standing. >> but if this court decides against to the issue that will have decided the does have freestanding. >> but under the predecessor if you broad did it that i would ignore the al long the way we should defend legally what were they talking about? interest to possible things. what data -- daca gives the ability to work. if they said i would give lawful permanent residence status that would be going further to say we're lawfully present. in than seconds you could

have extended but what happens here is the president and secretary went to the office of legal counsel to scope their authority of the discretionary authority and consistently with that so whenever the president may have meant we went to the process to act on that conclusion. >> is no challenge to dapa. >> as a legal matter. >> i reserve the balance of my time. >>. >> mr. chief justice of that may please the court the texas mothers of u.s. citizen children have the opportunity to apply for discretionary temporary

lease from the daily fear they will be separated from their families and decayed or removed from their homes from the frequently arbitrary enforcement system that fails to provide a reliable opportunity to be identified as a low priority their own state of texas through this suit has blocked the guidance. it to register and apply with a timely decision with a fax to defer action. it is on the indirect and speculative injury to contradict the state's old legislative decision after balancing considerations to subsidize and encourage the driver's licenses with no a space cumulative limits on subsidies in that form. >> you the gift is a legal

of texas adopted a policy that everybody lawfully present in texas except those subjects to dapa get a driver's license? >> i think it would be a challenge to revolve around the circumstances and behind that legislation. >> but texas has not done that there is no indication that the previous decision would make sense with some endpoint but those circumstances you describe would have one set of deferred action recipients. >> what if they just said there's too many deferred action people? it doesn't matter why. political refugee, waiting for a different status status, everybody.

>> i think that is also subject to challenge and the reasoning would be different there may be a preemption played end that that report has indicated. and it has made to chase a law. in those who would been denied a driver's license and in this case that could have equal protection concerns that as this court has indicated. not only has texas changed. >> in wooded the more

serious banda pre-emption concerns? >> all the more reason to wait to the legislative process with the record of why they chose it changed from those who could demonstrate their authorized to be the united states they would decide the tolerated presence that we would have a record why they made that decision. we are not there yet but texas has not made a decision to change and there is no indication. >> for the record i ask either side the same question that the reason they don't want to give drivers license is it is expensive. is there any other recent

that we could imagine? is there a serious effort to wrest their claim? we don't want to give them life of anything other than. >> for the record that in fact, it is a political dispute that they do not agree with the policy adopted by the administration so they have defeated that it is us discretionary authority. >> i am focusing on the narrow question of how texas is hurt specifically not political disagreement but specifically hurt by giving these people driver's license. one way is the cost for the muddy. are there other ways? >> no.

and in fact, they would face additional expenses that it would change the previous determination and the classic case for standing in the designated decision because it has balanced other considerations. >> it in the case it is not a financial claim related to the interest over land as a general has indicated it is a procedural right with the clean air act that does not exist here it would be established under that hca itself there is no limit to challenge any domestic

policy for any future administration. >> with the position in the employer would not hire from daca that they are not lawfully authorized that they would prefer somebody else over them? within the theory of discrimination? >> they could but it has not been clearly established it is the clash with an employer who wants to hire someone. >> of that history gives them a legal right to to put them in a low priority prosecution. >> it is important to know it is the separate determination from deferred action itself not everyone gets that work authorization

>> of several legal right. >> a kiss them the right to work. however i also need to go back to standing 2.0 to it has nothing whatsoever to do with a driver's license. >> when you answered the question you are not saying that? the question is the legal right. >> it is far from clear i think the president is not clear enough to determine the outcome. >> would assure position? >> it would be if something should be litigated in all candor we have so establish precedent to make it clear one way or the other. >> they do have work authorization and that means

they are not subject to the unreasonable and discriminatory and it is different from when they don't but it has no relationship that they could receive a license without having that work authorization there is no connection between the two. that would not address the injury. >> the court upheld the arizona statute with a severe civil penalties those employed in the rituals to read not authorized to work so if the employer and arizona warda dapa beneficiaries or the state attempts to impose this bin. >> guest: -- dapa provides a legal defense?

>> i believe it would be before that because with that requirement those who work authorized should cut back as authorized workers so the state of arizona is in part to get that court's blessing that they would not be in a position for what you described. >> prior to dapa they would be subject to those penalties. >> that is correct. >> worth authorization is an authorization to work. >> basically to say of the deferred action determination, but that work authorization has no relationship to the alleged injury of driver's licenses. my time is up.

>> general? >> thank you, mr. chairman chief justice. made it please the coat - - the court the unlawful of exertion of executive power when old age largest changes in immigration policy in history. >> how do you say that? that happened in 1990, it granted basically the deferred action in the work authorization to 1.5 billion people law of 4,000,000,040 percent of the immigrant population at this time was affected here the best estimate is only 35 percent. sova least the president has taken action of a greater percentage than now so why

is it the largest? the number of people? >> unfairness it is a voluntary departure program and also with only 47,000 were there and what congress did in 1996. >> decided to step and some members decided to do that so they have remained silent that doesn't mean that no later point that they cannot do what they need to do. >> but they could create statutory belief and to do so of a deep economic significance. >> but you say that 11 million and authorized to hear the shadow they are in

the economy whether we want to or not congress really didn't want to then it would be the amount of money necessary. >> what congress did in 1986 and '96 with benefits is it was a mechanism to enforce immigration law. and those of our of lawfully present and congress put forward the benefits for what the executives are trying to do with that determination. >> except that ability for the attorney-general has changed since 1986 congress has not taken that way.

is still hasn't done the regulation. >> '86 congress add as a comprehensive remark that was the decision to repudiate to adapt a federal ban. >> deregulation from the attorney general to give of deferred action individuals since that time? >> executive said that was so small that the impact on the labor market is minimal so regardless that congress may have acquiesced it has always been known to be a small class of individuals. >> it was part of a large class of 1990. >> 40% of the legal

population. that was a fairly significant number. in fact, it expanded the program the president had started. >> congress responded capping that at 120 days and then they knowledge they can no longer authorized that it but with deferred action only granted 501,000 per year no way congress would have acquiesced. >> with those larger numbers with the visa larger than

the numbers you were approaching right now. in this is an extra step it is not abridging lawful status. >> kennedy back if he steps? that you have conceded the you have looked at the legality of dapa to take out the social security benefits? is that correct? >> no. i will be very clear. when it is for very removal on a case by case basis and that was deferred action discretion.

