question which my publisher asked the editor when i sent him the manuscript. my response is what i told him. and what he brings what other countries do. it is an old debate and it is an old innocence unresolved debate.

the key to that debate is jackson says in the case, if you want to find out the presidential power, the scope of limitations of power. any means, i think camille discover there's very few indications. it is like just of trying to interpret the dreams. you're not starting out where you are going to resolve that precedent, by what hamilton said or somebody else said. it's just not going to happen. so i want to show the nature of the problem and i wanted to go into in some dad the field seizure case. the reason i want to do that as i want people to not be with the most abstract terms. presidential power versus the quarter. i want to see what the problem

was from the point of view of the president and i wanted them to see what the problem was from the point of view of the justice. and you catch a sentence here or in conference somebody says there's an oral argument. you are just saying you were attorney general and he said the president had all these kinds of powers. that was then and this is now. now i'm on the court. and this is rather different. when you get into that, and i think and i hope people would come away with a sense of the importance of knowing the practicalities of the situation, a sense of knowing what it's possible to do in the likely consequences that you will never know for certain. you may get a glimmer and that's why knowing something about what the national security problem is saying today that problem is international.

knowing something about what other countries do because maybe you can see something you might do or might not do or might modify doing. in other words i'm leaving it up to the reader to make that connection. i'll bring them up to speed and say like you're as today's problem which is an international one. he's going to have to start thinking. how do we do it, how do we get the information? let's discuss and figure out how the court might do it better. once you have read that you are absolutely ready for instances where you can plunge into the middle where we are looking at what goes on a brought all the time and it's obvious you have to. this is in the congress area. but i ties to event up in cornell discovered the textbook

is identical. in english, sold in bangkok for much lower price. so he writes to his parents insisted me a few. they spend a lot more than a few appeared he begins to solve them. the publisher got annoyed, brought a lawsuit. can they do it, yes or no. it depends on like six technical words in a technical copyright statute. pretty obscure. i go into my office and find a stack of grease like this. from all over the place. lawyers in asia, lawyers in europe, different countries. in this technical case, why are there all of these briefs? i didn't answer because one of us tells us it's not simply a question of the book. by anonymous video. the software.

copyright them. go into any store you want. you will see labels on products, copyright and this is the answer to this case we think i'm a retailer santos, it's going to affect $3.2 trillion in ticket the answer right, i think you have to know what is going on elsewhere, i.e. how other countries handle copyright for an antitrust case. you know, vitamin distributor in output order once assumed a member of a cartel, manufacturer brings a lawsuit in new york. maybe he had -- the other possibility is called attorneys fees. does he have the right to do it

under the statute? i don't think you can answer that question without knowing how the european cartel authority works and what interpretations will and what interpretations will not interfere with their efforts to obtain common object to in a file briefs telling us those things. it is for a legal term called comedy, which used to mean don't unnecessarily interfere with others. now i think more and more try to get the laws of other nations to work harmoniously with ours and ours to work harmoniously with them and there's a lot of security, antitrust, copyright's you have to work out. treaties three times interpreting treaties, having to do with abduction of children.

that is a tough, tough job for a family judge who is a state court judge who has one of the toughest, toughest jobs in the system. eddie ginsberg in cambridge is to say, he tells the people in front of them when they are fighting, solving yourselves. if you can camille do a lot better than what i have to do. tough job. you know who knows least about it? federal judge. the supreme court least of all. so why are we trying to solve the case, words that are exterior, difficult, ambiguous where groups of people are absolutely determined to prevent abduction and on the other side groups of people are determined to fight spousal abuse which often leads to infection. why are we doing this? the answer is it is in the create.

and why? today mary is more and more a question of frontiers and there we are. there are ways we might be able to do better in some of which are discussed. as i begin to answer your question? >> i want to ask you about your book and you can save the next book and i lost the question. you talk about speech a little bit when you talk towards the end of the book about proportionality. but i always thought of you as someone who thinks really, really hard about the intersection of free speech and globalization and terrorism. i remember in 2010 when you're worried about crime on burning and he said to george stephanopoulos the whole world is starting to look like a crowded jeter and a lot of purists like myself that now, the whole world can't be a

crowded theater. but people die in pakistan when we burn around here and i think that was your point. i think you've been a little bit out ahead of some of your colleagues thinking about how we are going to reinterpret the way we think about speech when isis is clearly not instructional videos that everybody can get access to. this is something in some ways we now have the conversation, people who are very serious thinkers say we need to revisit how we protect speech because there is no longer a crowded jeter. i don't know if that inflicts on how you think about the intersection of the world. i don't know if it is something you feel you can comment on. but that is the chapter of the book i feel you fought very hard about and perhaps have not put into words here. >> i did say something about it.

the one place they shouldn't have said anything about it was george stephanopoulos. it really proves to not show how clever he was. i thought he did ask that question at that time and i thought it such a good answer. of course people have freedom of speech, don't they, but you can't yell fire and i thought that's perfect because nobody knows what that is. one of the blogs picked that up and said he hates free speech and the other half says he wants to burn anything out great. it's not a good question to answer publicly. it just wasn't. it's too complicated and too close to the hearts of many americans. so there are problems and the question if i say there is a big

difference within the court sometimes, some people are more on the side of what i can figure to be turning them into absolute rules. this role in the sub roll over there. i don't think that works. in many cases there's a lot of balance whether you pretend to rule or not rule, you're actually doing about it add. i can only add because you like to add something to that. the way the court works best in my own opinion is that tocqueville suntans or something like it is people in the country have a way of dealing with these problems. the first thing tocqueville says mike privacy in the internet market is difficult kind of

change and no provisional privacy. first they start to shout at each other. but really she means it's okay. they start talking about it from every point of view and you get pocket universities, newspapers, magazines, trade associations, police associations, and then you start talking and debating and was perhaps in the form of administrative ruling, perhaps hearing and local legislators are in congress and administrative rulings you change because you see it didn't work very well and they will start moving around and eventually pete will move the cause and maybe changed them and so forth. but when there has been discussion and one that has eventuated in the law and then

it comes to the court. for us to say, is what you decided within the boundaries, often very broad downgrades of the document with such frontiers beyond which you cannot go, i think we do a better job of answering the question. when you unleash at the beginning and we haven't decided -- i think we do a less good job. that's not always true, but i prefer approaching the problem when other people have thought about it first. and then i can see more easily with the sidebar and i say you don't always have the luxury of doing that, but where you can do it is i think likely to lead to a better solution. >> will start taking audience questions. as you signal me, i will direct

the microphone your way. while we do that, i want to post one more question myself. you know, the audience can see this is a much larger discussion than the narrow should we say foreign on debate. my question is, which parts of the descriptive thesis that you've outlined are matters of common ground between you and your colleagues and which parts are actually disputed? i'm not looking for who thinks what, but how much of what you have laid out in this vote what other members of the court say that is right. that is a new world we face. we pose different answers to those questions, but yes justice breyer has accurately described the problem the court faces in the world and to what extent

would they say no on this point there really is no in the context of the world, this just u.s. statutory law, just the constitution and you know, he is imagining an interconnected web that doesn't factor should not impact affect the way we do our jobs. >> i suspect i can get the greatest unanimity on treaties because everyone has written a. we have to look to other countries to interpret treaties. i'm discussing business like the securities and antitrust, justice scalia wrote the opinion and they usually take the other view. is joined on to what he was saying and added some other things. he might disagree.

