it must've been a painfully low lonely two years for no one around you got to know what you are doing, why you're doing that, who you were, what you represented. when you talk about kind of doing it again, is that on a personal level, is that not a huge sacrifice? is that for you worked at? >> i wouldn't describe it as lonely. it's more like having a secret. i wasn't overt covert in a sense that i was always myself. i didn't have some of their identity. 99.9% one about the union or anything. they're just hanging out with friends, getting to know friends. so of course kerry of course kerry in that secret is exhausting. but there's no part of me that felt on the good was in miami said people were visiting all the time. so i have friends that were

always coming to visit. i genuinely liked my coworkers and the other organizers i was working with and could he myself in just about every way except for the whole journalism thing. thank you so much, everybody, for coming. [applause] [applause] >> books are available in the corner. [inaudible conversations] >> "after words" is next on booktv. former bush administration official john yoo look at the growth of present -- presidential power after the obama administration.

>> john yoo, welcome to "after words" again. i interviewed you for crisis and command which is a wonderfully rich the goat history of five presidents and their use of executive power. i loved reading it. i left interview at night even loved interviewing you again after the interview. >> i hope you buy two copies. the >> host: c-span call and said what i interview for a buck, gave me the name of the book and i just jumped at it. and then alas i found out you didn't write the book. but there is good news. and that as it is a compilation of legal essays by 26 legal scholars talking about various areas of the executive branch. again, we are in the executive

ranch. so "liberty's nemesis," liberty's downfall, pretty dire topic. tell me about how it all came about. just go first, thank you sport agreed to interview me again. you've renewed my desire to write even more books faster so it's not once every six years i get a chance to meet together on c-span. this book came together because i was trying to think about what characterized the upon the administration over the last seven years. i wrote about this on crisis and command, presidential power and national security front and maybe the growth of the presidency over the last 200 years. the story of the obama administration has been an untrammeled expansion of the administrative state of the agencies, the federal government as a whole. when we look at the media, sometimes we see corrections, tiny signs here and there.

lots of cases are in the book the real story is how large the government has grown over the last seven years. we might see it in cases the obama carries that she appeared we might see it in the bailout here and there. but it's in almost every subject area where the federal government acts today. >> host: how did you decide who is going to be part of the 26? >> guest: , we try to look at each major agency, federal regulatory power and pick people who we thought were heavily involved with the agencies are than had been the heads of those agencies. for example, criminal law where you are the expert, not me. you and your husband, some of the great criminal lawyers in our country right now. we picked michael mckay c., the former attorney general and prosecutor at one point. you could think of a better person. or for gun rights and the second

amendment, we asked bart, former congressman, former libertarian, party candidate. >> host: probably still libertarian. let go to crisis and command. and there you talk about strong executives and the founding fathers debated how one person, multiple heads and they finally decided on a strong executives. back in that time, there weren't any agencies. in fact, george washington didn't even have a campaign. he wishes kind of drafted. said he didn't even have any cronies to put into the government. >> guest: it was unbelievable. the whole federal government was never larger than 300 people. mostly customs collectors at the ports. mostly under the command of alexander hamilton.

there was a great quote by thomas jefferson once said -- i'm sorry -- i gave it away that john f. kennedy gave two nobel prize winners who are american, had a dinner at the white house the white house since i've never had so much as an intelligence been brought into the white house as when thomas jefferson dined here by himself. never in our government has so much ability and capability and intelligence been brought to administration alexander hamilton sat by himself at the treasury department. he was really the one about the government up and running. but washington was a general. came into office and organize the president be initially like a military command. for cabinet officers essentially, what we would now call justice treasury. he had them all report directly to him. he gave orders directly to them and carry them out right away. that structure was the one he basically had for much of our

history until the rise of this other government, this new administrative state. >> host: i would get to that in just a little bit. just an example of some kind of agency misbehavior. i want to talk about the operation by cooper and kirk. [inaudible] he's a better supreme court advocate and they happen to be with me in the reagan justice department. so we go back many many years. what is operation -- >> guest: this is i think a very disturbing program in the federal government, but one that exemplifies a lot of problems raised in another places. this is an area where the federal government is trying to prevent access to banking by disfavoring businesses. these are not businesses that are legal. they are perfectly legal.

in chuck's chapter he focuses on several, but payday lenders or people -- companies, small businesses that give people an advanced log before their paycheck comes. >> host: i want to start talking about payday lenders, but i really want the viewers to know what the list of organizations are because it is listed right here. left there be any doubt as to its message on this issue, the fbi thinks that the agency then publish a list of high-risk industries in which much disreputable merchants are to be found. and ammunition sales, lottery sales, according dealers. i represented a bunch of coin dealers before the irs ever did and it was a regulatory issue. these people are so nice. they barely make a living and

the irs had written a regulation that requires them to spend $5 worth of paperwork and we had to get it changed. firearm sales, then dealers, pharmaceutical sales and the payday loans. >> guest: this is the disturbing thing about this in other areas that the regulatory state. there's no statute that congress never passed going after these different businesses. congress could probably been some of them out of existence if it wanted to but congress hasn't. >> host: .frank purposely allowed payday loans. >> guest: general attitude of the criminal law is not to be read to extinguish a whole line of business unless it clearly says so. instead what happens is the administrators, fdic infused with other agencies, ultimately the justice department with the very vague law and regulation about protecting the reputation of the banking industry.

host hotel at reputation risk was originally. >> guest: and originally was you didn't want to risk and reputation in a way that might harm the stability of the financial system to colitis to protect the stability of the financial system. part of that might be what if the banks start lending to industries which are very high risk and so people might doubt whether the banks are financially stable. that's not something i'm sure they should be regulated. even if it is, the government through this interpretation that doesn't really have any grounding in whatever congress wanted to do since they can not dance to regulating industries which we can't have bad reputations like gun sales, tobacco sales. >> host: and then there was the depositor burning the bank's reputation. >> guest: yes, by borrowing money. you can see reputation as a standard and it gives the

regulators the freedom to pick and choose the people they don't like. that has been the story of the obama administration and other areas selecting certain individuals, groups, businesses points of view were disfavoring and almost prosecutorial treatment using the power of the government. >> host: taught the techniques that the banking people use. how did they squeeze the banks to go along? >> guest: it's just like what's going on. the regulators would prefer they never have to do anything formal. they have the process of reviewing banks, the necessary approvals they need to do their own business. the bank examiners almost like they manage them without having to ever form a new bank in any way saying we don't want these people. >> host: they don't say if you don't get rid of these payday loan people.

>> guest: right, you might have to book at them. but there's no formal formal action of her. that the other thing. the obama administration, what they do is threaten to cut off the funds for something serious. something expensive on businesses to persuade them. and to what they them to do. >> host: so then we have the court and we have congress. those are the only two places. so we have to go to the courts. that is what chuck cooper is doing on behalf of payday lenders. it is the district court here in washington d.c. and is going forward on due process draft. i have a law school question.

>> i haven't been reading it. just like what the students say. >> host: you would've thought since it's against federal law that it's not included on the list. the obama administration for marijuana growers, you can't make this up. so when they're also be an equal protection? >> guest: it really does show the abuse of prosecutorial because it's not enforcing federal law prohibiting marijuana in some states like california and colorado now where those states have a state-sponsored marijuana usage either is medicinally okay or just recreationally okay. this administration apparently you're more the expert of

criminal law but this seems strangely pro-marijuana legalization. since they favor that, theories and operation choke point that gun sales are payday lenders at their industries that are legal, which they've somehow exchange favor with marijuana use. first of all, whenever they write to congress, they said payday lenders and dealers lump them together. here is the deal say we are changing the structure within the financial system that allows the fraudulent businesses and he says we are choking them off from the very air they need to survive. >> i agree. this again is the agency could they thought they were legal prosecute them directly. they could use the expense, the

birds come a demand the regulatory state which regulates all business in the country of any size. in the thread about, the threat of administrative action to coerce people out of its way. it's not what the framers had mind. >> host: so let's turn to the court and just see how the courts treat agencies and what agencies do. we discussed the executive authority. how did we really get here? let's follow up on what we started earlier. washington, jackson, were growing all along. we don't have all these agencies. when did it start and how did it start? >> guest: is a talk about crisis in command, executive power expands during two periods

of crisis, hence the name of the book. boris, emergencies. but when those crises with pass, the executive branch which trained the woodrow wilson is where the intellectual father figure of the kind of administrative site today. he saw the expansion of agencies and government during wartime and wanted to make it permanent. he thought that was sufficient government. he got those ideas from germany or here if that came to admire the prussian system of the government at. there really is very influential political scientist before he was president. this is disputed. fdr though was the one in the crisis of the great depression. he took wilson's ideas and wasn't model in that it permanent. those are the agency's first

dealing with -- living with. i would say president obama asserted the last version of the great expansion that we are living through right now that's built on fdr and lbj, that even if now we are on steroids. >> host: you might've noticed that we are not democrats. >> guest: i think that is one of the big differences. >> host: what were republicans doing? i gripe not hearing any conservative losses. president eisenhower was praising nixon because they make government work. there wasn't a philosophy of government. so what were republicans doing all this time as the liberals who were expanding government? >> guest: it's good to point out eisenhower nixon because they try to make peace with the child welfare state that fdr and lbj had created.