>> let me make sure a understand that the government could do this one by one because the government could not identify but not for burying enforcement. correct. >> that could be simply for bearing for ruth all spirit that is what i as originally that there was not work authorization attached with no benefits attached. >> given the case they are removing the 400,000 we is mitt they could do for "barron's" -- forbearance. >> it says they can give

cards to all the people to say no priority. so with authorization and social security for everyone who fits into this category. >> it could do that whether granting lawful presence in general are you just referring to that single phrase in the memorandum? because mr. verrilli says you could strike -- strike the phrase today with no legal consequence whatsoever to do exactly what you said

is to grant forbearances to tell people you are not the enforcement priority until we say otherwise which could be tomorrow. >> fox that is key because that is the first time they have taken that position but because what the executives do with deferred action is they are creating a status we go that because of one says lawfully present to be qualified have deferred action status to say just because we are four very for removal that doesn't mean you are present but what is going on is the transformation that is far more that entails certain

things. >> so just take out of work authorization and take up the phrase to say you are a low priority the will the support you a must change our mind. >> to grant that status. >> can they do that? >> but my hypothetical is it you are suggesting it has some legal consequence that mine is however many million people in it is unless we change our mind.

>> but this is a league that they could do that all at once. >> yes and we're not challenging the prioritization. >> so maybe it is a real break. the real break is to the work authorization. >> and unlawful presence. >> and what they could strike out in a moment and the reason it is wrong it is in a memorandum stick is that a statutory term? is dead set here in the social security medicare even against statute that case from the fifth circuit

in a treated as events parole that we do know that daca have got green cards for citizenship in the process. >> and for what you should be with the work authorization regulation of vhs or the iea has had four other connections that it is making with respect to these people. what is transforming an unlawful conduct i did see anything about dapa. >> it did not mention suez a

specified period of time the individual permitted to be lawfully present in the united states. to take that position of legal consequence seven has been misquoted for what is going on with tolerated presence otherwise they're not authorized to be in the country sorry they can get medicare or social security or gun possession but that is not working for those who get driver's licenses so if

someone is authorized to be the united states they are eligible. >> need to be authorized to be in the country but we have to rely on the federal government is someone is eligible for a driver's license we run that to the federal state background system is this individual authorized to be in the country? they say yes or no. >> they also say you don't have to do that so why don't you go ahead to give a driver's license? >> that we are in a catch-22 either don't occur billions of dollars of financial harm or change the law to come up with a different background check system without a uniform policy. >> how does somebody get a license?

>> i noted york and washington. so you go and do what? >> you go to the department of motor vehicles show the documentation of who you are. in this is outlining the process that the state verifies the individual has authorization to be in the country. why is it very long? >> sometimes people wait the entire day and then they keep coming back is not an ideal situation from the frustration so why is it you

have to spend all this money? why can't you have the regular process? so if the driver's license recipients to get through airport security has the integrity through the federal government some have to check. >> why do you have to ramp up? i think one of those allocations is to assume that it is true that your affidavit estimates the lawsuits is a process that is made up basically because there is already have built

and profit and you don't know if you have to add all of this personnel to go up to the dmv and one day. and the members will be much less no matter what. so the question that i have is why? >> the reason is there will be a spike in the applicant's of the drivers' licenses. to process the paperwork to make determinations. >> i got a temporary peace of paper edited weeks to get the regular license to do

what it would do as fast or as low. >> but a drug either side has said it is clear. but it is a jurisdiction. >> but it might not be true? would that be standing just on that basis? >> we have a fact finding that has not been challenged but it will cost more money. >> is there something else? money is money. and this is technical but it is important and looking at

the brief with senators on both sides and the state's double sides in the members of congress why? because a tremendous political data. keep that in mind. so keeping that in mind what's go back to those cases that are scarcely mentioned. . . if they are submerged, like icebergs, the one i am thinking of, massachusetts the note, and there in those cases the federal government had giving -- had given

something to those people. other people's won't be sued because they said, that means we will have to pay more money. the court said, you other people from massachusetts, i'm sorry, but lo and behold, that is just a tivo just because i am from massachusetts, it is because they lost, says the court, we cannot let you just see one basis. you as a taxpayer will have to spend more money. if we do, taxpayers all over the country will be suing in all kinds of cases, many of which will involve nothing more than political disagreements of all kinds, and before you know it, power will be transferred from the president and the congress, where power belongs, to a group of unelected judges. and for that reason, we say, you individuals will have to

pay more money, cannot just sue on that basis, and as for the state, it cannot represent you because this is between the federal government and the citizens. therethey are the ones who have to pay. as far as massachusetts is concerned, again bringing k-uppercase-letter one, that was their own coastline and not money but the physical territory belonging to massachusetts, and of course they have standing to protect that. >> i have finished. you see my point, and i want to know how you get around that. when you give a benefit here , hurt the taxpayer via money over there, it does not have the kind of interest. >> we are raising financial harm.

we are raising sovereign harms. we have ceded to the federal government the authority. now, -- >> sovereign harm, realize because if a state cannot sue, and its citizens cannot sue to stop the feds from giving somebody a benefit on the ground it will cost the state or individuals more money, surely they cannot sue just by announcing it requires a change in law, or sovereign interest is hurt. then every case of political disagreement were states disagree would come before the court. >> i think a lot of those cases would be taking care of through causation requirements, injury, and zone of interest.