i don't know. i'm not sure. i've never had that discussion. i would say where you're likely to get most disagreement is on civil liberty versus security on the ground that we are not going to learn much and i can't prove that we will. it's not putting the question down the road. i'm trying deliberately to provoke conversation. the way we solve things, the legal profession has been the judges say something, the professors all say why it is wrong because that is their job. they compare with other things that set on the path and say this has worked better than the lawyer is reading what the professors rate and take what is useful for the case and will get back in front of us in different forum. quite a few people on this kind

of issue and it just leaves that kind of discussion that i think is important here. since i'm out there in the world, i thought perhaps it would provoke that kind of discussion in writing this book. >> i will say when you flip the mirror around, your point in other countries is utterly uncontroversial. i was also in a front-line situation with respect to this recently. i was in israel and wrote an article comparing u.s. versus israeli military attitudes towards proportionality and targeting. i almost immediately after publishing the article got a call from the legal staff asking me to come talk about their area. the question is what did you

learn from american practice in this area? there is simply no conversation about whether it was appropriate to look at the questions are how valuable it would be. i do think when you approach the civil liberties wartime question from the point of view as do other countries think our law is worth looking not, there is no doubt the answer to that question is yes. >> let's take what i think is likely to be a gas if you were to go five, 10 years into the future would be one of the most important and that stems from the fact that professor could have the students go look across the world, and international organizations are there, like bureaucracy created by treaty or executive agreement or something

else. you do this, i did that. that is not what they are now. they said at the united nations. others set up some other bureaucracy. some bureaucracy can in fact make rules that may in fact find it offensive more than one nation. how many think there are more than 100? more than 500? more than a thousand? more than 2000? there are more than 2000. we belong to several hundred. i mean, it isn't just the u.s. it is also the international bluefin will commission. what about the international olive oil council? they are all over the place. international civil aviation authority.

they are all over the place and we have been burned. the bankers set all that all kinds of rules in united state to which meaning to 10 members of the sec staff. they can come back and they can say we are not promulgating this proposed rule for your comment. wait a minute, they really decided. the bankers. the public regulated and will follow over the place. who makes the rules that affect your daily life? the sec or icon? icon is the organization, some kind of corporations with the rules for the internet.

and what is it to those rules? how do you in fact -- how do you in fact square the delegation of authority is being given to these entities within article that says the legislative power of the united states shall be in a congress of the united states, whatever. similar problem to what a rhodes when we have the creation of agencies. if we can't resolve that problem, and it may come in many different forms. the answer is you can't do it, how to resolve the world's problems? cooperation is a necessity. if the answer is due as much as you want, what happens to article i? there may be ways of working this out. it may be fine. i just reacted to saying they don't have problems in europe.

they just had the problem before the constitutional court of germany about the extent to which the e.u. treaty signed by germany was valid in light of a constitution that has certain reserve powers through the state and they've had the same question immediately and ostrow never court has decided the same way, namely the government could not give other powers a way to the e.u. there's always something something they can't get. they've always decided it was all right to get to. but nonetheless, one after another. france was no problem. france just as the state of urgency were in. the strasburg convention. let's imagine why they might have done not. perhaps they did not have this

with the laws of other nations that you might expect are not expect. nonetheless, that is what they did. so the problem of how you reconcile and i didn't notice any of the english decisions anyone mentioning how israel dealt with the israelis are different because they have everything in the world is always right. but it's not a problem i don't think that is unique to us, the problem of how, for example, we will reconcile some day not only a lot of people have, but with respect to which a lot of different nations have not yet worked out the system for the systems through which they are going to resolve the intention and difficulties. >> will go to questions from the audience. a few things to say in advance.

again, wait for the microphone. second, please tell us who you are and what organization you are from if that is relevant. number three, justice breyer is a very gentlemanly man. i am not. there is always somebody in the audience who thinks they are going to get him to say how he is going to vote in the blake case this year. don't try. you're not going to fool anybody and i will cut you off but they shocking lack of due process. >> thanks a lot. i appreciate it. i did think about trying to trip up justice breyer. justice breyer, three quick ones. you are recently in france. could you give us your sense that the greater crackdown on civil liberties to an extent

pushed out by the legislature. what influence has justice goldberg and senator kennedy has on your work in the third is bush v. gore on page 280 for anyone who's interested. i cover that is the youngest producer. i wonder do you hear the protests on either side of cases you are on? and thanks. >> the first what's going on in france i don't know more than you if you read the newspapers. i don't have anything specific to comment that i haven't already. with respect -- which was the fact that? justice goldberg is very practical. two clerks at that time. he's wonderful. he used to take us to lunch of course. but he was happiest at the labor

department. he was an activist. you like to get things done. he was labor secretary for a few hours before he set up the minimum wage committee do this committee, to that committee. he loved the court. it was fine. but this is gold or sitting in his office -- at home one night and he sees on television a terrible snowstorm and they need medicines somewhere for a hospital. he says i know what i'm going to do. i know the general who runs fort meade or whatever nick collison on the phone and says i have a great idea for you. why not you take one of your machines and get the medicine there appeared to be on television, save the people, you'll be fabulous. and he did. kennedy is sort of like that in the way. the way you compromise.

the six things i learned from kennedy. first of course is the best of the enemy of the good. absolutely. the good is good enough. the second thing i thought was the way you compromise. what if you died here you have. you sit there and listen. until you give a person against du i can get that one. what a great idea you have. when it comes time, you push that person not in front of the television campus. this constituency did a good thing and he will come back and try to help in the future. i learned from him so many eggs. credit, don't try to get all the credit. please. some politicians would be.

but credit, don't worry about it. it is a weapon. use it to get in. if the thing succeeds, there'll be plenty of credit to go around. if it doesn't succeed, who wants the credit? i loved working there. i loved working for arthur goldberg, ted kennedy. that was another thing kennedy had. we are out there to help. help who? help them. help yourself and help people who need help. and do it with a little bit of lightness of time. don't take yourself too seriously. it's going to be interesting, and we may get something accomplished. >> sharonville, voice of a moderate. i know that you've got a lot of cases that you could hear.

we won't talk about one that could be fast tracked. when you have to decide what cases, do you sit around and say do we have to do a case, civil rights case, when you make decisions not some better supers beauty that had to be expedited but just how the process, can you give some insight? >> and i had to the question? how does that relate given that your docket is discretionary, you could choose to have more or fewer cases that situate the court in the world or define these parameters. to what extent is that a legitimate consideration that hey, we walked through the aggregate docket to do more work in situate in the court in the world area where we want to stick her head in the sand and do as little as possible. is there a connection between?