don't get a a president who comes along to try to turn this back to ronald reagan. it's interesting some of the theories have come back around i think two by conservatives in the end. reagan came in. he wanted to deregulate. he won at regulations to be lifted by the agencies to allow the economy to grow faster, which i think happened. in order to do that he had to demand the other branches congress and the court do for to what he was doing to give them a free hand. reagan and his lawyers made the claims in court. he did make the claim, one of reagan's lawyers. they came up with what we call the chevron doctrine that said the court should basically deferred to the agencies so reagan could deregulate. >> host: must get a couple of facts about the chevron case in the 80s under reagan

bureaucracy and people in the epa had abided by regular brigands philosophy. they start writing the regulation that is it's easier if you're going to change your plan, both something new or modified. the environmentalist amendment they can't do that. you've got to be tough. so that goes to court. >> host: >> guest: its it's interesting the cleaner it gives the authority to issue regulations just to make the air cleaner consistent with economic growth in safety and so on. and it gives me huge discussion. so when the epa started loosening some of the burdens of regulation to allow faster economic road as he sat outside groups challenges that you are disregarded to achieve by deregulating. the court ended up agreeing with the reagan administration and said we are going to uphold the epa deregulatory rule because

agencies are more expert in the court and we should defer to the agencies because they have more scientific expertise. and the court said we should defer to the agencies because they are part of the president become a part of the elected bridge and accountable and responsible to the voters where we are not. we are not alike did and we have our jobs for life so there is no accountability for making decisions of this nature. in this famous chevron case from the early 80s when it was in generally they will do for them and taken in this area is kind of a much ambiguous or give a large amount of power from congress to the agencies. >> host: where the laws claire chevron said that the end of the story. it is where its money, where the law is unfair, how you would

think that would be the most vulnerable place. tell congress to get back with it. >> guest: you're quite right. chevron does not allow the statute says claire. using some high-profile cases lately where courts have bad willing to say we think the statute is clear. the most recent, king versus burwell which challenges the obamacare subsidies to individuals in states that didn't have an estate set up exchange. generally most of the big statute that expand the power of the federal government with things like security markets, environment and you want her quite ambiguous and quite date. this is the area if you think about the agency doing most of their work because that's where they will have the least challenge in the least push back from the court. >> host: are you mad at congress for wanting to give up his power?

i've worked on the hill and newport on the hill. i want to and i went that. and then you come together and write something like this and not at the same time. you see how legislation goes. especially in the legislative history, looking at legislative history doesn't mean anything. conservatives like chevron at the moment. >> guest: as he said it's partially commerce's fault because they make it very hard to make law at all. that's why you have to get through the house and senate, two separate bodies collected at different times with different systems of representation which he could veto and then through court interpretation.

that system is really, really difficult to get laws through what we have now the reverse of the situation. commerce in the 30s, 60s and under the obama administration has these very big broad laws. those agencies are constantly making mock all the time. now congress to stop lawmaking which is supposed to be the status quo under the framer system, congress would have to go through hoops to pass a law to stop the agent is from imposing more and more burdens and the framers constitution system. >> host: today conservatives would overrule the chevron and see whether it is reasonable. >> guest: this is the conservative world and found who were quite loyal fan of chevron.

judge bork was as well. judge silberman on the d.c. circuit, which is i think the most important administrative law clerk in our country and in most recent years, the supreme court itself be seen justice clarence thomas away also clerk forward has been raising doubts about chevron and several opinions this last term has questioned and asked maybe they should be overturned. >> host: [inaudible] >> guest: you miss someone raising doubts about the current is, for example whether applied criminal law, whether they should apply or not the global warming case. >> host: what the agencies can do doesn't necessarily get addressed. we all know the difference.

nixon obtained from the irs confidential information and tax return to use in a discriminating way. but the commissioners that not doing it. no doubt the obama administration used irs rules to court conservative groups another word to support the political process. i want to give a little background because of money in politics and we've had various limits about the years of rules about how you can contribute. but they became feingold. and in it was a provision that are the days before a primary or 60 days before a general election, certain people cannot engage in political speech and certain people were corporation,

nonprofit. if you miss the time that they are supposed to be doing that? there wasn't any rule about contributing to the crime for the candidate. we still have that rule. we still have a 2700 or whatever limited. a third-party group that wants to speak out on an issue. the 30 days or 60 days before an election. >> host: and then what happened, like water always finds a level or money was spent way to go and 527 sprung up in the aftermath of those are political parties. most of the groups were doing them for work registering with the federal elections committee. and then citizens united comes along. the citizens united was a movie

about hillary clinton made during the 2008 campaign. it was against her. but to the fcc in several months now for going to be put in jail if they published it. i thought the whole case is about. i have to point out some of the irony. when mccain ran for president committee know you know how much money he had available to spend because he's a taxpayer financing? >> guest: i'm sure it wasn't enough. >> host: $84 million. barack obama 705 million. so you can see in giving this information to us the how the political republican political fans were exploding. we've got to figure this out one way or another. i just have to tell you the first time i was there for the second one, too. the first time it was argued and

scully is said to the solicitor general, wait a minute, if i write a book and every page about hillary clinton, but on the last page if i say don't vote for hillary, is that bad? you know the solicitor general said? yes, just as silly. -- justice scalia. he turned purple and mass of the court said combat, read brief it and that is january 2010 citizens united comes around. >> guest: citizens united basically hold that money is speech. just like it can't regulate the speech of private people through these different groups in politics and can't regulate donation to buy private people or corporations used to these groups to engage in politics. i've always been puzzled by

critics of citizens united get so upset about it. seems obvious to me the right answer. just for example we wouldn't say -- the government, for example has to recognize the right to abortion. but would never say you can't spend any money. it seems obvious the government can't regulate the money that you would use to participate in a constitutional right to citizens united simply says since you have a right to freeze beach, particularly as he said in politics as in the framers really want to write a speech, how do we say you can't then money on using your constitutional right. if you could get away with that, think about how you could hollow out our constitutional rights by saying you can't spend money. it's funny because studies as far as i can tell show that citizens united in effect would have been worse effect on support for the democrat because

he and his spend more money to corporations on all of this. i think it just got it for under the saddle about the idea that corporations may be people. >> guest: >> host: including the republican trashing the print court. and falsely. and it would allow foreign corporations to spend without limit in elections. quote, unquote. >> guest: at not actually true. but it reminds of henry the second. who will rid me of this meddlesome priest. so there is obama saying who will rid me of this meddlesome citizens united? so talk about what happened there.

..

a lot of the responsibility is with congress, not just in getting these agencies power to start with, which decades and decades ago people who are in congress now did not pass those laws, but the people in commerce now can pass laws to stop it, take away the power and conduct

oversight hearings and to hold people responsible. >> they are not. >> they are not and there's a lot of reasons why and part of it is that voters don't demand it. voters sometimes worry about more about what is praying brought home to the constituency, the districts instead of asking about are you following up on the irs or so and some of these congress people don't have this because it will not help you get reelected or help you raise money for your campaigns and some of the has to be congressional leadership. they see the irs as an issue, but they are not pursuing issue after issue to pull it back to the neck i don't think the republicans know how to hold hearings, i truly don't. i am baffled at it. the benghazi-- benghazi hearings were almost a disaster, but yet i had all kinds of information

with simple concepts like security personnel went from 38 to nine. they don't seem to know-- >> why you think that is? because they should be just as good at it as democrats. i agree. i think conservative republicans are poor at this part of running congress. >> i have always said different people come to the democrats and people that are organized and come from places like universities and unions and there are people that work together as a group, maybe not so much together, that-- >> [inaudible] >> host: republicans are independent business people and maybe work ranch, some of the ones from montana and it's fascinating individualists and i think they come with different attitudes towards government, but why that should keep the

republicans from being able to conduct a hearing-- i mean, i heard they were looking at impeaching the commissioner of the irs. have you heard any more about that? >> guest: i had not, but that is one thing that congress of either party can do. it would be to start using impeachment power, not at the presidential power we think it-- they give it, but the level of it or lower down. >> the irs are still hiding documents. criminal. >> host: does anyone actually know. >> host: the federal regulatory laws are mind-boggling, 300,000 according to michael's article what i know he is a good researcher. when you were in law school you