for instance, just a gross income and veterans benefits all of those cases would be screened out through the zone of interest test. we put forward over a thousand pages of evidence with over a dozen declarations and fact findings finding exactly what arizona versus the united states said. when we can come to court and show a concrete and -- concrete injury and policy that is causing an injury, and that is precisely -- >> but that pits the states against every federal agency , and any harm, financial harm that indirectly flows from change in policy would be subject to attack. let me give you a prime example. imagine texas passed a law forbidding its state pension plan from investing in any financial company whatsoever.

the federal stability oversight council declares systematically important. too big to fail. tex is reasonably does not want to invest money in companies that if they fail are going to tank the economy. now let's say the federal government sets out a policy memorandum that says, and our discretion, we are not going to declare some insurance firms under a certain size as too big to fail. we just don't think we should. okay? why can't the state sue that federal agency and say, the law mandates that you tell us who is too big to fail. >> i don't think states would be protected by laws governing which banks are too big to fail. the states are protected by immigration laws.

i think that would be weeded out under the zone of interest test. >> we're already said in our writing that you cannot tell the federal government who to say is legally or not legally present here. you don't have the right to set immigration policy, and thatpolicy, and that is not in the zone of interest of the immigration law. >> we absolutely are, and that is precisely why am standing here. just because the federal government pervasively regulates immigration, that does not mean states don't have a significant interest on who is within their borders. we have an easily identifiable sovereign interest on who is in our borders. we will go back to that problem, congress not appropriating money these people, they are here to

stay no matter what. the federal government can say nothing unless we change our mind. and the only thing is work and you have to challenge that separately. >> not only worth -- work authorization but unlawful conduct. what we need is tolerated presence. >> it is not just zone and husband. that is lawful presence. they want you to take out lawful presence and pretend it is not in there. when you go under regulations --

>> but then why aren't you challenging the regulations? i understand what you are saying, in some sense it triggers regulations but only because the regulations saying what they say. the real challenge is not the nonenforcement part of this. the real challenges to the regulations. the fact that nonenforcement leads to a set of results, and yet you are not here challenging is regulations. >> and so far as we challenge regulations it will be done so according to dapa. >> you are required to do that as an exception as i understand it under the apa from your failure to exhaust your avenues in the agency 1st.

>> as of that suit just because we're challenging the action doesn't mean the categories. >> do you think they had decided. the you think at that point that dhs can say, and this will include work authorization because of our pre-existing authorizations? >> work authorization, at most you look at congressional act. >> am not sure i understood the 1st part of that. take out the labels. notify as a single person. you are low priority. we are not going to the poor you, unless we change our minds.

by virtue of pre-existing regulations you now can work on the books. is that legal? could dhs do that? >> i don't think there is data troy authorization. >> that is interesting. as you said, there is not statutory authorization, and i thought your entire argument is that there can do this. now you're saying in some cases they can. >> we have multiple arguments. our backup argument is that at most congress would have acquiesced to a practice of small uses. >> how about this, dhs does not do it on my one. dhs says it is senseless to do it one by one. they should do some categories. you have been here for 25 years, you can stay unless we change our minds.

that is the category. a smaller category, but there are a lot of people in it. >> if there is no previous lawful status there is no way congress will ask -- acquiesced to that. >> that is important. dhs could not say all the people who have been here 25 years, perfectly law-abiding. we will support you you can feed your families, you can do that. they cannot do that. >> congress could. >> statutory authority right now my car, carte blanche authority. >> this has nothing to do with the scope of this policy, nothing to do with how many millions of people are in this policy. even with respect to a much smaller policy of the kind that the predecessor

agencies have done literally every year for the last three decades, that all of that was older virus. >> answer the question. >> we are talking about the scope of the program. is this a question of deep economic significance and when the 1987 work authorization was justified, telling everyone that this was for a miniscule number of people and it would not affect the labor market and brings to light that here the executive is not even use notice and comment. the theory is that they can grant preferred action weather will not be lawful access, no court can review it, and they did not even use notice and comment procedure. that is unprecedented, and a sweeping assertion.

it is the duty of the court to be last, not 1st to give up the separation of powers. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, three years ago the executive asked congress to enact legislation that would have given it the power to authorize most of the people living in this country unlawfully to stay, work, and received benefits, and congress declined. now the executive comes before this court with the extraordinary claim -- >> is that part of the package for pathway to citizenship? >> it was a pathway to lawful presence in the country that would have allowed individuals to have a legal status to remain in this country, and congress has not created the legal status for the category of individuals covered by dapa. >> why do you think this is a legal status, in the way

that that bill imagines? >> it is a legal status because under the agencies on regulation it is a status that has consequences. eight cfr .3, the statute that the finds thedefines the term lawfully present. if you are in deferred action status your lawfully present at eligible for benefits. that goes on to say if you are just an individual as to who dhs is inclined to pursue removal proceedings, you are not lawfully present. whether you're in deferred action status makes a difference under the agencies on regulation. it is that affirmative act of not just forbearing and making the decision not to remove somebody, but putting them into deferred action status triggers the availability of work authorization and eligibility to receive benefits. >> why don't we just cross out lawfully present?

>> you cannot cross it out and achieve what dapa is supposed to achieve. what really matters in dapa it is -- is that it is allowing the grant of deferred action status. deferred action status is equated with lawful presence. if you cross it out of the dapa memo, it is still part of the regulatory scheme that says, once we have taken this extra step not just roof during the removal of you but putting you into the status, that changes your eligibility for work authorization and benefits in this country. once the executive is doing that, we are far outside the notion of mere enforcement discretion. >> who would be low priority? nothing about work authorization low priority.