>> no. the answer is a very good question. i get asked that a lot. the two questions i get the most of the first year is because people are not connecting. people think we sit around and say zero what fun it could be. they have a sense of what is fun. the other is isn't it always politics, g varsity. the first question which you guys who was president of the united states and then chief justice of the supreme court gave the best answer. he said we are not here to correct errors. everyone who has his case here and there's probably about 8000 a year to ask us to hear their case. everyone has already had a trial, an appeal, maybe two or three appeals.

there's no need for a fourth appeal. why would you get it right? there's too many. they are good judges. and why are we here? the reason you were here first and foremost is to create a uniform federal law unlike other federal courts we don't -- most laws in the country are make mistakes 95%. family business, crime, almost everything. congress make it to think it's the most important. sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. anyway, we are only dealing with them. suppose the lower court judges have come to different conclusions adding to the meaning or application of the same word, whether it is in the federal tax that shooter that can't diffusion. different interpretations. do they need us? yes. the law is uniform. now suppose they've come to love

the same can cushion. do they need us? they are good judges. so the primary criteria is just what i've told you. that's what i can go for 150 weeks. but in the memos the law clerks have written. but the issue in this case is not if they are right or wrong. that is not 100% of the story. if a lower court judge holds the statute of congress unconstitutional, will probably take it. if it is some major thing the country needs a uniform answer too quickly, we will probably take it. but what i just told you at the beginning is about 95% and those criteria are sitting there thinking this would be good for that one. so you get the idea of much more mechanical than people think. after i go through my memos of

150, whatever they are and friday we are in our conference by yourselves, anyone of us could put anyone on for discussion and maybe there will be 10 or 12 and will go around the table and start with the cheese and justice go be a and kennedy and thomas and ginsburg and saddam mailer and take in and we say the chief usually says not to take this thread went to the to take this because in people add their 2 cents worth pretty quickly. if no one listed a comment tonight. if i hear something i didn't here before, i can always say hold it next week. i go back, back, it up and write a memo. and if i really felt wrongly i write a dissent from the denial of cert and i circulated. you only see the ones that have

failed as i'm trying to convince my colleagues, which sometimes they do. i think the system works pretty well. by the way, if we make a mistake and we deny a case that we should have taken, what will happen? it will come up again. and if it doesn't come up again, i guess the country didn't need us. does that give you a rough outline? that is pretty much how it works. [inaudible] >> i don't see it that way. then factors sometimes enter into my mind. it is conceivable a marginal way. that's why talk in terms of probably, never say never.

>> can i just ask one quick question because it been me. they're such an anxiety throughout this book about the knowledge gap and you talked about getting stacks and stacks from foreign countries. that is where you get your knowledge from, right? do all of your colleagues have the same sense of that is where we are going to learn this stuff or is there a growing sense that we better google does? >> sometimes you can google things. it depends on what they are. there's a lot of public things. i wouldn't try to google an argument, but i want to know something is a general fact. one of the best things in the patent case is one of the lawyers got the idea doing a diagram of invention that moved and he did it with the approval of the other lawyer. we called it up and i looked at

it. there's a lot of ways to get information in front of the judge and the best thing typically as has long been true in the area of security is that the lawyers have a trial for a hearing before the judge and they have two great questions they always ask. there's an infringement on traditional civil liberties, the lawyer who asks why. why are you doing that? and now, a big area dairies going to be the government says we can't tell you. can you tell the judge? do you have to tell us? the question why is a very question. the second question they'll ask is why not question art in other words if you have to do it, why couldn't she do at this plus restrict the way and the reason again you run into the same information problems and will

that be sufficient or will we need more and in a lot of areas traditionally when the government would file a brief famous is the impact of foreign affairs when that is the end of it. harder to say today whether that should aid and abet. just listen to it. where, when, why, et cetera. i think it is filled with difficulty. yes. >> high, jordan angle, natural born into sin. i was trying to think of what areas of law because none of the stuff internationally, the most distinct. can you address whatever answer comes to your mind on that or the second which is one of my guesses. >> my first reaction this week is the law as it is related to

american indians. i am not sure we have learned too much from other countries and it's a very complicated area of law. maybe we have as i say that i am not certain on the questions of sovereignty, reservations and so forth. but we have questions in that area about indian reservations and so on. and if you say how did we live, we always learn things from other countries. where did abraham lincoln mourn his loss? in the cabin, in front of the fireplace. what was he reading? the blackstone. well done. and who did? "all the time? who do the quote all the time?

lord cooke who made the commercial law of england and my professor, and kaplan said the reason anglo-american judges enjoy a degree of price in their countries is because the lord cooke figured out how to create a set of commercial rules that made england the richest country in the world for many years. and were deployed to get his information? at least some of them. from france. i even begin to find that one point that coulter took a certain amount of his material from the arab scholars and are not a. i thought that would be pretty good. but in any case -- >> high. my name is anna, natural

citizen. i was wondering, he talks about looking at decisions of other court and, ma is a tradition delineated in this country by the constitution. does the risk of other court with a nationalized tradition of common law in d.c. that are rooted in the future and giving away to a different type of loan? >> that i think is that some people are worried about and i don't think it has to reroute. after all, we've had a system are many, many years for people look at the law in many different states were the work of commercial law. even without the united states to bring court in areas of state commercial law, they look to each other's flaws and they were able to create a uniform commercial code partly with the aid of the uniform code commissioners. there are many ways of trying to create a lover that is necessary

and part of it involves looking to each other. the code of some unfortunate development. to what extent did it change the law? many ways of looking to these things. i'm not in them when i stop there is engaging in this activity is going to undermine basic american values. by and large it will help preserve and most of all will be that perhaps one practical way to increase the likelihood that the great problems are improved and their solutions and will fly south which is the fifth amendment, 14th amendment, at which there is no more basic part. >> you go one step further in

the book, sometimes sub textually and sometimes quite a silly, which is that you argue given a statutory regime that could reasonably be interpreted in way x or y, there is something desirable about choosing a statutory interpretation that makes the international system not worse or work better, that tends to harmonize american law with other countries and tens to respect other countries sovereign tea over matters, you know, i guess that sounds all correcting me and yet i can imagine the argument and response that says wait a minute, when did it be, a statutory interpretation to make

other countries laws for better? i am interested in how you respond to the idea that it really isn't the job of the american legal system to improve the global functioning of law elsewhere. >> well, the examples i gave -- >> which are really startling samples by the way. >> i didn't want to give proof to the contrary because i think maybe i have given one. but the antitrust securities, copyright. >> that is the one that is more controversial. you say when did it happen than in that of just trying an old

antitrust case, i don't know if there's any antitrust lawyers. it's a small group of lawyers. i used to belong to that group. we are a small group but we love it. the fact is we have a very strong antitrust law. we did when i was teaching at you for. port and part of american law and to allow the antitrust principle of preventing agreements in strengthening trade. to develop further the world, is that his international. i don't argue it. i assume it is very much in our interest. similarly, it anti-fraud laws securities area that take into account the fact that australia has a slightly different system

and at the same thing to prevent shareholders, to get those to work in common is to me a way of strengthening our own law in an international world and works better. your question, when did this all change, i don't know. but not too long ago. you can find cases where the only meaning attached is the meaning of don't step on somebody else's toes were doesn't have this idea apartment nation. look what has happened. and i'm saying probably doubtful workout for the better for us because we work in cooperation tried to get these policies accomplished. that is good. that is fine. that is part of what lott alphas about if you see lots of help as they do, one human mechanism

designed to help people who live together in society function more effectively, productively unfairly. i never went further. the atf is more controversial. ats -- >> for those who don't know. >> shows up in new york in the 1970s, where she finds a man from paraguay who in paraguay tortured her brother to dad and also find the statue hardly used for 180 years. it says that an alien can sue in a federal district court for damages and court, for a violation of the law of nations. what is that about?