were told criminal laws were supposed to be crafted for fairness and the person should know what kind of conduct is prohibited, so let's talk a bit about criminal law, your expertise, the law professor has to do this stuff. give a perimeter to the people in malum in se and mala prohibitive. give the different. >> there is some idea that there are some things that are bad by nature and that is mala. >> rape, robbery, murder. >> guest: society should prohibit all societies and then there is other things which you can think of as not obviously always bad, but what society chooses to criminalize and that will be with more for cardinal law's today and i think we starred as this system with this clear set of criminal laws mostly small and in say and now, we have as you say 300,000 criminal provisions in federal

law alone on top of the ones in state law that are not all evil by nature acts that all governments will prohibit. >> host: talk about strict liability because that is another criminal law concept. >> guest: yet seen this huge expansion and it used to be the idea that you had to have a certain state of mind, mens rea, a state of mind you intended to carry out a crime, so if you intended to kill someone versus someone died because you had an accident is a difference. then in the law, particularly in these regulatory areas strict liability criminal law area where doesn't matter if you had intention or not, just the act resulted in you will be held guilty of a criminal act. i think that is another revolution and is not the system we started out with and it's

amusing criminalize today. >> host: the doctrine of lenity, tell us about that speech you this test with a criminal defense attorneys favor part of law. >> host: maybe not so much. >> guest: this was the idea that goes back to the idea you start out with criminal laws were supposed to be few and clear and as citizens we could understand what it was we could and cannot do and the rule of lenity meant that-- criminal law should not be vague. if criminal law did not really clearly tell you what was illegal and you knew it was ambiguous or was not clear as to what you could or couldn't do then the courts especially also prosecutors should be generous and it's almost that ties or even things that were close should be counted in the defendant's favor.

it was the idea of citizens that we are not-- because criminal punishment and consequences are so secure and harsh. >> the complete opposite of chevron deborah and see to exactly and i think this is something justice scalia and thomas have raised questions about it's not clear to me that chevron should apply to criminal lot off. >> host: how could it possibly-- he will be known later as the great defender's fee to the title is already taken. >> host: he did say this past year he was getting tired of writing dissents. >> guest: really? it is terrible about his passing, but it gives us a chance to appreciate hemant many of his greatest opinions are-- i think he should've been proud of that defense where he said the

independent counsel was unconstitutional, do you remember that? he was eight to one or seven to one and he said sometimes threats to separation of power are wolves in sheep's clothing, but he said this one is a wolf dressed like a wolf and he was so right. >> host: he put that in a way-- no big words, all just brilliant creative concepts. he says here, the rule of lenity in cryer's return-- resolve in favor of the defendants and he says not to do so would turn their normal construction upside down, replacing the doctrine of lenity with the doctrine of severity. >> guest: i think he is right is that original reading of the law that chevron itself is non- constitutionally required, just a rule of policy, courts good

idea for themselves about how to approach reading vague statutes. i totally agree with you and i think with him that it makes no sense with criminal law where the idea is not that the courts should defer to ancies, but there's a more important constitutional value, which is due process requires a criminal defendant and citizens have the ability to tell what is illegal and legal. also, it goes back to the point earlier that there are conservatives now questioning whether chevron was a good idea, so in different areas like an criminal lot trying to court and off they felt would be immune from chevron and eventually justice schooley at had he longer would have called poor chevron entirely-- >> host: it's a no brain are. i read that i could not believe the court would even think of getting chevron deference. >> guest: the other end of it is justice breyer is probably the person most on the other side of this point which he thinks the

administrative state-- state is a super rational efficient manager and so congress, this metal some untidy almost like a black block-- box, things go in and things come out and who knows what happened in that black box and as the agencies and presidents in the executive branch of government that will make harmony out of everything and indigent efficient regulation, so that group would say you should have chevron deference for everything and they will make it work out even the criminal laws because congress is passing all kinds of crazy things and someone has to smooth it out make it work, so they would say why should criminal lobby different, but i agree that there is a due process. >> host: let's see how it worked out for someone named lawrence lewis or do you remember that case? grew up in the dc projects, started out as a janitor, worked his way up to be the chief engineer for knollwood. i know norwood and its

retirement home for military. a lot of elderly people there, of course. they were flushing adult diapers down the toilet which was causing a problem backing up into their rooms, so lawrence decided he should divert it to what he thought was a sewage drain that he got into a sewage plant, but a lasted did not. it went to rock creek in the potomac and the just-- justice department went after him and charged him with a felony and admitted that he did not even know what he was doing cc one fortunately that case is probably like thousands of cases where the government is overreacting. this is something you should be able to solve with common sense and the government say you made a mistake. >> host: fix-it. >> guest: just fix it. you did not intend to do it. instead, the government comes

down against this poor guy with criminal sanctions because they can, because they have that kind of discretion, because they know they will escape oversight, because they expect the courts to defer to them, so unfortunately the book is full of examples of cases like this is the one dear member this one? do you want to tell it? >> guest: i like it better when you tell the facts. >> host: 1900, a guy named lacey was a member of congress and the passed a law to protect of the wildlife in the us and that sounds okay, but then in 2008 and guess who control congress in 2008, democratic congress to the expanded it to protecting plants, but not just protecting united states plans, but anyone's plants. >> guest: anyone's plans. >> host: everyone's plants around the world so you cannot import a plant that is in violation of some other countries law and do you

remember the story about the three men and women? >> guest: from honduras. >> host: tell that. >> guest: it is interesting and has to do with whether you can import certain kinds and the united states or not and whether-- and this was completely it turned out to be legal under the laws of honduras , but this was according to the epa regulators illegal under american law and so these poor people were prosecuted for basically importing the wrong kind of seafood c-1 carrying lobsters in bags like new and evidently hondurans did not even know. >> guest: they did not care. >> host: but, the three guys got six years and the woman got two years. >> guest: incredible and you have to ask yourself-- this is the other thing, there are so my problems in our country and a

summary things that demand government attention why is the government sending its prosecutors after people just because they are carrying lobsters in the wrong way. >> host: in the wrong container. >> guest: i live in berkeley whether you paperbacks or plastic bags seems to be one of the most important policies for mankind. >> host: i montgomery county maryland and if you have to buy a bag, so folks at got used to carrying our bags into the drugstores. >> guest: another incredible case. >> host: arm, federal agents would into gibson guitar plant in tennessee and is said give me your word and guitars because you are using wood in some of your guitars that are in violation of madagascar and india law. >> guest: from an endangered tree that is not even clear whether he even knew-- i'm sorry keep the maker of the qatar's

new whether what fraud-- was coming from and he said quite clear if i knew these trees were endangered-- and they were not, he said he would never have used them. you was making custom guitars and so again, why does the government have to use the power of criminal sanctions essentially destroyed his business and jobs in the us, which we are supposed to be in favor of up producing and again it shows the government has so much power that they can use it flagrantly, arbitrarily, almost. but, in ways that are so against common sense that it shows so out of control but administered a state has become when it is routine. what happened to the poor guy? >> host: a few years ago and gibson guitar settled for $350,000 and that is cheap change.

>> guest: i was going to say if you were representing i'm sure the government would have to pay him. >> host: not this government, but they got their materials back, got there would back and still could continue to buy wood from india so you had to scratch your head. >> guest: what was the point of it all? >> host: why did we do this all and i want to bring in a client of mine. it was in a criminal case, it was a civil case, but a disaster for them for a few years. compounding pharmacies peered do you know what they are? >> guest: i hope never to know. >> host: it's a really important niche in the drug business because some people-- they make them in different forms were people because they can't take big pills. not everyone is supposed to take medicine in the exact measures that they are sold to the masses, so we need this to do special mixing. it's like the old pharmacy. >> guest: i understand.

>> host: important and of course the next controlled substances and have to have a dea license. that is all well and good. dea rules for any afternoon the patient, sounds reasonable. except, my compounding pharmacy was for veterinarians and dea had not written any rules for veterinarians and it's a whole different kind of incident is veterinarians are kind of a walking pharmacy and they go to the farm and they see who has a problem and instead of writing the name of the patient down, they wrote my client wrote the name as a that and as we argued in one place, what were they supposed to write down, nelly, biscuit? >> guest: sheep at number five. >> host: exactly. dea cavemen armed taking

documents, the records that showed they were only naming that marion and outpatient, revoked their controlled substance license. we went-- and when we came and that's where you go to the court of appeals and the court of appeals, we win. do you know how we win? i'm telling this story because it's interesting for people to understand. the court did not say give them back their license, courts to do that. they said dea, this is kind of a problem. work it out and we were happy with that. could we work it out? no, go pound sand and you have to go through an administrative hearing which took a few more months and more money. then, after the administrative law hearing it took another year in the administrative judge had still not ruled because administrative judges are like that a lot and just suck up to

the agencies. >> guest: there is a case in the supreme court about the. >> host: we finally threatened and guess what, our client at their license back when we drafted eight and amos and said we are filing this next week of my shoe give us our license and tell everyone what a mandamus is >> guest: it goes back to the famous case which chief justice marshall found or inferred at the right of judicial review and is essentially a order by a court to government officials saying carried out your legal duty. at some point the dea realized that you were in the rights and they were just giving you a hard time, as we saw in other cases slowing things down, pushing people they may not like without ever formally doing anything and in this case they were supposed to get the license and it was clear and they decided to take their time in doing it, which every day you don't get a

license like that is a day your client work. >> guest: and you can go crying to mommy and daddy until it reaches such a time that it really looks-- and many people would not have the fortitude or resources to hire a criminal defense lawyers and bided in court and may state tommy what i had to do to keep my business going which means every case like yours there are dozens of cases of people that never see the light of day that suffer from liberty-- and this is a great example of the title of the book and cannot carry out-- perform the business they want to. it is not harming anyone and does not fit the priorities of her this government. >> host: i think i forgot to mention that this client of mine, the pharmacy had advertised opposing the government on some issue prior to all of this happening. >> guest: i was wondering why they gave this guy such a hard time.