>> we would not necessarily concede. the only memo they would have issued is the enforcement priority memo. in order to qualify you have to already not be an enforcement priority under the enforcement priority memorandum. with the executive wanted to accomplish was something more to say not only are you not an enforcement priority, we want you to be eligible to work and received benefits, and the way we do that is by taking this affirmative act of converting into status of our own regulation changes -- >> what is the appropriate

way for texas to proceed? regulations under the apa. and then they were concerned about a notice of comment taking too long. >> i doi do not think that is the way it makes sense to proceed. there is nothing inherently problematic about a regulation that ties deferred action status to work authorization. >> the.would be that areas of discretion have been so vastly changed the regulation now has been superseded. >> i do not mean to suggest that is not a way you could challenge that i don't feel it is how you have to. to me the real problem is not the linking of deferred action status and work authorization but the work of deferred action status. individuals who are on a

class -based program. >> a few times it was said. you could give an id card to these people saying low priority. work order authorization. >> concerns, just the enforcement priority memorandum in the same concern if you have that and invited people and he gave him an enforcement priority card. ultimately whether the house has concerns about enforcement priority memorandum is really beside the point year. this case is challenging the dapa memorandum that goes beyond the mere enforcement. >> break it down. >> sure. are you arguing that the

executive does not have the power to defer action of removal against this class? >> it all depends what you mean by deferred action. >> i just said deferred action. >> i can't take the question was i understand what you are talking about, mere forbearance or putting them into deferred action status. we don't believe they have the power to put this class of individuals into deferred action status. the statutory authority can do so, but if you get into the world of the congressional acquiescence theory the types of deferred action status programs that existed in the past are fundamentally difference both in kind and scope. before 1997, you done -- you

did not have class-based deferredclass -based deferred action programs. all of the programs are exercised of different powers pursuant to statutes that existed at the time such as the voluntary departure statute that no longer is a tab for executive discretion. >> i've got to ask you. it is texas party, and they may their objections. i picked it up and couple that, cross out the words that say special status. suppose that it worked. the question is whether texas has standing to complain about certainly the change in priorities for action. we don't know yet if that affect drivers licenses. that affect benefits are well, but should the administration do so? then they might have a case

that they could bring challenging that aspect of the situation. all we are saying is that they do not have that case now given the sg's concession are agreement our desire to strike those words out. does that work are not in your view? >> i am not sure. >> i will not repeat it, but you can forget. >> i want to be responsive. i just want to understand the question. i guess my point is that, i don't think anything either in texas view of the case or in our view of the case that turns on these words lawful presence being in the dapa memoranda because what matters is the dapa memorandum is designed to make it a path for individuals to be eligible for work authorization, and without dapa they are not.

that is why they are considered lawfully present. just because the executive is not actively pursuing removal proceedings. it specifically says the decision not to pursue a removal proceeding does not render you lawfully present. so, it matters, you know, the words that were viewed here as the program is being created matters. it is not enough to have mere forbearance. >> in 1989 when george hw bush granted deferred enforced departure for chinese residents it's illegal. >> that program was justified different power

than the one here. >> there was no statutory authority. >> it is a power that the executive has always grounded in article two foreign affairs power. now there is currently a statute on the book that says it is the exclusive authority through which the executive can grant nationality -- >> that came after this. >> whatever was happening before 1990s does not tell you much about what congress is acquiescing in congress passed a statute in 1990 that said, these are the circumstances. >> i appreciate that. it may come back and say deferred action is limited in this way, but it has not yet. so assuming that we have a history of deferred action

for categories of people why are you -- are you arguing the 1986 regulations which gives the attorney general the right to grant work authorizations to individuals who have been provided deferred action, are you workingyou working on that? >> no. there are statutes on the book to say deferred action status also comes with work authorization. >> the statute says that the most people deferred action can be granted under the statute or by the attorney general.

you are striking out by the attorney general. >> i was talking about different statutes. i was talking about the statues that referred to deferred action, and they say that the executive can grant deferred action work authorization. implements congresses precise understanding that in the circumstances where the executive is authorized. >> at most it is a diversion of a hypothetical. suppose dhs decided. and in doing it one by one by one also said you're entitled to work on the books. could dhs do that? >> it would ultimately in that instance start to become a question of scope. there has been this kind of ad hoc the minimus deferred

action. >> suppose again, the same kind of question, suppose that there was a policy, but it was of much less significant scope, a policya policy that has had a few dents in the united states for 30 years when you have children here we are not going to the port you unless we decide otherwise. you are entitled to work on the books. >> no. there is nothing that allows it. >> this is very significant. >> there is not any. >> there is not. [inaudible conversations] >> that was voluntary departure. a statute on the books at the time that permitted. for a category of individuals.

>> cannot have any kind of policy much more limited in this kind of policy that allows undocumented aliens to work. >> congress has passed a statute that says, if you are living in this country without legal authority you cannot work. >> i understand the point. this would be an enormous change in practice. >> not at all, your honor. past practices of practices of not pointed to a single deferred action program they granted to a class of individuals that had no lawful status in this country. >> is that your? >> yes.

>> extended voluntary. >> only about four deferred action programs that were class -based. held up the pieces. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. they have no answer. they did not have one. even if you think got over the article three hurdle, there is no way this license costs constitute something within the zone of interest. and then 3rd, respect standing, to justice breyer's point about the analogy between the kind of theory there advocating is dead on correct. if you want proof of that,

it already exists. based on the resettlement of syrian refugees in texas. now, younow, you raised a couple of points that i want to get to. deferred action, work authorization, i would direct you to it 1824 section be. a lawful public resident. >> i was asking about section 1981. >> a long time given that claim. >> with respect to another

point you want to raise about specific statutory or references, things on the other have made a huge deal about this. i urge you to go look at it. read the rulemaking order that went along with it from 1996. you will see what it says. ..