probably that was in part about pirate. didn't matter where he came from. when you hang them upside down or maclean's fallout, give them to his victims. so how do we apply the statute now. who are today's pirates in the court that you can bring the suit for torture and she was back even though she didn't collect the money. she still went back and add i came to the united states tried to look for torture in the eye and i so much more. other people began to follow the statute and there were a lot of them. now the courts have to answer the question. and what happens if the contrary involved doesn't want you to get their pirate. for example, south africa said

we don't want new york to start giving damages against companies doing business here. we have are a method dealing with truth and reconciliation. and to what extent does the judge did weights about? and how do we have a rule of decision that will in fact be a world that could be used in other countries even if they dealt with the international criminal courts looking for rules. everyone trying differently will get all mixed up and know i have been. everybody in other countries is going to go with henry kissinger in jail. that is not the way it is supposed to work out. there's no supreme court in order to interpret this. judges in our court or whether american are going to have to think about how do you see interpretation of paul that they are using.

forget it. goodbye. that is that what the court that. other people work out. you can work out ways of doing that and there is a disagreement. >> here in the front. i meant the front of the people with their hands raised. >> justice breyer, is there any way out of the health care, anything that came out of obamacare federal case that would prevent the federal government from taking more responsibility is particularly relative to directing patients that they should get procedures done? >> the truthful answer is i don't know. it's a little bit beyond the scope of today's session. write him back.

>> from the cato institute. justice breyer, wondering what you think the advent of populist that the left and right in america and abroad has on the store you are talking about with globalization and the law. this is a discussion within and between until president trump or sanders art appointed judges or is there some infiltration in that regard? >> this is a judges law. so what is the relative discussion about judges and law? i thought the best comment for the last you years, years ago on the supreme court in really talking about the new joe supreme court and the changes that they made. the court does not shift with the wind. it does not change with the weather. but the climate, the long-run

climate may have an impact. i think that is pretty good because over the long run, different judges. it doesn't mean the judges are deciding things on the basis of politics at the judges went to be named by president who really does think that the law is what? the president thinks? let's not be too specific because if you think the president going to appoint a person who's going to agree with him on every name, the president is in for a big disappointment. teddy roosevelt appointed oliver wendell holmes within six months homes i decided to send a northern security case, very important test at that time and roosevelt died i could carve more back on out of bananas.

[laughter] but if you are talking about very general things such as what law is about or what the cause to two shin is about or how these principles in the constitution relate to life in america, with the country is about and how perhaps long and durable principles apply to the world that is changing, a president may be luckier in getting him a new agreement in many of those basic jurisprudential points. even there he might be mistaken. that is the kind of thing when i came to the court i thought since i've been in federal court in massachusetts i have a lot of disagreement in san francisco is san francisco is that san francisco is it free of disagreements where i grew up. i've never seen disagreements like this.

and for a while everybody should agree with me. but i soon thought that is not so. it's a big country. there were 320 million people with a lot of different aims. not so terrible that you have people of different a thick philosophies which show up every so often. ..

having talked -- really. i chair or direct an international prison reform organization. i have also read your book. there are three on the dread scott decision and the japanese decision case you talk about, the three worst decisions the supreme court has made over in the years. you are not open to other nominations but we are seeing in the prison reform movement the results of kansas, hendrix versus kansas where we have a civil commitment for people who finish their criminal sentence, and a decision in minnesota where no one in 20 years has ever been released out of the

700 that are in their. >> bring this around. >> the question i have is i don't think there was any international background to that case. it seems like it was unique, no one knew what to do because a person convicted of an sex offense said that he would be a danger if he was released so we have to come up with something. >> there are a lot of areas. in every decision that is split which is about half of them there is someone who thinks it is totally wrong. not everybody can be right. and a system where you follow the majority. there are a lot of problems with the criminal justice system. and won't disagree with you about that one. i have written some things years ago about the sentencing

guidelines which overall made some improvements and fewer than i had hoped. that is a long story. we are in full process of seeing changes being made. are there other areas of the law? >> where we should be looking, one of the questionnaires's comments is the court decided with no sense of what other countries do. >> not talking about -- i am trying to get examples here and there are fewer than 15% of the cases in a given year where it seems pretty clear that you need a sense of what is going on elsewhere and there may be in many other cases. vote lawyers will probably point it out if they are and sometimes they will be and sometimes they

won't. >> we have time for one more question from the floor and then i will ask to oppose the last question. the gentleman by the side who i can't see. >> joseph, i am a student across the street. do you think the federalism revolution has entered a phase where liberals should favor blue state federalism as the focus shifts from state sovereign immunity to other aspects of the commerce clause enhancing state power to serve to advance the progressive agenda in areas like state labor, environmental health. >> not sure -- >> the only comment i can make is my own personal reading, i like irony to a certain degree. this is irony in respect to the

liberals liking one constitutional approach or provision and conservatives the other. i happened to be in the second period of time a book which is very interesting, the history of the army mccarthy hearings, he was a young lawyer attached to fred c. and who became the secretary of the interior was secretary of the army and they moved all the files of the people mccarthy was trying to investigate at the white house. so that mccarthy couldn't subpoena them. at that time all the liberals fought presidential privilege was the best thing we ever heard of. i have to be reading it at that time where nixon was not going to give things to the committees over the senate on the same grounds, presidential privilege and surprise surprise the liberals think presidential privilege was the worst thing they ever heard of. is always hard to line up

exactly with a political philosophy how the legal principle will sort out whether there is more or less of it and you are suggesting changes they need in some political direction. i won't say anything about it because i really don't know. >> finish this up. >> i want to circle ban's question, talking about going to israel and have it be a given that what america does is relevant to other courts because that is flying in the face of what we hear which is we have all waning influence in the world, other courts less often than they used to, more interested in south africa and the canadian -- part of your thesis we want to be in this conversation but part of what animated the book, the feeling

we are sliding out of the international conversation or is that overstating it? >> it is not. israel is special because iraq things you should support all kinds of things that are relevant and that is how they developed. isn't true necessarily in other countries. whether we had decided more or less by other countries is up to them, it is not to us. my job is not to be popular. one thing you learn in my job is don't try to be popular. that is not the point. the satisfaction you are going to get out of it, maybe you are the only one who has that satisfaction, try to get the thing decided correctly the best you can and i think knowing more in these areas in certain areas about what goes on will help me decide this case better as a matter of american law. weather that has other things attached to it and people site