>> host: my, isn't that scary. i want to end up with something about school year if i can get through it. you know, i think the image and the american people is he is a conservative judge and that means he will send everyone to jail because that's what conservatives do and it wasn't. he was eight textual list. he looked at the institution and says this is what it says. by my not like to burn the flag, but i have to allow people to burn the flag and he told me that one of his proudest cases was crawford versus washington. do you know the case? >> guest: no. >> host: a criminal case and it's a requirement that there has to be cross examination of someone, an out-of-court state-- >> guest: yes. >> host: you can bring out-of-court statement, so another was the lab technician that that it was cocaine, that lab technician has to be in court for cross examination. >> guest: confrontation clause

that a defendant has the right to see their accuser and witnesses and sometimes he was not willing to go along with putting up shields in front of people even if they were kids are vulnerable people because it says the constitution says and another i was going to say another great line of cases where i think justice scalia and i think justice thomas also went along with a more libertarian view of criminal law was the idea that even though these cases-- booker where juries have to be able to make the decision on all the facts i had to do with the conviction of someone for a crime and that judges cannot do it for them. this had the effect of potentially meaning that thousands of people who could have been convicted under laws would now have to be retried or they would have to have their cases stomped on appeal and go back to trial judges were getting too involved and to controlling of criminal justice project and one more i think we

are talking about these cases and i don't know what you think about the apple fbi site, but justice scalia and several conservatives were much more favorable about privacy rights in the face of new technologies that many people might have expected more than i would have been in the two cases i would point to is the police officer going around the neighborhood with heat detection device to try to find marijuana. >> host: that is legal now. the administration can't forget that one. >> guest: now, we know they can raise a lot of money for banks for it. justice scalia said that as a search even though you never enter the house and usually the entrance of the house was seen as the fourth amendment protected space, but not it-- what you can see from a public street. the other one was gps tracking case where police had put a gps tracker on someone's car and even though you could have physically follow the card person and it would have a considered a violation of

privacy to follow a suspect, justice scalia joined with other justices to say putting a gps tracker on the car was an invasion of privacy, so as you said this stereotype of-- liberals, i think summer on the other side of these cases, so the idea that liberals are in favor of criminal defendants or justice scalia or thomas were in favor the other way is not always true. i don't know how he would've come out on the apple case, for example. i could've seen justice scalia voting on apple's site even though i personally think the fbi has the argument here. >> host: not getting too far off on that, but it amazes me why when the bone belonged to the county and the county says hey, take it. i don't understand why it is such a big issue. i would think it would be better handled on another set of facts where a person has the privacy right.

but, they are going out their full force. one last area, immigration. >> host: rigid by the syndicated columnist, it's a major issue. it was a major issue in the 2012 campaign and now, of course, it's coming again, but here's the political context and i want you to comment about what president obama did because this is the big man. he spent years saying, you know, i am not the emperor with respect to the notion that i can just extend deportation by executive order, not case. he said that like two dozen times. then, in 2013, there was a democratic senate and republican house and the democratic senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill and the republicans got itpublicans gote and i think they were sort of saying we think we will get a better senate in 2014 a we won't

deal with this because it's too tainted and we don't like it. in 2014, the republican senate-- but not 66 votes, so anything just the republicans were going to work out together would not pass, so by the very situation republicans and democrats then had to negotiate for something. you get a little and i get a little more, maybe. but, president obama did it right after the midterm elections they did not even give the senate and house to work on it-- legislation. >> guest: i would say the stories in this book are the president has just unleashed the agencies, isn't really monitoring them. agencies are going off on their own and as you said this is a different kind of case. it's a case where it's really the president at the top and

will be his, i think his constitutional legacy. it may not be the one he wanted, but i think it will be his major effect on our separation of powers in our constitution and that is his claim that he has the right not to enforce the law when he disagrees with it and that's totally different than other presidents in the past. ..

i think lynn chavez wants a more generous immigration policy. the way you can't do it is by the president saying i want more people in the country, to i'm just -- so i'm just not going to remove people who are here illegally, because i just disagree with it. president lincoln, who i think is the most ebbs pansive user of presidential power, never went that far. that is really an unprecedented effect that president obama will leave on the constitution that will have ripple effects going forward. suppose president ted cruz comes into office. he could say i want there to be a 20 percent flat tax. congress doesn't do it, then i'm just not going to prosecute anyone who doesn't pay their taxes above 20%. think about what presidents can

do. they can just rewrite the law into their preferred u.s. code even if congress won't pass it by i'm not going to enforce that one, i'm going to enforce that one. just the exact opposite of what the criminal law wants. i think in the immigration area president obama has gone so far out on the limb that someone like me who's a great supporter of presidential power, i can't go that far with him. >> host: well, he just told his secretary of homeland security not to deport people. what's the difference? [laughter] >> guest: yeah. he used executive power, be las- but he didn't write it out. he just basically told cabinet secretary to cut down on removals. so the number of removals has develop dropped -- in his early years in office, president obama had removed more aliens from the

country than any president before. now those have dropped enormously, can and he's basically also said the people who could be removed, you're safe. you're not going to come after you. >> host: and it's two big groups, daca and -- >> guest: it's children. >> host: and the other, parents come here illegally is and have a child, so now the parents are illegal, and the child's american. >> guest: yes. and these are millions and millions of people. it's hard to get a firm count, but it sounds like there might be 10-12 illegal aliens in the country, and this is a huge proportion of them, you know, millions to and millions of them fall into these categories. the problem is the statutes written by congress don't make exceptions for either class of people. i wish that people in both classes were allowed to stay but through a process that's been set out by congress. it's not the president's job to

decide who gets to stay in the country and who doesn't. >> so six years ago when i was talking to you about crisis and command, we were just about a year into the obama administration, and i ended it by saying what are you going to be writing about obama ten years from now. so it's not ten years, it's six. [laughter] but you were pretty prescient at that time. >> guest: i was. i'm so pleased. [laughter] >> host: you were. i went back and reviewed it. and you said, well, i'm really concerned about his expansion of domestic powers. >> guest: oh, wow. who knew? >> host: and then you said, you know, he's giving a lot of his executive power in foreign national security to the courts. you don't like that. >> guest: yes. >> host: because at that time they were talking about trying gitmo cases in new york city. >> guest: he's turned over, for example, electronic surveillance and its approval over to the courts. i thought -- what worried me was that, to me, in crisis and command the point of the presidency was to act vick

rousely -- act vigorously and decisively. that's why you would have a president. that very purpose is not important for domestic affairs because there congress can write things, the statements are there, you can write laws to anticipate for -- and things arise, you can rewrite the laws. there's no big harm in acting deliberately and slowly. that's why you use a legislature rather than one person to run domestic affairs. to me the story now at the end of the obama administration is that original framework has been kind of turned upside down. in foreign affairs you've seen the president withdraw even more in his constitutional powers for leading the country. he's deferring to counts, he's deferring to congress with the decision not to go into sir or ya work he's even deferring --

syria, he's even deferring to international agencies when he can. but in domestic affairs, he's using all that vigorousness and the powers our framers wanted our president to have, he's using it on domestic matters. and his administration is pursuing all these little people where common sense should take care of matters, but he would rather have a permanent, large regulatory state take care of it. i don't know, though, how that ever gets turned around. >> host: john, that is your next book. [laughter] come back. >> guest: thanks. i promise it won't be six years ago. >> host: thank you. >> guest: thank you. >> when i tune into it on the weekends, usually it's authors sharing their new releases. >> watching the nonfiction authors on booktv is the best television for serious readers. >> on c-span they can have a longer conversation and delve into their subjects. >> booktv weekend, they bring