>> >> there is a case if you can read the opinion that specifically describes that which is what it was. the other key point in this is important is the scope of the can get authorization is that either congress passed

to specifically say you get work authorization or they give the attorney general or a vhs to decide if people of this category can get that. there are millions of people who get work authorization under existing law now if that was the interpretation of the odd lots. of the cancellation that those people qualify under the statute why in 1987 they rejected that completely and totally frankly is a reckless suggestion. >> band-aid don't have a pathway to citizenship. >> but those work

authorization under that period halftime. >> millions. if you file the application? >> it is around 5 billion since 5,008 that is huge numbers. >> eight you. the case is submitted >> this is amazing the first black president i know you are biracial but the first black president. [laughter] [applause]

you should be able proud to be said that. then it will be that half white guy? [laughter] [applause] though voted for the of mulatto and? [laughter] >> butted 2008 barack obama you would have lost him. [applause] so charismatic in germany too idealistic? you would have led to the first inauguration day how beautiful you look today even more beautiful tonight. [applause]

but now on either hand mr. president you have aged a little. what happened? when you were sworn aid you look like a guy from the old spice commercial now louis gossett senior. [laughter] and never said this debate he should start smoking again. [laughter] [applause] is this we were talking about? mr. president look get your hair if it is any wider the teapartier will endorse it. [laughter] >> that is when mrs. obama got to the white house. your very skinny she doesn't let you eat it had nothing to do with your birth certificate you lost so much

weight we thought you were the guy who won the boston marathon. [laughter] >> our president is starving. north korea is sending him a. [laughter] >> but the president is always the coolest guy in the room that is what everyone says. here is my question. who else is in the room? may be guided i would be cruel and i was stuck in the room with tom boesak. [laughter] did you see the white house press secretary j. carty is your. [laughter] i haven't seen him this nervous since the president said go out and tell them the website is broken they

will understand. [laughter] and that was a moment. [laughter] mr. president you have to invent the launch of health care was a disaster it was so bad it was bad. i don't even have an analogy because the is that website to describe other bad things i was up last night like the health care or that latest movie by johnny depp. you can get health care .gov but thanks to obamacare to millions of newly insured americans can see whether

prince magazine actually looks like. [laughter] [applause] >> mr. president takes for taking time with us to be here today it is amazing to have this pnc dinner i can say that but we actually grew up together in chicago i remember we used to go down to the basketball court he would put odds and jordan's and we would miss the three-pointers but then we would have to stop and pray. >> but those are simpler times.

that we cannot solve these problems to seeing kumbaya got. -- kumbya after six years in office your gray hair is that 85 percent. [applause]

>> welcome back am the director of the democracy project this is the second panel of the day to select a vice president of vice-presidential candidate i have announced the of members of the working group on the first to land we have more here today. but we're also joined by the leading expert from duke university and yes, sir. also author of the book that has just come not to the white house byes presidency and i recommend this book to all of you there are many, many virtues of this book

history or the collection process that might be the only book that doesn't mention the famous characterization of which i will not repeat we could say it is the bucket full of warm thoughts of the vice president. [laughter] warm thoughts. so i would like to talk about the vice presidency and then a deeper history so there are to the big questions. with the role of the vice president over time is the most important time. of how that obtains. >> painting with the broad

brush and that was up to the vice president by and large beginning with the knicks and vice presidency is the executive branch to do political digs for the president bin to preside over the planet. the focus of the office with presidential succession it generally their 20s to that executive branch but that was part of the mondale administration that also

becomes part of the president and over the last four years suspect with the presidential advisor it has taken on different roles or administration is with the rule for each administration. so i want to jump into the working group members. at the end of the republican connection there were reports that the conventions are always looking in the background to approve the choice of the vice president of how that was much more of

the case but talk to me when they're not just thinking typically then we had the unusual year with the vp selection process. >> obviously they have a significant role but once it nominates of president they have then nominated and people don't know with the making of a president was taking a little sweat from

our brow from york to l.a. to file the of paperwork so with regards to the vice-presidential nominee. i know you want to talk about in general but sixers seven weeks up this is the fact that we may not have an actual nominee. and additionally what has happened sometimes before all the primaries are over that it plays that everything for example, and they want their state bomb that.

with the program ran the order of the provision. and now that persona that there may not be from the presidential campaign with two or three potential nominees so this'll be extremely interesting with a potential manager i am happy to say is not be. [laughter] >> what is the timeframe what do we think that if we don't have the typical convention? >> but the it interesting

thing that the president is dominated so is extremely interesting if we don't have a candidate by wednesday. for as long as i can remember the order that we have always used. >> you have experience with this also? with the role of the convention generally. and our recommendations is you never could have envisioned but it is obviously something you want

a feeling of unification and camaraderie. part of the way is the recognition so a couple of things happened. so what has become a roll-call. o 1/3 on tuesday 1/3 on wednesday. when it is over the top on wednesday from at that point to me 88 or 92 that they could pass by acclamation. there is a contest for the

vice president on wednesday night in the candidate is usually known in the naming of the vice-presidential contest. delead to name your vice-presidential candidate to coalesce your support and with the massive coalition? >>. >> i know one of the things is ways of thinking of the vice president of the private sector to do important jobs. day want to say something or

what type of criteria would reconsider? >> let me start off and we have had the opportunity with public service and to have a chance to be a part of this but i really truly is extraordinary. >> i am probably the only person on the panel from the vice-presidential selection process. outside the corporate board or the charitable board with executive recruitment i

think the first thing that struck me from was a need to though wonderful stories. [laughter] is how complex this was the political elements this social beatty elements of these the spot they love all of complexity more than i am aware of. the analogy is with a jet engine and then look at those 10,000 movie peace is if something goes wrong is the unfortunate impact but two things have struck me

first of all, there vb a role those who do have experience in the process particularly those who are in a hurry like they are right now. they do have experience even a the personality charts so all of these are useful with the checklist if people read a hurry in an operating room so what i would think about having somebody with that experience or a site survey of your team as a head

hunter hick a polyped get better president. [laughter] but beyond that and i reminded that added this exercise i had my granddaughter on wednesday tried to explain she said i get it sillier to play and is planning to fail. [laughter] that is what it is. >> led to talk about if the convention but it has said

then democratic as it moves into a new era and how does that change? >> the most of that convention with the vice presidential candidate or the leader who would get together that would give some geographical balance but oftentimes to a dead duck with tickets to agree on the issue but they were not be halted the golden.