us more or less is fine. >> outstanding. >> if it would make me popular to keep this going, i won't try to be popular, i am going to fulfill my obligation to end this on-time. please join me in thanking both of our guests. [applause] >> are the books available? >> in the back. >> buy books. >> 40 years ago today the supreme court decided roe v wade, and defining the constitutional right for women to terminate a pregnancy. today on c-span at 6:30 eastern our landmark cases series looks at how the case was decided and how it shaped political and beagle battles over the last

four decades. at 8:00 p.m. march for life with opponents of abortion rights, addressing the crowd presidential candidate carly fiorina. iowa senator joni ernst, new jersey congressman christopher smith and a number of anti-abortion activists. >> c-span takes you on the road to the white house. best access to the candidates that town hall meetings, speeches, rallies and meet and greets, taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone and always every campaign event we covers available on our web site c-span.org. >> more road to the white house coverage this weekend, live 10:00 a.m. saturday morning hampshire republican party town hall meeting, we will hear from rand paul, jim gilmore, jeb bush, john kasich, chris christie, carly fiorina, rick

santorum, marco rubio, candy carson, the wife of ben carson. at 8:00 tomorrow night also live on c-span ted cruz holding a campaign rally with radio talk-show hosts glenn beck and iowa congressman steve king. they will be at the solomon brothers convention center in waterloo, iowa. sunday on newsmakers jean sheen on her state's presidential primary february 9th. she is a supporter of hillary clinton. newsmakers is sunday on c-span at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> c-span's campaign 2016 is taking you on the road to the white house for the iowa caucuses. monday february 1st live coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span2, live pre caucus coverage katie taking phone calls, tweets and texts and then we will take you to a republican caucus on c-span and the democratic caucus on

c-span2. see the event in its entirety, stay with c-span and join the conversation on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> a forum with five lesser-known candidates on the 2016 republican presidential primary ballot in new hampshire, that is up next on c-span2 followed by a forum with lesser-known democratic candidates. >> thank you to the new hampshire institute of politics, and secretary of state bill gardner and his terrific staff at the secretary of state's office on the election commission for the opportunity to join a great night so amplifying what secretary gardner said i want to set the record straight, this is not the happy hour, not the undercard, this is a unique new hampshire opportunity for all the candidates who put themselves

forward to the highest office in the land to speak to the people of new hampshire and explain why they are the best candidate to be president of the united states. this year 2016 new hampshire primary we have 58 candidates, the second most in a presidential primary in the state, the most since 1992. before i do that i want the panel to help me, to my left, the new hampshire primary for abc news, the best job in politics as scott neil eluded to. journalist for abc news and reporter for abc radio where he won 2015 and were are marrow award. [applause] >> familiar face to many, 35

year political reporter, in april of 2015, he also began his new hampshire journalism career as a reporter for the union leader. all of us were avid readers of the granite staff column, he will bring great taste and discerning this evening as a yankees fan. not a popular view. >> you are not afraid to say that. >> laughing on all cylinders, a former new hampshire state representative and state senator involved in every single new hampshire primary since 1960, and following in the tradition of stephen bullets, he helped guarantee new hampshire's first in the nation status by writing the law that guaranteed in the secretary of state at his discretion the ability to set the primary down seven days or more before any similar election. thank you for joining me

tonight. [applause] >> our plan is to go down the line, candidates questions, one minute to answer, the timekeeper tonight will let you know, yellow card, and we have two minute opening statements from each of the candidates. steven connolly from riley, messages, tim cook from north carolina, sunnyside, new york, andy martin from new hampshire and joe robinson from boston, mass. these other lesser-known candidates. give them a round of applause. [applause] >> we will begin with opening statements. stephen comely, you can begin. >> i want to recognize, i will

be interviewed by the student, chief editor of the student paper. that really impressed me because power in this country is with the young people, not so much about our futures, very important, i have been doing investigations, been a private investigator for 30 years. i have people come up -- on my farm, at 1:00 in the afternoon after my family left. i am not too happy about it and i will get more threats when i bring this information up. it -- i am not impressed with the national media but you'd i am impressed with. i want you to remember this web

site. www. stephen comely.com. you will see youtubes with mr. trump. i gave him evidence and mr. carson, they had evidence for 140 days about unsafe conditions in nuclear plants across the country including seabrook. i get involved because my family is in the nursing home profession. a resident in my home was paralyzed and after getting national media attention the nuclear regulatory commission, the executive director wrote to us and told me to leave the paralyzed residence behind in my son's nursing home, for 22 years, four generations, told me to leave the president behind and give her iodine to be administered by a volunteer to stay behind during an accident.

we fought a lot about responders, getting vaccinated for doing their job. there is a gag order on the new hampshire -- >> we are going to try to make sure we are fair to all the candidates, ten manages the. >> gag order -- >> timothy cook, you have your two minutes. >> so in autumn. you got to get involved, do more than complain. >> my name is timothy cook and i am running for president. in case you are wondering i use and will lead. i am a fellow of the north carolina institute political leadership and i understand politics. a book to make men free, history of the republican party. that is ironic because they say america is the land of the free. i am here to tell you that is not true.

it is a lot. women are not made to cover their faces, children are not told who they can marry, why are we told who we can vote for president? the debate are based on poll numbers, someone select who is included in the polls and was a candidate is included, they excluded in the polls, someone is cherry picking the candidates for voters and that is not american. the president should be elected and not selected. there is a very good chance abraham lincoln today would not make the cut. then where would we be? federal election commission and congress is all about money. if you have money to pay for your own company, it is a good bet they will include you in public polls. also some states themselves have access restricted to candidate. even if you have gone 20 to 25% of votes in statewide elections

you may be excluded unless you are on a millionaire. even after the party has set in the news our welcome against the constitution only applies to some, not all. >> thank you. walter iwachiw. >> my name is walter iwachiw, i was born in brooklyn, grew up in queens, stenson time inert long island, travel to go cross-country skiing and cherished the people of new hampshire, able to make their own decisions. this is the year that people are seriously looking at other candidates, i endorse the feeling that new hampshire and iowa had. >> thank you. next up mr. martin.