you author after author after author that spotlight the work of fascinating people. pleasure. >> i love booktv and i'm a c-span fan. >> and now on booktv, more from the virginia festival of the book. this 22nd annual event took place this charl lotsville last week and featured many authors. today we bring you marjorie cohen, a panel on pandemics, and we kick off the day with kelly carlin, daughter of the late median and social create ill -- comedian and social critic george carlin. >> thank you all for coming today for what i think you're going to enjoy very much. my name is josh wheeler, i'm the director of the thomas jefferson center for the protection of free expression. we are the host of this program today. it's a source of great pride for us at the center that this is the 22nd virginia festival of

the book. and the center has been involved in one way or another with all 22 festivals. and it's something that we hope to continue to do for many years to come because i think one of the best ways to combat censorship or the desire to censor speech we don't like is to remind people of the many benefits that we receive from free speech. and by having this kind of festival celebrating the right of free speech is, i think, a way to remind folks, well, it's a small price to pay when sometimes we have to hear things we might not want to hear to explore any theme, any concept without fear of government reprisal. so -- >> yeah! >> there we go. [laughter] she knows this. >> amaze for the first amendment. >> i know 2 years -- 22 years

television actually in this very room that i discovered i needed to wear glasses. [laughter] at some point, i don't know, it was three or four festivals in, i found myself doing this number. they asked me the read some housekeeping details at the beginning, so i brought this up finish. [laughter] and i got that far. so you'll have to ask me, be patient with me with my glasses on. but i do want to tell you that this the virginia festival of the book, obviously, which is the product of the virginia foundation for the humanities. i've been asked to ask everybody in the audience to, please, silence their cell phones. not just for us, but this is going to be recorded. and if you'd like to tweet about this event, you can do so at hashtag vabook2016. and i say that as if i have any idea what it means. [laughter] >> and if you're going to tweet

about this event, i am at kelly underscore carlin, please. >> she could be speaking a foreign language right now -- of. [laughter] actually, i know a little bit about it. kelly's actually a very proficient tweeter with -- how many followers do you have now? >> almost 30,000. >> wow. so supporting the festival. the festival is free of charge, not free of cost. go online and give back or pick up a giving envelope from the information desk at the omni so we may sustain it for many more years to come. evaluations, please fill out program evaluations. these provide useful information that helps keep the festival free and open to the public. you can fill out a paper evaluation before you lee or complete it on -- leave or complete it at vabook.org/survey. i do know what that means. after this program we are going to have books available for sale right down here, and i think we could prevail upon our guest,

our author to sign a copy if you'd like. >> i think that'll be happening. >> okay. we are here today to talk about this book, "a carlin home companion: growing up with george." and we talk about that in the future. as i said, the center's been involved in many of these programs in the past, and i've had the great pleasure to moderate them, a number of them. i realize, though, probably about the third or fourth time that people weren't here to hear me. [laughter] they were actually more interested in hearing about the book or the author, and so i have learned that the best questions actually come from the audience itself. so i am going to very early on stop asking the questions and make the envelope -- the envelope, the microphone available to you folks.

and we'll bring the microphone around to anybody who has a question. i told kelly that i can ask questions if this audience with doesn't have any, but i have never found that to be a problem. >> and i can blah, blah, blah -- >> let me tell you a little bit about our author today. kelly carlin has written for film, tv, and most recently the stage. her critically acclaimed solo show, a carlin home companion. her master ors degree from pacifica graduate institute informs her. she lives in los angeles with her husband, bob mccall, and their jack russell terrier, stella. but dreams of living somewhere with a lot fewer cars someday. [laughter] aslong as you avoid 29 north, i think charlottesville fits that bill perfectly. [laughter] please join me in welcoming

kelly carlin. [applause] i should also say very, very proud of the fact that kelly carlin so on the thomas jefferson center's board of trustees. >> very happy to be a member. >> a strong believer in free speech -- >> yes. >> and we are thrilled to have her or to help direct the center's efforts. but first question -- >> yes. >> what compelled you to write your book? >> well, it's interesting. i've been wanting to write and tell my story for about 15 -- well, now that would be 17 years. it's funny how that does, the time thing does that like that. my mom died in '97, and after she died -- pretty suddenly, was diagnosed with liver cancer, dead five weeks later. pretty shocking. huge wake-up call for me as a human, as an artist, all sorts

of things, and i'd had this wild and crazy life. i was 34, 35 at that time, and i'd already had -- i felt like i already had lived seven lives. and i wanted to tell my story, my survivor story because at 35 i was a very different person than i was at 25 or at 20 or at 15 or at 10. i mean, there was just so many different iterations of my life with my family and then my life as an adult. or what -- i was pretending to be an adult at least. so i wanted to tell my survivor story. and i knew that, yeah, okay, so it's a little hook there, a little interesting, i happen to be george carlin's daughter, and, yes, part of my story is quite fun with my dad and my mom in the '60s and '70s and if '80s, and all the way through

til my dad's death. my parents had drug and alcohol issues when i was a child until i was 12, my mother was an alcoholic, she almost died, she got sober. there was a lot of money and cocaine and fame in my house with all the weird stuff that comes along with that, some great stories around that which maybe we'll share today, and so i'd lived through that, our family had lived through that, my father's heart disease, my mother's breast cancer, i'd gotten involved in some abusive relationships, my own drug adirection, panic attack syndrome, i'd been through a lot of stuff. and i felt like because i had gotten through it and found a way to get my feet back on the ground and find my center finally that i really wanted to share that with the world. i wanted to, i don't know, pay it forward in some way. i was such -- so lucky to grow up in the family that i grew up in even though it was pretty

chaotic for a few years. but i understood my privilege. so i wanted to share that. i wanted to share, as they say in aa, your experience, strength and hope. and that's part of the reason why i wanted to write the book. now that i've written it and i've been sitting with it and kind of looking back on it and talking a lot about it the last five or six months, i also see that being an only child, growing up in the shadow of fame, growing up in a family where the adults' chaos was p in charge of my life until i was 12 years old, i didn't feel like i had a real voice or a place in the world. and i see now that telling my story is a way for me to heal that, ultimately, to say i exist, i'm here, i matter like we all do, every single one of us has a story to tell. and so i can see that on some level that there's, that that issue -- that's one of the

themes in the book, invisibility, visibility is one of the themes i talk about. and i see now that that's part of it too. something about being seen and heard which all children want, ultimately. so here i am being seen and heard bigtime. [laughter] >> well, i want this program to be very much about your book, because it's a fascinating book. as you say, a survivor's tale. but a big part of that is, of course, is your parents. >> yes. >> i can only assume you've inherited that in some part from your father who loved the written word -- >> actually, i inherited it from the carlin family itself. >> well, that's what i was going to ask is, was, did that start with your father? there's a great story in the book about perhaps where he got his love of --

>> yeah. i have to find out where that story is. carlin family, or we're irish, gift of the gab and all that stuff. my dad's father, patrick carlin -- my dad didn't really know his father. his father couldn't metabolize ethanol very well, as my father used to say. [laughter] and when he wasn't drinking, he was a brilliant man. he was a big advertising guy in new york city, sold advertising for all the big papers, like national-level salesman. brilliant salesman. and also one speaking -- won speaking contests, you know? dale carnegie and stuff like that, national speaking awards with. had a real gift for it. my dad never knew him, though, because his mother, my dad's mother, mary, when my dad was about three months old took my father and his older brother patrick and snuck down the fire

escape because she was tired of being battered around by patrick sr.. and patrick sr. had started bath battering around young patrick too, and she wanted to protect my father from that. so there was the gift of the gab from that, and mary was an an amazing storyteller. she would take a ride down down and back uptown and have a full story about who was on the bus, beginning, middle and end, punchline, the whole thing. really a very funny, witty woman. and there's a little story here of my dad -- here, i'll just read a little bit of this. on may 12, 1937, george ben mispatrick carlin was born. eight weeks later, after months of trying to make the marriage work, mary sneaked out the fire escape in the middle of the night with her two young boys leaving patrick carlin sr. and

his rage for good. she'd seen the damage that her husband had already done to little patrick, and she was not going to let sweet george be another victim. this time it stuck. she'd tried to leave him a few times before. even though patrick tried to woo her back, she held strong. george never saw his dad again. in 1945 his father died of a massive heart attack at the age of 57, my dad was 8 years old. without a man around to keep my dad out of trouble on the streets of the upper west side of manhattan or what he and his friends liked to call irish harlem -- [laughter] mary took her job as both mother and father very seriously. she looked for ways to shape and control young george's mind and life. she succeeded in only one area; a love of language and words. mary encouraged my dad to look up words he didn't know in the dictionary and then use them in conversation. one morning young george, wanting to show off a new word he had learned, excitedly asked

his mother if she had perused the paper that morning. [laughter] he anticipated her approval. slowly, she turned, sharpened her gaze onto him and said, i have not. actually, i've only given it a cursory glance. [laughter] george, cha gripped, turned around and marched right back to the dictionary to win the new word, "cursory." [laughter] that was mary carlin in a nutshell. loved to be, have the upper hand in every situation. but she did. she encouraged my dad, my dad's love of language big item time. and my dad encouraged me too with a lo of language. -- love of language. he used to do this thing well into my 30s, too, i might add, which was very irritating. if i was with him and we were with people in conversation, and i would from announce a word wrong, he would slip me a piece of paper later with the correct

pronunciation written out like it does in the dictionary, uni? [laughter] i mean, i get it. dad was trying to recollect me and make sure i sounded smart, but into your 30s at some point you're like, dad, i'm just feeling a little -- [laughter] not so great about that. i'd love to just read a little bit of the beginning of my book, too, just to jump back a little bit. because there's something about my life that, i don't know, it's always felt faded in some way. and i just want to read to you a little bit about that. carlin legend holds that all it took for me to come into the world was a little sperm, a little egg, a little scotch. [laughter] a little weed and something called the limbo. [laughter] we'd been trying to get pregnant for months but no luck, explained my mom to me,