but that was when fdr had a condition and to eleanor roosevelt who went to the convention and and ultimately the delegates agreed that he could not speak to the convention because there is such animosity. and the 1940's through 1972 once that nomination was resolved there would be held over then somebody would say we have to announce and that is why they would get together.

but then it changed in part by the democratic party but by the primaries end of the caucasus so least on the democratic side and then they have time to engage in this process president ford's nomination is conceding with president reagan. that is the process that began in that is secured. >> add-on thedemocratic side and in 1986 was the

election before the convention when we wonder to would be the vice-presidential nominee. and so that was announced before the convention ended became a celebration with the leader of the ticket. >> we are recommending a process to a carter did sunday that was more to have these big public announcements with those efforts.

>> so a number of people read the first presidential decision to be the first presidential division. a bid to invite three of their candidates and then a winner with the democratic convention. this is the first watergate period. in 1984 mondale tried to imitate the carter process and it got negative reviews it was embarrassing for those who were not selected so since then has done - -

been done privately but a list of those who are considered. and those who have become known wi respect to the media. and with that public access and with the mondale process >> now we will turn to the of vetting process. . .

>> campaign duties. i never saw the personal reports from the candidates. the structure of the process is step number one, you need to see what the universe says. you need to come up with a very broad list of people to consider who might be compatible candidates. the second step is to do a public records research on them with the advent of social media, that becomes much more voluminous that it may have been. you need to be sure the statements from the different candidates are compatible with who you are candidate is. then the results of that can be presented to the candidate for the narrowing of the list to a

manageable member which historically has been five, but some campaigns will go a little more or a little less. then comes apart they'll be particularly challenging for the republican candidates to do this time. which is the personal that. truly intrusive a document designed document designed to get at any possible weakness that you can. and your vice president, just to prepare for the inevitability that might come that folks on the first panel discussed. after there is a thorough review of that personal information, financial, personal, kind of everything you can think of, then the candidate himself or herself has to make the decision on who that person would be. somewhere in there there is a one-on-one conversation with

someone representing the campaign and the potential vice presidential candidates that includes, well well is there anything else we should know conversation. then you have to decide. >> may be there is an army of lawyers, right? those are looking at the details, they're details, they're not necessarily the campaign people who are brought in and we have recommendations that it cannot be just anyone, they definitely need to be people of the tax expertise or medical records, different aspects of people backgrounds that you're going to need specialist and. >> yes. there are specialist intact because you in tax because you have to look at their financial records. there might be medical records so there will be people trained in analyzing medical problems. if the person is a lawyer you need to that all of the cases

that candidate has been involved in. if there business and some other business with a record and a trail you need specialist to be able to go back and review that. if it's a senator or congressman, then there are a series of votes in congress that may not be discernible to your average person until a person gets a hold of it, like matt rose. and so that is when you need people who can understand the legislative process as well. >> explain more, when it was mentioned on the earlier panel that in some ways it's an easier thing to bring someone who has run for president in that cycle or another cycle before they have put their selves out there, say why that might be helpful. that still doesn't exempt this person for going through this very detail process. people are better by the public and things are out there.

the presidential candidate is not getting the same scrutiny as the vice presidential candidate, fair enough? >> fair enough. stuff can happen in four years. you're running with a running with a different candidates of the compatibility issues become very important on policy positions and maybe the country clubs they belong to. there is a range of both personal and professional things that come under a different glare in spotlight. maria, one part of the question i did not ask your get you on the convention was that in a normal situation you are looking ahead, how much of a consideration is it for the candidate to think can i get an unorthodox candidate through the convention. if i pick pick someone who is not a typical republican were typical democrat, the what's gonna be there for me. you're someone who might be in the position to assess that for candidates. how often does that happen how

often are they thinking about looking ahead to that convention and making sure their choices going to be acceptable broadly to the party? >> with regards to the convention, if you have a presumptive nominee, there is not a lot of product thought process gone inches if that's the nominee, it is a rather simple process to get through the convention with whoever the nominee pics. at least in my memory i do not recall it really ever been a question, we talk about sarah palin and let me just echo what charlie had said, nobody knew that was coming, that was one of the best-kept secrets, is clearly for several days because one question everyone asked was who is sarah palin. she was a governor but not known, certainly had not taken any outright stance. i will just say there was a lot of surprise but people were generally excited. the speech she gave on the floor on that wednesday night was

incredible. i happen to be in one of the boxes as the convention manager you walk around waiting for something to go around. we are very nervous the whole time because he just wanted to be over which is the set part about it. i stood in a box and listen to her, you you can hear a pin drop. there was not any noise. there is an example, but she was elected official she certainly had no notoriety whatsoever. certainly has charlie alluded to, a little out of control, he alluded to one particular interview that sidley made tina fey famous. but they will accept whoever the nominee in my past history. >> do you want to say something more about the party role versus the candidate, obviously in the

deep dark or past there is a strong party role in the nominee was secondary and picking the nominee. but how that has evolved and how does that still exist today. >> it used to be the party leaders really, typically the presidential nominee in the 19th century and early part of the 20th century wasn't even at the convention. >> it really was the party bosses that then existed who would get together, sometimes it was a question of someone making a deal, we need indiana's votes, we'll give me indiana's votes if you put thomas marshall on the ticket down the line if you get the nomination. that sort of arrangement. after 1940 after the presidential candidate billy started taking the major role,

for a period of time there's to be meetings at the convention with the leading party official. the candidate would meet with people and so it was a democratic process in the sense that there is some consultation and deliberation and so forth. although ultimately it was the candidates decision, i think as it has moved away from the convention, beginning in 1976, it has been a process that has been focused much more on the presidential candidate and the people around the presidential candidate. they still consult with the party leaders, they still go to capitol hill and talk to the figures, they talk to governors and solicit input. ultimately the circle of people in the room when the decision is made tends to be the presidential candidate and a few people who are close to them. >> i'm going to get our questions ready and then we will turn to the audience.