>> thank you for sponsoring this event and thank the audience for coming out on a brisk new hampshire's january evening. hi andy martin celebrating a 100 year anniversary this year. in 1916 my mother's parents, my grandparents immigrated to manchester from greece. my mother and uncle graduated from the university of new hampshire. my grandfather was a small businessman, an ethnic greek neighborhood on ethnic avenue as a bully, in the 1950s, the tail end of the immigrant experience, i am a conservative when it comes to lawful immigration and fighting illegal immigration i also have a tremendous sympathy for and connection with the immigrant experience. i am also a little unusual in that i am the only candidate better known or lesser-known who

has lived overseas, china, 2003 and iraq, spoken the local languages and as predicted, devastating understanding, what is going to go wrong and what could go right. our politics today is not informed by experience or knowledge. we elected a man two or three elections ago and never left the country except as a tourist, didn't know anything about the foreign world, created a disaster. i am somebody who has been fighting corruption in the political system since i went to capitol hill 51 years ago and worked for senator paul douglas was a corruption fighter and a guy who liked to see thereat vesting more corrupt bureaucracies and it is today. i am here to present my qualifications, participate in the primary and do honor to the

great democracy which my grandparents enjoy it 100 years ago in 1916, thank you. >> last but not least, misterchaing lo. >> watching the politicians on television is obvious if any of them knows what our problems are none of them has a clue how to solve them. i am the only candidate who knows how to solve our four major problems of unemployment, terrorism, immigration and government debt. my federal credentials and the nation's chemistry i can tell you these problems can be easily solved once we reached in to the epa's regulation contrary to scientific knowledge but successful in destroying our economy and successful in finding terrorism. the present litigation between the epa and volkswagen cruise the epa knows natural gas emissions are the most polluting and industrial oil emissions by

the second worst, coal emissions are the cleanest of all the emissions. the epa, over the last 45 years in order to favor the oil and gas interests fighting terrorism in order to save the japanese carmakers over our own carmakers knowing coal emissions are the cleanest we should be opening up our coal sources in 26 states with coal and commercial quantities and using that coal not only to fuel our industrial boilers that to manufacture gasoline from coal, south africa has been doing it since 1967. this does not end unemployment among the legal but requires us to divert millions of welfare collected illegals to taxpaying legals. we will use profit sharing plans to make sure the quality of the work is good and middle-class wages. and continue epa regulations

which bankrupt america or create the middle-class employment that will restore america to its grandeur. >> thank you, mr. robinson. with the format tonight we ask each of you questions one by one, you have one minute to respond. i reserve the right to ask some follow-up questions if i feel there is an opportunity to do so but we may also ask questions from time to time so why not get questions underway. >> since we held this debate we have seen tens of thousands of gun deaths including mass shootings at schools, what needs to prevent more of them? >> i am a proponent of the second amendment. it is terrible -- we need to look at the violence on television and violence in video games and mental health. as far as the second amendment, for the first 150 years there

was no federal gun law. the last 40 some years it has been most of the federal gun laws gradually eroding more and more of our rights. i don't like seeing gun deaths of children but there are 6 million reasons in europe that we should have gun laws. thank you. >> next question for andy martin. >> following up on that when we have a terrorist incident, mass shooting of any kind in the unaided states from newtown to san bernardino, the debate immediately turned at least in the white house to the second amendment. what restrictions are there any restrictions that you find sensible that have been suggested by the president that should be imposed on gun ownership or available weapons? do you agree with the president's executive action to close gun show loopholes?

>> to enter the gun show answer first, no. i agree with bernie sanders. bernie sanders represents -- i'm doing a story about how hillary clinton shot herself in the foot backing among gun-control. bernie's argument -- we have to sit down among ourselves as a country, both parties, we are very divided on this, republicans and democrats, see if we can work out a sensible combination. the problem with president obama is it is impossible to know what makes sense and what doesn't because whatever he says polarizes the nation and so in his own way bernie sanders is making sense when he says i live in vermont as a liberal socialist, he doesn't support gun restrictions of an extreme nature. more conversation and less

hostility is called for. that is my solution. >> in 2013 the senate debated the proposal that would have expanded background check requirements to all gun purchases including those at gun shows. what would your vote have been? >> i don't think you need a machine gun to kill a rabbit. i do respect people's right to have a gun but what is wrong, none of the press and none of the politicians are asking why so many people in other countries hate us. i was out to chattanooga when the marines were killed and i have armed forces come to me and you know what they say? we understand you have some information the american people

should know about. but you can't give up our identities. if you let me i will, don't. if i give a pure name iron out of business. you know what they told me? the obama administration and tested ministrations have helped people sign up for isis. why do you feel that way? all the bombs and chemical warfare that were given to the iraq president, saddam hussein by the u.s. military -- >> thank you for your answer. >> given to military companies. that is why a lot of people in other countries take us. we got to find out why they hit us. until we do we cannot stop the terrorists. they're going to come. >> next question -- >> mentioned in new hampshire's live free or die attitude. the role of government be

smaller than it is today and how would you balance that with the needs of every day americans? >> the role of government should be smaller, it should be smart, technology has to be used to make the people we employ more efficient. there has to be smart technology issues. i propose smart weaponry to enhance the availability of weapons for legal ownership. smart weapons will prevent people who accidentally shoot other people. there are other issues they have to deal with. there are limited amounts of money and constant terror threats are draining away our resources.

we have to somehow remove skins have to be protected by the second amendment does >> sang with that topic. as president how would you protect our school children, how would you propose protecting schoolchildren on college campuses? there should be restrictions on gun ownership, others say there should be more guns that should be allowed -- armed officers, retired police in the schools. >> it would take much longer than 60 seconds to answer your question. one of my concepts would be to legalize pirate day in this country. it seems there's no connection

but what it allows people to do is to take down all types of computer programs, movies and videos without paying for it. if you think about it, what is a person using a gun, responsible, the answer is they have two things, what is the concept of accessory to a crime? by legalizing direct bay you take people in the movie business and video business and computer program business who like guns and it will be different point of view. >> thank you, mr. robinson. we are discussing the second amendment. one of the important things americans hold dear. the next president will likely have an appointment to the supreme court who will hear cases involving the second amendment and others. let's go down the line and name a supreme court justice current or former you would consider a model of the kind of justice you would like to appointive you have the opportunity to do so.

stephen comely, go first. >> i didn't quite hear the question. >> what would be a supreme court justice current or former it that you would consider a model for the kind of justice you would appoint? >> still don't catch it, i am sorry. >> let's go this way. what qualifications do a supreme court nominee would you consider? >> i took an accounting business, i know how to add, why not make two or three? there is so much on the backs of the working people. every illegal alien that comes into this country and refugee, the working person has to pay and we have got to a eliminate these programs and the only reason we have so many illegal aliens is because we don't

enforce along. if we enforce the law when the first one came in he wouldn't be here. we need to build a wall, we need to bring the soldiers back because we can't afford anymore, the working person -- i feel for my grandchildren. are they going to be able to have a house? i tell you right now i am the only candidate with the qualifications to turn washington upside down and i can do it. >> c-span2 -- timothy cook the supreme court question. >> someone who models thomas jefferson for freedom. chief justice roberts right now, someone along that caliber. someone similar. >> i think i am going to focus on ethics in the judiciary.