7-year-old kelly as i sat watching my dad pack for the road. just moments earlier he said to me, when i'm down in new orleans, i'll get a postcard from the hotel you were conceived in and send it to you. [laughter] confused by the word "conceived," i looked at my mom and she filled in the details. well, you see, we were down in new orleans, we were at a club hanging out with some musicians when someone announced a limbo contest. well, it sounded like fun, and so i did it. next hinge i knew, i was pregnant. [laughter] mom didn't mention the weed or scotch in her telling of my fateful beginning because she didn't need to. they were a given. oh, sorry about that. they were a given. dad had been smoking weed and drinking beer sinche was 14, and mom started sneaking sips off her daddy's drinks at around the same age. and as far as the limbo goes,

i'm still not clear about the mechanics of it all, but that's never mattered. [laughter] it clearly worked, i am here. for the two years leading up to the night of the limbo, my mom, brenda, and my dad, george, had been constant companions, starving artists and comrades in arms, chasing my dad's comedy dreams. they did hell gigs, packed and unpacked their suitcases hundreds of times and traveled to almost every state in the country in their 57 dodge dart. my mom loved playing the role of on the road part her in crime to my dad's rebel artist on a mission. she was dad's lover, party girl and press agent all rolled into one. his full partner in life and always his best audience. you could always hear her great laugh above the din of clinking glasses and mumbling patrons in every club they visited. because dad was a complete unknown, on some nights she was the only person in the audience.

one night in baltimore, no one was in the audience. not even my mom. my dad asked the club owner, um, so exactly why am i going on? [laughter] because, you know, be people come in, i want them to know we got some entertainment. i hear dad killed that night. [laughter] during those lean years, dad paid his dues but also got lucky. one night lenny bruce caught his act in chicago, loved what he saw and introduced him to his manager, murray becker. this was huge. my dad worshiped lenny. taking every opportunity to soak up lenny's presence, my mom and dad would drive from new york to chicago just to see him perform. one night while they were there lenny got arrested halfway through his set. this had become the norm.

that night the cops did not like the use of his word -- i'll not say that because we're doing tv here -- [laughter] it's a very descriptive word. looking to hassle the club, the cops began to ask everyone for their ids. when they got to my dad he dep findly told them, yeah, i don't believe in identification. [laughter] and the cops promisely threw him into the back of the paddy wagon with lenny. when my dad proudly told lenny what he had done, lenny looked at him and said, what are you, a shmuck? [laughter] my mom chased that paddy wagon by foot all the way to the police station that night and bailed them out of jail. growing up surrounded by stories like these and living through many others myself, i've always felt that my family's journey has unfolded like some kind of mythological legend. our lives together have felt shaped by a force, threads of

fate or maybe even what my dad called the big electron. something was calling us force and interweaverring exactly the right people, places and things to form one amazing life together. it's just always seemed so destined. so maybe we should talk a little bit about the first amendment. [laughter] >> what? [laughter] well, i do want to -- we can talk about that now, or we could, i also want to talk about sort of the next phase after your conception. [laughter] one of the things i love about -- so i definitely will talk about first amendment, particularly how we met. i want to share that anecdote. but one of the things i really love about your book is i think you, did you spend some i'm in the titles -- >> oh, the chapters? >> yeah. >> oh, sure. yeah, yeah, yeah. >> and one of the i think really end enlightening ones in terms of your youth is the three

musketeers, the chapter titled the three musketeers and sort of that part of your life. >> yeah. >> and i thought if you could share a little bit of that. >> absolutely. because i was an only child, there were only three of us. early on at some point my dad began calling us the three musketeers. all for one, one for all. and that became a real theme. well, i mean, you know, when you're the only child of a tight knit family, you feel sometimes t the three of you against the world kind of a thing, and it fell like that -- felt like that sometimes especially in our lives in the '70s when my dad was considered a hippie freak, and it felt like the whole world was against us on some level. but this also became a theme in our life in a sense that, you know, if you grow up in a dysfunctional family -- and i'm sure none of you happen to understand what i'm talking about -- [laughter] there's a sense of loyalty to your family that happens, and

there's a willingness to keep your family secrets for your family, to keep them protected because you love them, because it's the right thing to do in the moment, because you want to protect your family's reputation, and you don't want to tell strangers what's going on at your house. and so there's a sense of that in my family of, you know, when you grow up, and there was some crazy stuff going on in our household. just looking here for a little bit of this. this sense to have three musketeers. -- of the three musketeers. you know, it was a great sense of belonging in that way. and yet it also kept our alcoholic family secrets secret and, i don't think, helped us in the long run. a lot of crazy stuff went on in

my house around that. but there's a warmth to it that i do, i do love and adore. and, actually, i went to my -- my book launched barnes & noble in l.a. someone came to me and gave me a little hot wheels car that had the three musketeers to on it. and i just, it's on my, like, you know, my little altar. i just so covet it so much. but i'd like to give a little read here, a little bit about kind of what us carlines, what we carlines were doing in the summer of 1972 to give you an idea of how important it was to be the three musketeers. in the summer of 1972, mom and i went on the road with dad. the road was always a fun adventure. some of my earliest memories from the road are waking up in a hotel room with both my parents dead to the world and spending

the next few hours coloring, watching cartoons and staring out the window at the city below. finally, when i was starving, i'd nudge my parents awake. dad would run down to a local diner or store or, as he got more successful, order room service, and buy a bunch of those mini boxes of rice crispy ands a quart of milk. he'd then carefully take out his pocket knife, cut open those box and magically transform them into an instant bowl. abracadabra, breakfast was served. and although i'd never heard it, i'm absolutely sure that it was one of hose mornings that my dad heard that famous snap, cragging -- you. [laughter] our first stop that summer was kent state. my dad took me to memorial for the four college kids that had been shot by the national guard a few years before. he explained they'd been protesting against the waxer standing up for what they believed in and that the government had silenced them by

shooting them. this was one of those daddy's big teaching moments. he wanted me to understand the importance of people standing up for what they believed in, especially those who were willing to stand up for their government to make their point. he explained how the government had always silenced those who did not have a voice to begin with, blacks and native americans especially. i felt there was no safe place for anyone. being a 9-year-old only child and one who felt an increase aring need to be more mature than my needs, i acted as calm and cool and collected as i could. i tried to show my dad that i understood the lessons of civics and morality that he was trying to teach me. but it was just a calm veneer. because all i could think was if the government was shooting these people for standing up for what they believed in, would they shoot me or even my dad? it was a terrifying thought that now echoed in the back of my

mind. the next stop on our summer of '72 tour was summer fest in milwaukee. summer fest is basically an ocean of beer surrounding an island of sausage. [laughter] you know, what they call good, clean american fun. and, you know, when i think good, clean american fun, don't you almost immediately think george carlin? [laughter] dad opened for arkansas low guthrie and struggled to do his new material while connecting with the enormous audience of over 10,000 people. he began to do his new routine, the seven words you can never say on television. half of will have -- [laughter] laugh which he'd just recorded on his third album, class clown. the album wouldn't be released for another few months, so i'm pretty sure the promoter didn't know exactly what he had signed up for when he booked my dad. the routine was both hilarious and an intellectual examination

of the usage of language in our culture. however, quote, it'll infect your soul, curve your spine and keep the country from winning the war. and the seven dirty words are, you know what they are -- you want me to say them? >> buy the book. [laughter] >> [bleep]. some poor woman outside of charlottesville watching this live just had a stroke. i apolo jaiz to -- apologize to her family. yes, those words. because summer fest was an outdoormen venue, the main stage could be heard throughout the fairgrounds meaning it could be heard by lots of mommies, daddies and little kiddies. so to there was my dad on stage, killing. most of the audience was loving