we have referred to in terms of the convention that we might have a different kind of year especially on the republican side. we have made recommendations that all of the candidates should start now or start doing things now, it takes time, you you cannot wait until the last minute and is helpful to really take the time to do good process. that being said, there might be some amendments to that as to how much they can get going, can some of you discuss is probably going to be maria and ben because it's on the republican side, what are the considerations out there for candidates given we do not have a normal situation, how can they get going with the process so they're not left with a very asked minute process at the end. what can we tell them to get the most out of our recommendations even though it is not a normal year? >> save the tough one for last year.

>> well in the five-step process you can do the first three steps. you you can get the big list, you can to the public records research. you can can narrow it down internally in the campaign to the five or so people who are on your shortlist. i think it is really challenging for a candidate now if it is not known that that person is the nominee to be asking for the personal information from somebody who may be being looked at the other campaigns as well and who in at least a couple of of cases could be rivals down the road for something. that part of the process which is actually the most difficult part of the process is one that may be some unique solutions to. i have not heard them yet. >> i do not have a whole letter to add. another unique situation we are in is if several of the nominees

, especially those that may have actual delegates, there may be deals forged and announcements made ahead of time. how far ahead, ahead, i don't know. it still remains to be seen i look at that is something i have not experienced before and it could be very interesting. whether it matters or not, i am not sure. several nominees or potential nominees come with delegates. >> so i will have the last word on this in terms of history. we've had a lot of contested conventions a lot of them are far back. perhaps the most contested convention of the 1924 democratic convention there is a hundred 13 ballots. i used to teach at kenyon college and i live temporarily with a 98-year-old physics

professor and he rented me a room. he would tell me how he listened that on the radio. it was the first one on the radio and it went on for a long time and is great political entertainment. i do not remember it. what happened in these contested conventions and then the president, anything we can learn particularly from history or thinking about it today, what are considerations if we are not going to pick the nominee in advance, what is the vice presidential selection going to look like? >> i think we are in uncharted waters because the whole process is so different now. now you have a long period of presidential selection process in a very public process that did not exist, you have people you have a media world now that did not exist back then. one of the important aspects of the preconvention process that is developed is that it gives

people time to recalibrate their ambitions. and to look at the political reality and accept the fact that someone is the nominee and now am i interested in being vice president or not. this time, if you go to convention your compressing a tall into a few hours where all of this takes place. it really is uncharted waters. i do not think they are any good precedents that i can recall right now. >> so let's turn to the audience. we will have a microphone and please identify yourself with a question. we will go in the middle back, coming this direction. >> hi, susan milligan milligan from u.s. news and report, we've been talking about how the vice presidential could influence the borders, i'm wondering in the case of the republican

convention it could influence the choice of the presidential nominee. so i've trump trump says i'm going to pick, row sour paul ryan, neither of which is going to happen, will people look on the second ballot at the package, will the vice president to pick become more important than the presidential candidate? >> have not really talked about the possibility that someone will pick in advance before they are necessarily the nominee and that could happen well before the convention, at the the convention, there has been some historical examples. so take that how you would like. >> from the comfort of not being with any of the current campaign, i not sure on the second ballot that you necessarily would know who the vice presidential choice of the candidate was. i do think that campaigns face an interesting post strategic and tactical choice on whether you name for your vice presidential nominee is going to

be well in advance or you wait to the convention just in case there is a second ballot and you do need to bring over delegates. or is it it at the start of that second ballot that you decide the way you get the majority of votes is about to who your vice presidential candidate is. so, if it actually goes to the contested convention with multiple ballots come i don't think it's at all clear what happens. >> one model is the 1976 when governor reagan announced about three weeks for the convention that his running mate would be richard schweiger who was one of the most liberal republican in the senate. it was a time when governor reagan was out of moves to make to secure the nomination. he was hopeful this would swing some support in the pennsylvania

delegation, but the other thing he tried to do was to amend the rules, it was rule 16c at the republican party and to require that every presidential candidate, i.e. president ford indicate who his nominee would be for vice president in advance of the presidential ballot. that was a strategy to try to smoke out presidents ford choice and the thought that if he named one person he would alienate the other ten people who hope to be his running mate. so one risk of designating one person is you may adversely affect your chances with the delegates who would hope that you would someone else. >> given these different options on the rollout i was wondering if there's any suggested in a special episode of the apprentice. [laughter]

>> we would say that's what were going through right now. >> okay will go in the middle. >> linda cooper. i had a question that occurred to me in this discussion, were talking about bedding of the vice president, could you comment on the personality of the situation we have now with the presidential candidates and how that affects the vetting process for the presidency? >> did you have any candidate in mind? >> said same thing as the personal compatibility between the nominee and the vice president that is really important, no matter which one of the five candidates you want to look at, they will all want somebody who they feel comfortable with and they think represents their views, so so no

matter where those candidates fall on a personality scale in your mind, there's still going to want someone who's compatible. >> i'll get both of you. >> i understand that nixon chose egnew because he delivered the votes for maryland, is that correct? i was just wondering if most of the candidates would try to keep their options open and if they were down to a point where they needed a limited number of votes to put them over the top they might be willing to choose almost anyone who is necessary to do it regardless if they had vetted them much or not.