i am having a lot of problems with judges who are ignoring making orders, judicial judgments based on science. i think that is of big issue. we have to tackle the science in course and in federal court there is no gravity to remove the justices at this point. may be some kind of legislation that enables that feature to eliminate a justice. >> mr mar n. >> president reagan appointed the first woman to the supreme court. i am a little embarrassed to say i can't remember her name right now. sandra day o'connor, thank you. i thought she was an excellent justice because she came out of a political process, state senator in arizona and she understood the complexities of different branches of government. she was the swing justice but she was very effective, gave us

what we need in this country which is balance. extreme right wing judges and extreme left wing judges just provoke public anger. we need to work towards solutions and not inflaming people. >> mr. martin and mr. robinson. >> the justice who i admire the most, supreme court justice louis brandeis and the most famous statement he made is democracy can only exist when we have a majority middle-class which we no longer have today. in 1971 we had 61% middle-class, today we have 49% middle-class and that is because of our enormous problems of unemployment and underemployment. on the other hand if we look at justice roberts he made an enormous mistake. he took his job as an adjudicator and decided to be a legislator. that is totally unacceptable. not even legal. what we have to do is get people who clearly understand the

difference between legislation and adjudication. that was an appeals court decision, clearly delineate what is legislation and what is adjudication. >> thank you, mr. robinson. the second round of individual questions. >> over the last few months foreign policy has become one of the most import dishes to the average american voter. how can you assure as you would be qualified to serve as commander in chief and what would be your chief policy? >> in the earthquake situation. we went -- provided as much as we could. i tried to negotiate the reopening of three hospitals to handle the injured but to politics being what they were i was told once they get here how do we get rid of them?

these are the same issues being replicated all-around world. there is terrorism, people being displaced. those are the issues we have to deal with. we have to somehow get a grasp on people being forced out of their homes and provide them with a way to stay there to protect themselves and fight off these forces which are forcing them to move. i don't want to be in that situation so we need to work together to make the world safe. >> the next question is from john for andy martin. >> i want to get everyone's opinion on this because it is an important issue. secretary of state john kerry says, quote, the world is safer today because of the iranian nuclear deal and accelerated the release of five american prisoners held in iraq.

do you agree with that or disagree with that statement and why? >> i disagree with it. my experience, i was in iran in 1979 after the hostages were taken and i was back in iran in 1980. so i actually dealt with the iranians person to personal loan in that country and i managed to get along. my problem with what john kerry did and what the president did was i believed they too anxious for a deal and as a result i think frankly donald trump has the better argument where he says they negotiated a bad deal. they are not good negotiators. we could have done a better deal and should have done a better deal and i am concerned that we may not be safer. today as i was coming to this meeting the elders, not sure what the technical term is, took

thousands of candidates for office of the ballots in iran. that is not a democracy. it is of very dangerous and unstable theocracy and i am not sure we can trust them. >> from the other candidates, mr. robinson. >> we need a strong military because e ville has no weakness. number 2, in the year 2010 was proposed and the court agreed that in the case of the christians forced out of their homes indeed turkish section of cypress were not entitled to go back to their homes but were entitled to compensation. all we have to do is take that human-rights court decision and put it together and be very

frank about the israeli-arab problem and you have peace in this world. wanting accomplish with iran is we are closer friends with at a radio and is real and that is where we stand. >> i am not favorable of the deal. in fact iran, the muslim government stated they hate us and hate israel. the deal will help enable them to give nuclear weapons but our own government wants to disarm its citizens. that simply doesn't make sense. by giving the iran deal, iran is one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism. as a result america now is the largest state sponsor of terrorism by funding iran. >> stephen comely on the iran deal. >> john kerry knows my family. i don't agree with the deal.

he is going the reverse direction. in 1941 pearl harbor we lost 200 soldiers. 9/11 we lost 3,000 people. i have information that was given to me inside the nuclear regulatory commission, threatening 3 million citizens in new hampshire and massachusetts and beyond. i watched pbs the other night, the documentary on bombs. we have 60,000 nuclear warheads and we tell iran they can't have one. do you think that is going to sell. it is not going to sell. we should be -- we should take the leadership in disarming nuclear-weapons. we should do it. if we don't you are going to have terrorist -- we need to take the lead in disarmament.

we have to. if we don't we are going to have a nuclear disaster a lot worse than chernobyl for fukushima. the evidence shows it. he has been covering it up. >> we have to be fair. >> i don't agree with john kerry. he is going inert reversed direction. >> a question on the iran deal. >> the answer is second to none. the answer is americans -- no because it is dangerously close to paying for hostages's freedom. those are my concerns. the first responders, i am also concerned about the judgments -- it is a very complicated issue. i don't have all but information. i would have to see if we are making real progress bringing iran into the world and from

that i have to make a decision. >> thank you. staying on foreign policy i pose this question, mr. robinson. president obama said he would present to congress this year a plan to close the detention center at guantanamo bay. if congress doesn't act he said he is considering using executive authority to do so. what do you think the president should do and if you were president what would you do? >> we know that president obama issued more executive order is then the other president before him. issuing executive orders means a person is not a president but a dictator. a president's job is to preside over a legislative congress. number 2 he said eight years ago he would close guantanamo bay and he hasn't done so so i think this is did the example of somebody who has decided to be a dictator and not a president. >> how many of you would keep the detention center in guantanamo bay open? >> i would put hillary clinton

there. >> you say you wouldn't, would you close it down? >> we are going through a process bringing cuba into the world community. would have to see what happens with that meshing of cuba. >> the next question to stephen comely. >> mr. martin brought up donald trump. donald trump seems to have fundamentally changed the nature of the republican race. what is your take on donald trump and the policy he raised particularly immigration? >> donald trump, the poll numbers are up because the people are very angry about what is going on in washington. immigration if they were legal

and they have our record, we send them back in a cab. every illegal alien that is in the country right now has got to be held accountable for the time they broke the law. they got to a lot more taxes or they are going to keep coming here. you got to hold on and enforce the laws and we are not doing it. the bible says bar the board of heaven, we have chaos in this country, it is a mess and we have to fix it and we got to fix it, we got to be involved, we can't just complain about it. the working person i don't know how they are doing it. we have got to rescue them. i have informants coming to me on every issue not just nuclear, i get many cases of fraud coming to me, obamacare is going to destroy the quality of care hospitals and nursing homes are

able to deliver because refugees -- >> we have to move on. >> workers are going to pay for that. >> let's hear from some of the other candidates on mr. trump. mr. martin. >> i have had a unique relationship with donald trump. shortly after he married his first wife he wanted to move into my building and i was on the board of directors of the building he wanted to move into. normally i approve the contract if i was in the building during the day. i like to tease and say i am the only person who ever since you are hired to donald trump because i signed off and approved his lease. he was a tenant. i was an informal adviser to the architects at trump tower. on balance i think trump's influence in the campaign has been positive. he brings an incredible amount of energy. he comes from outside the process. he threatens the established order. all of those are good.