it. while mom and i stood in the wings, also enjoying the show. that's when the promoter rushed up to my mom and said, look, the cops are here, they're going to arrest george the minute he gets off stage. i guess when my dad said that he'd like to -- everyone in the audience, the nice midwestern policemen took some offense at that. knowing that he was carrying drugs in his pockets, both grass and coke, my mom knew that she had to think fast. she grabbed a glass of water and walked out onto the stage. dad was very confused -- [laughter] but took the water, and mom whispered to him, exit stage left, the cops are here. dad wrapped it up, exited stage left, and we all quickly hustled into the dressing room and locked the door. i ang husbandly watched as mom removed a rather large baggy of cocaine from her purse and stashed it in a bass drum, and dad took out the joint and small

vial of coke and handed them to the promoter. suddenly, there was a bang! it sounded as if a gun had gone off. i leapt into my mother's arms and began crying hysterically. as she tried to calm me down, nothing else happened. someone had popped a balloon. mom, dad and promoter all laughed a nervous laugh, but terror streaks through my body. i couldn't breathe. i felt like i was going to die. and that's when the door opened, my dad walked out, and within a few seconds policemen cuffed him. i screaminged, daddy. i was sure that i would never, ever see him again. mom held me back as i cried. i don't know how long it took, but she finally calmed me down, enough so that she could leave to get my dad out of jail. luckily, my mom knew exactly what to do because of lenny bruce's arrest in chicago in 1961.

you get a civil rights attorney. i went home with the promoter to his house and family where i spent the rest of the weekend distracting myself by swimming with kids in something that as a southern california girl i had never seen before, an above ground pool. [laughter] i almost didn't know what to do with it. [laughter] >> i'm just thinking of the irony of when this show gets broadcast about some words you can't say on television, and the irony, of course s is the thomas jefferson center for the protection of free protection sponsoring a program, and then the seven dirty words are [bleep], [bleep], [bleep] -- beeped out. >> maybe it'll be a nice education moment for the public. >> there are seven words that you can't say on television. >> even on cable, i guess. or basic cable, i guess it is. >> that's, actually, a choice that can be made because

technically -- and this is the focus of the first amendment case in which your father's routine, seven words you can't say on television, was the focus. >> yes. >> for those of you who don't know, there's a very important first amendment case which involved this routine which was played on the radio. and, basically, it said that the supreme court came up with a new exception to free speech if it's on broadcast spectrum. saying that the government has greater control, has a greater discretion to regulate the content if it's something that's broadcast over the broadcast spectrum. i won't go into the details as the what that reasoning is, but his routine in terms of showing the arbitrariness, i think -- >> yes. >> -- of this, of being able to regulate what's called indecent speech -- >> right. >> which cannot -- >> it wasn't with obscene.

it was a new category of speech that had been created, this indecent speech, and he was proud of that. >> right. [laughter] well, i was going to ask about that. how did he feel about the fact that his routine -- and technically, i guess, in some ways you could say it provenned his point -- proved his point. but in another way the free speech side lost. >> yes. yes, they did. >> and how did your father feel about that decision? >> he never felt like -- can i mean, he wasn't, you know, he didn't play the album. wbai in new york played the album, and it was in the middle of the afternoon. the way my dad describes the moment is a professional moralist was in a car with his 14-year-old son when they played the seven dirty words. like this 14-year-old son had never heard these words. [laughter] and, of course, my dad's argument was there are two buttons on a radio, the off switch and the one that changes

the station. if you don't like the speech, choose some different speech. but this gentleman decided to go and complain to the fcc, this thing ended up all the way in the supreme court. my dad's biggest joy around this case was that all nine justices had to listen -- [laughter] to the the album, to the piece that was played, the seven dirty words, and that the actual routine is in the annals, is in the books of the supreme court. [laughter] right now you can go to your local law library and look up the case, and his routine is typed out for everyone to see forever. [laughter] he took great, great pride in that. but he always did feel it was an accident of history. so at 25 i went back to ucla to get my bachelor's. i became a communications major. and one of the classes we were required to take was a first amendment class which was my favorite class, loved it.

almost became a first amendment lawyer. then i thought, oh, law school, uh. [laughter] but my professor, i'm in a classroom of about 100, 150, maybe a little bigger than this size classroom. and my professor first day of class is talking about the class and how he loved teaching it, his name is jeff cowan, knew clinton, big first amendment guy. he said my favorite thing about teaching this class is that we'll study the pacifica v. fcc case, and i'll get to do george carlin's seven dirty words for you. this had become a regular occurrence in my life that my father intrudes on my life. [laughter] and it was really one of those moments where i saw -- so it was in 80 -- it was about '906789 i really saw, wow, my dad's had this incredible impact on the culture at large. and the fun part was getting to go up to the professor afterwards and going, hi --

[laughter] just want to let you know. and, of course, so the professor said to me, oh, could your dad come? would he come? [laughter] and do the seven dirty words for us? so i went to my dad, and i said so i'm taking this class, and i had to explain the whole thing to him, and i said we're studying the pacifica case, and the professor would really love for you to come. my dad was so cute and interesting, his reaction to that was, oh, no, i couldn't do that. i don't know anything about the case. i mean, it's just an accident of history that it was me and blah, blah, blah, blah, and he's going on and on about it, and i just look at him, and i'm going, dad, i don't think they're asking you to know the law. [laughter] i think they want you to come and be george carlin and say the seven dirty words. but he was just so darling about out i. and so, i moon, that was really -- it really shows my father's kind of humility. my father had a lot of humility about his place in the culture and what he did. and, you know, he really, he

really walked that walk bigtime. and i don't even think it was until probably just a few years before he died that he even was acknowledging that he was kind of an elder statesman in the world of comedy and that, you know, he would say things like, well, yeah, when they talk about comedy in the second half of the 20th century, they're going to have to mention me. and i'm like, really, dad? you think so? [laughter] so i just, i loved that about my dad. that's a side of him -- i mean, that's another reason i wrote this book, is that my father, everyone knows the version of my father on stage, and if you bold his career over 40 some odd years, you saw very different versions of him on the stage from the clean cut guy who did the ed sullivan in the early carson shows, indian sergeant guy, then, boom, all of a sudden he's dropped acid, and he's got a beard and long hair, and he's saying the seven dirty words. and then kind of in the '80s he's kind of floundering a

little bit, and late '80s, early '90s, he comes out with jamming in new york, and he's got a whole other level of political point of view and outrage about the planet. and, which came from him being a broken-hearted idealist. he voted in '72 for mcgovern, and when mcgovern lost, he never voted again. he believed that the system was broken, and that's what he used to say to people, you know, i don't vote, that way i have a right to complain. [laughter] i do vote, by the way, and i encourage people to vote. but -- oh, i forgot my train of thought. evolution of my dad and him growing and, oh, i have no idea where i was gown. [laughter] middle age. >> well, it's interesting that your father was so humble about this, but every time -- well, at least i have to qualify it. every time i hear comedians or at least the comedians that i really enjoy being interviewed

themselves and talking about their influence, your father's always up there. >> sure. >> it's always -- >> him and richard are the two big ones. bill cosby, lenny bruce. >> people like jon stewart, louis black -- >> yeah. >> all these focus always name your father as a person who was most influential. and your father lived long enough to know that he had been awarded the mark twain prize for comedy but, unfortunately, did not live long enough to see or attend -- >> the ceremony. >> yeah. he was actually thrilled about that. you know, he didn't really take a lot of, you know, stock in awards and things like that. but when he heard he got the mark twain, he was, he was happy about that. and, of course, i had been secretly nominating him for years. [laughter] like, come on, mark twain -- i mean, come on, people, george carlin. if there's not a mark twain in our culture, and they picked

some other people who, i get it, it's a tv show, and it's the kennedy center and stuff like that. i'm a big fan of billy crystal, but really? you're picking billy crystal before george carlin for the mark twain prize? he did. yeah, he did know that, and he really did appreciate it. he loved it. >> when your father passed away, thanksgiving the story about how -- passed away, this is the story how we met. i was a big fan of george carlin, and since he was so associated with the first amendment both because of his case and a number of other routines that he had done, we immediately posted on the thomas jefferson web site sort of a tribute to george carlin. unbeknownst to me, kelly carlin, at george carlin's funeral there were two organizations that were suggested that you might want the donate to these organizations in lieu of flowers or tributes. one was the american heart association, which makes sense.

but the other was the thomas jefferson center for the protection of free expression which i had no idea that george carlin -- here's what's behind the scenes. i had no idea that george carlin had ever heard of us, and maybe he didn't. but i got a phone call, and our administrative assistant put it through and said kelly carlin is on the phone. and i didn't know your name at the time. and you, i picked up the phone, and you introduced yourself as george carlin's daughter. >> and i wanted to let him know if you get some donation in my dad's name, i want you to know why. because i've decided that you're the organization that i'm going to tell people to donate to. >> well, apparently, your father was a big believer in the underdog -- >> yes. and that's whey i picked you guys. could have picked the aclu or pen, all great organizations, but my dad was always loved the underdog, and i thought, oh, here's a nice little organization. >> well, what you told me also was that you looked it up, you're looking up, researching organizations, and you thought

that the thomas jeff isson center, and because we just posted it, there was a photo of your dad. >> the synchronicity was too much. i've gotta honor that. >> this is fate. >> yeah. these people are good. >> well, once i realized it wasn't a friend putting me on, you know -- [laughter] that she was george carlin's daughter, i was just so excited, so thrilled, is so honored. and then typical of me sort of going too far and putting my foot in my mouth, i said, gosh, i can't tell you what a great day this is. this is, like -- [laughter] two days after her father had passed away. but then i knew, really knew it was george carlin's daughter when i went with, oh, god, i realized what i just said, and i heard in this laughter on the other end of the line. [laughter] you appreciated it, and you said your father would have appreciated that moment. >> absolutely. absolutely. >> but you, obviously, share your father's commitment -- >> dark humor? >> that too.

[laughter] that too x. maybe in that lies the -- but your concern about censorship and the government telling you what you can and can't say. >> yeah. i mean, i think that class i took at ucla really taught me a great understanding about, well, constitutional law in general, but the first -- i mean, obviously, watching my father get arrested for saying the seven dirty words and hearing lenny bruce's story all your life, you're a person who's interested in language and censorship. but i think the thing that is most important, i mean, it is the first amendment. like, that's a little hint right will. [laughter] it's not the sixth, it's the first one. and, you know, when i got to learn that we had to argue cases on both sides as you have to do in law school also, we had to argue both sides of the argument in these first amendment cases in his class, and i really learned that even though i don't

agree with your speech, you know, i will fight for the right for you to parade down, you know, if it's like the kkk in illinois, a famous case, you know? and here we are in america in 2016 dealing with this issue all over again. and it's great because i think it's a great teaching moment for our country to talk about speech and what is illegal speech and legal speech and hate speech and inciting violence and all sorts of things. so it's a really essential conversation that we need to be having as citizens. and all citizens should really understand their constitution and all the arguments involved in it. i want to be prescient of time here, and i know we have a clip of my dad, and so i wanted to set up the club. >> sure. >> so this is later in my dad's life. this is 2006, a but years before he, before he died. and then we're going to, it'll lead right into this clip that we're going to play here.

bob is the name of my husband. in november 2005, bob and i flew to new york to see my dad shoot his 13th hbo special, "life is worth losing." i was excited. my dad rarely let me glimpse his new material before he shot it for hbo. he liked having me experience the material in its full and polished form. it was always a thrill for me to sit in the audience not knowing what was coming. this year i was especially looking forward to seeing him. we'd both been really busy, and we hadn't seen each other in about three months. after walking up the stairs backstage, i caught my breath and walked into his dressing room. i saw a short, white-haired man with his back to me. when he turned around, it was my dad. i was stunned. who took my father and left this elderly man in his place? my dad's face was puffy, he was two inches shorter, and he

looked like he was fighting to breathe. what the hell? i noticed the last few times i'd talked with him on the phone that he'd been a bit scatterbrained, very unlike my dad. he'd forgotten the name of his assistant once, and one day he didn't show up at a breakfast we'd planned. i thought at the time it must be his age, but seeing him now backstage i knew something was really wrong. people don't age this quickly. i didn't say anything to him, not wanting to distract him from the task ahead that night. but as i walked to my seat in the audience, i worried if he'd be able to make it through the show. i steeled myself for the worst. would he be okay? would the audience respond to how he looked? might he even collapse? but when he took the stage that night, he came alive. and all i could think was if he could just stay there, he just might live forever. could you play the clip?

or oh, you're going to play it here? >> this is dangerous. they put me in charge of this. >> uh-oh. [laughter] >> this will demonstrate about george carlin's lo of language. -- love of language that he passed on, that he got from his mother and passed on to his daughter. and that's not it. [inaudible conversations] [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. i am a modern man, a man for the millenium. digital and smoke-free, a diversified postmodern deconstructionist. i'm an uplinked and down loaded, i've been inputted and upsourced. i'm a high-tech low life, a cutting edge state of the art bicoastal multitasker, and i can

give you a gigabyte in a nanosecond. i'm a cool customer, voice-activated. my database is in cyberspace, so i'm interactive, i'm hyperactive and, from time to time, i'm radioactive. [cheers and applause] behind the 8 ball, ahead of the curve, riding the wave, dodging the bullet, pushing the envelope. i'm on point, on task, on message and off drugs. i got no need to binge and purge. i'm in the moment, on the edge, over the top but under the radar. medium-rage ballistic missionary. a street wise smart bomb. i run victory laps. i'm a total ongoing big flat slam dunk rainmaker with a proactive outreach, a working rageaholic out of rehab and in denial. [cheers and applause]

identify got a personal trainer, a perm shopper, a personal assistant and a personal ada. you can't shut me up, you can't dumb me down because i'm tireless, and i'm wireless, i'm an alpha male on beta blockers. [laughter] i'm a nonbeliever and an overachiever, laid back but fashion forward, up front, down home, low rent, high maintenance. supersized, high definition, on-ready and built to last. i'm a hands-on hate case, prematurely post traumatic and i have a love child who sends me hate mail. [laughter] but i'm feeling, i'm caring, i'm healing, i'm sharing. my outfit is down, but my income is up, i take a short position on the long bond, and my revenue stream has its own cash flow. i'm gender specific, capital intensive, user-friendly and lactose intolerant. [laughter] [cheers and applause]

i like rough sex, i like tough love, i use the f-word in my e-mail and the sort ware on my hard drive is hard core, no soft porn. i bought a microwave at a mini maul, i eat fast food in the toll lane. i come in all sizes. a fully equipped factory authorized hospital tested, scientifically formulated medical miracle. i've been preapproved, postdate canned, freeze dried, vacuum packed, and i have an unlimited broadband capacity. [cheers and applause] i'm a rude dude, but i'm the real deal. lean and mean, cocked, locked and ready to rock. rough, tough and hard to blew. i take it slow, i go with the flow, i got glide in my stride. driving and moving, sailing and spinning, jiving and grooving, wailing and winning. i keep the pedal to the metal and the rubber on the road, i

party hearty, and lunch time is crunch time. i'm hanging in, there ain't no doubt, and i'm hanging tough, over and out. [cheers and applause] >> i just want to read this one little bit that comes right after this. so a month after this he really couldn't breathe. christmas eve morning sally called. kelly, we're at cedars-sinai hospital. george is in the emergency room. bob and i raced north and found sally in the waiting room, my dad's girlfriend, shaken up. they've stabilized him, he's doing better. about 20 minutes later, the e.r. doctor came out. he's doing much better than when he came in. we gave him some medicine to help remove some of the fluid from his lunges and stabilize the heart failure. the what? heart failure. that's what had been going on with him in new york, heart failure. it is a condition they could

stabilize with medicine for a few years, but eventually only a heart transplant would fix it permanently. after a while they let me see him. as i sat alone with him in the emergency room, he admitted to me that he'd had symptoms for months and months and had ignored them so that he could do his hbo special. i wanted to kill him. [laughter] but on the other hand, i got it. it was a great show. as he lay there dozing, i sat at the foot of his bed with my hands on his feet meditating and sending him as much life force as i could. i was doing my best to uphold my shaman duties. i'd never felt so peaceful in his presence before. there was a sweetness to it. a week later they released him from the hospital, but now he had a device implanted in his chest. it was a combination pacemaker, heart pump and defibrilling later. dad was oddly proud of device. [laughter] because he bragged, it's the exact same device they implanted

in the chest of dick cheney. [laughter] my dad died a few yearses later, and there's -- the ending of the book, i don't want to give it away, but we had a great chance to heal and come together. i mean, we had already healed a lot of our past, but an amazing ending happened for us, one that fits well with the beginning of our story. it feels almost like a mythological legend in some ways, so i feel very lucky and full of a lot of gratitude that i got to heal with my parents, and we got to love each other and laugh with each other through all of the insanity and the roller coaster ride of our lives. and i really, i'm so honored to be able to tell my story to everybody and to share pieces of my dad that people don't get otherwise. i think that was the point i wanted to make earlier, that part of the reason i wanted to write this book was they see one version of my dad on stage, that

guy, but they don't know the husband and the father and the man and the artist, the struggling artist. and it's just a great privilege to be able to share that part of my dad with the world. so if you guys have any questions, we'd love to take some guess. some questions. >> yes, ma'am. can we bring mic? >> what -- >> you hold on? whether they want that for the tv -- >> they're bringing it over here. >> tv. ..