we have an encrusted bureaucracy, political republicans, democrats, both parties are corrupt, not just the democrats, not just the republicans. trump has pluses and-es but on balance has been a tremendously positive force. >> mr. robinson, some republicans say of donald trump is the nominee did not support him. would you support him? >> i would like to know who the democrat is before i make a decision in that situation. i thought you would ask about the situation on immigration in general and i would respond to that as well. my father, four grandparents were all immigrants to this country. they were looking for work, to live in a democratic society. what we have to do, there's plenty of room for them in this country. what we have to do is realize how do we employ them with decent paying jobs and how do we give them the opportunity to be legal just like my father and my

grandparents did, my grandfather came from ireland, not only my -- as citizens of ireland as well. that is my point. that is what i want to do. i want to cut alcohol of this unemployment that we have in this country which is the real problem, convert it, i have two other projects to employ people, states don't have enough water. >> we will let it back to those topics later. the next question from john. >> i will stay with that because mr. trump has been accused sometimes of going overboard not only by democrats bought by some in his own party especially when he imposed a temporary ban on allowing the muslims into the united states. do you feel that is a legitimate response to some of the situations the country has been faced with over the last couple

of months? >> i don't want to exclude anybody solely on their religious beliefs but you have to wonder if islam is really a religion or is it more -- the nazis believed to nazism was a religion. i don't believe we would allow nazis into the united states during world war ii. from certain areas of the world's i would restrict muslims entering. i would not take the syrian refugees. america wants to contribute let them go somewhere else. why can't we send them to another country that is willing? an outright ban, no. >> let's hear the same question. >> i think that people want to move to safety, they choose places to come based on their

needs. there are lots of ways to immigrate to the united states. if someone wants to come to the united states, they get visas to come here. there are lots of ways to bring people here, lots of ways to protect themselves from these radicals and that is what they are. a group of radicals which are affecting everybody's standards. they just can't be tolerated. we need to to get these radicals. i think we need to be charitable in giving these immigration laws. >> mr. martin, next question to you, one thing donald trump contributed to the dialogue is questioning whether senator ted cruz is eligible to be president of the united states. >> i have to keep an open mind because i am having a forum in

washington next weekend and i have written to ted cruz and ask for documentation. you have to balance at the intent of the founding fathers with the power of the people in this room and in this nation to interpret the constitution for our own needs and times. i am clear that the founders intended for the natural born citizen clause to have the restrictive view but i am also clear that society has basically been loosened and those requirements. i think it is that debatable question where ted cruz falls. i was involved in the obama dispute and created it perhaps. obama had two of the three qualifications, he was born here and his mother was an american. select one. ted cruz has only one of them, the mother. he was born in canada and his father was a cuban. it is a tough question and that is what i am sponsoring a conference to give people the

chance to talk. i have an open mind on it but it is a legitimate question. whether you are a conservative or liberal scholar they do agree it is a point of reasonable debate. >> who thinks ted cruz is not constitutionally eligible to be president of the united states? just mr. robinson. mr. robinson, would you support a constitutional amendment to strike a natural born citizen clause? >> it is true that it is restrictive. when john mccain was running for president he was born in the panama canal zone. his father was in the military. obviously a person in the military and therefore located at that moment in time outside the country with his family you obviously cannot in any way restrict that person from running for president of the united states. the question is whether or not someone born in canada where one parent was an american citizen

the person got american citizenship through his mother. was he born an american citizen? what does the constitution say about that? >> next question to stephen comely. >> new hampshire and massachusetts are going through drug epidemics. since two years ago drug deaths in new hampshire have doubled. what would you do as president to stem the tide? >> on drugs? what is the law? our kids have got a lot of temptations. we don't need families growing drugs in the backyard. we don't need it. we need to enforce the law. the price of freedom, the statue of liberty is out there. you can't discriminate people coming in here but you enforce the law if they do something wrong, the price of freedom, we have the kkk still here. we have muslims coming here. you enforce the law when they

break it. that is what you do. we got to learn to live on this planet in a safe way. can force the law in order for that to happen. we would not have the 12 million illegal aliens if we enforce the law. which we are not doing. what we doing? we send them to prison for five years and let them out for good behavior. the man has got to live with that the rest of his life for her life. we don't have enough prisons because we don't enforce the law. we need more. >> it is an important issue in new hampshire, we should hear from all the candidates. timothy cook, continue on this question. >> my view is this. as president of the united states, the united states constitution establishes hours for the federal government. what is not for the federal government falls to the states.

the federal government in my view is to protect the citizens of the united states from foreign powers as well as enemies foreign and domestic which we have enemies within. i also think as well as, time is almost up, basically it is a state's rights issue. the federal government is to negotiate trade deals and protect national interests and that is a state's rights issue in individual states. >> what would you do as president to address the heroin epidemic? >> the hair when epidemic is that medical issue. i was trained as that nurse practitioner. i would have to say it has to be at medical issue that has to be the result of that. the second part of that is but illicit drugs generally illicit cash which is being used all

around the world for criminal activity. somehow we have to grasp the extra money being derived by criminals selling heroin illegally and it is a process for treatment and getting some kind of legitimate sale of these products. they all have the shoes, medical issues and should be treated the same and people should be treated. >> mr. martin, same question to you. >> if i was the president the first thing i would do is declare the war against drugs over. it has been the failure. that is one war we don't have to negotiate a peace treaty for. secondly, i would acknowledge that at least in new hampshire as i walked down highway 3, and

local transmission lines, i saw hopelessly derelict homes, people who were unemployed, factories across the connecticut river that had been closed. in vermont they exported the jobs and i believe economic urgency and economic failure and economic pressures create conditions where people turn to drugs. a strong economy would be helpful. i don't want to call it a state's rights issue but i think a president can use the bully pulpit to encourage the states to balance compassion with law enforcement. there has to be balance and that is what we lack today. >> we know 40% of white males have a police record by age 23. a lot of this is drugs. why are they dealing with drugs? because they are unemployed.

there is no decent middle-class employment in this country. we have 30% unemployed, another 30% underemployed, walmart wages. that is the reason people turn to drugs to make a living because they want to eat, they want to pay the rent or whatever their expenses are. that has to be done. we have to create honest employment with middle-class wages and that is what i am talking about. that will solve most of your problems. >> thank you, mr. robinson. next question to timothy cook. >> switching gears a little bit. political ads not only from candidates, super pacs, a lot of that from citizens united decision in 2010, do you agree with the citizens united ruling that super pac has much right as any individual to express their

political preference by making unlimited expenditures? or is this something, some republicans and many democrats say needs to be reined in and restricted? >> i think there needs to be a lot done as far as regulations to hart campaigns are allowed to broadcast, especially the free publicity that has allowed some candidates but not allowed to other candidates. as far as these super pacs i recently got an e-mail from -- which i thought was caring for america, we're not affiliated with a candidate liz some are using candidates' names to make people think, they are donating to a particular candidate. the need to be tighter regulation how they identify themselves and pay for that but i think individual's right, they can pay for anything they want

with it very group of individuals or apolitical candidate for an ad. >> thank you. stephen comely, president obama used his state of the union address last week to call for a better politics in this country, talked about redistricting reform among other things and campaign finance reform. what would you like to see done to reform the political system in this country? >> the only way to inform the political corruption in washington is for the people to get involved and rise up in a peaceful way but they have got to make -- they have got to get involved, they have to make their voice heard. ..