if they wanted to so what up. >> i think nixon chose agnew not because he had turned over votes for him, but i think he viewed him as the person who is most acceptable particularly to the southern delegates, strong thurman had been crucial of getting the nomination and in effect i think nixon was looking for someone who is perceived as a centrist. he was was vetoing people on the right like governor reagan and he viewed governor agnew as being more of a centrist who would be broadly acceptable. he started out the year at the rockefeller republican and became alienated with rockefeller and so forth. >> maybe i can get you to repeat. you don't mention the famous

instance, but you do refer to her next and referred to agnew to denigrate the office and at least to say that he was his insurance policy. >> i think nixon grew pretty quickly to test agnew. i think he started out impressed with him and then over time he would complain that agnew wants to have these meetings with me and that is not the way it works. the president doesn't me with the vice president and that's not part of the job. and he should go out there and give the speeches. when they were reelected in 1972 agnew saw himself as and he was the leader in the polls for 1976, he saw himself as being a serious presidential candidate and nixon would not give him anything to do. finally he said to him why don't

you be the chair of the commission to plan the bicentennial celebration. agnew didn't think that was really what he had in mind. of course he was forced out of office soon after that. the transformation from what the office that we have now between 1973 when three when agnew was marginalized that and 77 when walter mondale could walk into the oval office anytime he wanted, it was really remarkable. >> not knowing where forecasting what the situation was going to be, i think it's interesting that were thinking ahead to the general election. the reality is maybe on the republican side, the general election will come second and it really will try to get the nomination and the delegates

which would perhaps put the candidates in a situation where who they might be looking at for vice president would maybe be different situation calculation then who that person would be in a general election for votes anyway. >> good morning my name is justin, have a question for the panel specifically putting on their political lens and looking at if there were to be advising both of the candidates on both sides in their selection of their vice president currently. i'm i'm looking at a really more of how it might be looking at certain states they might be stedinteren winning. there is a question earlier regarding women, how would you if you were advising both of the candidates on some things to keep in mind and some things they might be looking out for in selecting that. i know some some private sector experience would be interesting to hear about.

>> you can get a specific or general as you want. >> i think what has already been talked about which is that if you're going to be a serious presidential candidate and want to win, what you need to project is that you're going to be a good president. i think there are people out there who, on both sides would send the message that i'm really serious about being president. on the the democratic side, i think there are several folks that could do that and transcend i have been struck in the past few elections that the president did not pick joe biden. but i think he did something quite constructive and quite useful in terms of governance for doing that.

i hope if she is the nominee that secretary clinton would do the same, i think of the republican side there are those people. speemac's rather than having to go to names you can react to a few things that we've talked about i know there's more to say. the group was unanimous in saying the person has to be able to be a president. has to to be someone who can step into the role. and of course those are political considerations. some pitfalls in the past have been candidates who think they are behind and have to throw the long ball and do anything to shake up the race, or perhaps political of both states but another out there that might be something experience candidates, very experienced ones think maybe they can take in an experience vice president. well if that person has the experience to be young and they're great, that's great but

if you're just looking at you, that's not going for someone who can step into the role. there are pitfalls out there i think for all of the candidates in the situation and they are slightly different. >> let me jump out and be specific, i probably shouldn't but no one is listening to me except you anyhow. i think senator tim kane of virginia would be an outstanding vice presidential pick. is the only person who has been mayor, he has been a governor, he's no senator. i i think he's a very serious person. think is chairman of the democratic national committee and has been able to look at people. i think you'd be a sensational pic of secretary clinton was interested. >> i think you really want to look for somebody first and foremost who is presidential, who really is of the stature

that people could perceive him or her sitting in the oval office. you need someone presidential not simply because of succession but even more right now you need them because if you do not have a vice president who can do this sort of thing that that last six vice presidents have done, you are are giving up a huge governing asset. the focus on governance and choosing a running mate also has political significance. you are sending a message about how you make decisions, what you value, what kind of decion maker you are. i think the other thing that is important to look to is also are they vice presidential. anita dunn made the point in the first panel about how difficult it is for someone who has been talking and expressing their own views to step into a roll of

subordinate. if you imagine someone like joe biden who is senator for 36 years with his own boss, chairman of two major committees and now all of a sudden he is the number two person and he has to adjust to that role. the vice president has to be able to be a leader but also be able to follow and to be comfortable in that role. i think think it's an extremely difficult position both as a vice president candidate and also as a vice president. >> i think we have time for one last question. >> thank you i'm from the australian embassy. i'm trying to put myself in the shoes of people who might be asked or be on the shortlist for vice president looking at what could well be presidential campaign. in the history of campaigns what

is been the fate of vice presidential candidates and campaigns which look like they're losing early on, as as a been a good career move her back career move. >> it's a good question because there is discussion about 1972 earlier, two earlier, one of the problems george mcgovern had was he asked a number of people to be his running mate and they all turned him down, money were close friends he served within the senate. for a variety of reasons they did not want to be on the ticket. so if you think about vice presidents and candidates have done pretty well in their later careers, representative ryan is now speaker of the house, edwin muskie lost and 68, he became secretary of state. so you have able people who have

opportunities. but the calculation of how likely the ticket is to be successful and how you feel about working with the person at the top of the ticket, it is very much a personal relationship. the last six vice presidents have been able to achieve a very good personal relationships, but if the person personal relationship go south early on it is not going to be very fun for years for either principle. so the people have to really work at it as well. i think you need to take that and decide if you want to put your name forward. >> with that, we will wrap up today. we want to thank the members of our working group, selecting a vice president for candidate, it really candidate,

it really is advice for the candidates out there now as well as information for the media who is covering it. we think the group, we think you and the audience a close the session here. [applause]. >> tonight on c-span two, legal analyst discuss sexual assault on college campuses. a look at illegal immigration and the economics of immigration reform. then from today's "washington journal", congressman tim murphy a mental health care. congressman ted flew on encryption and privacy of cell phones. >> now, discussion about title ix and sexual assault on college campuses. focusing on the competing interests of the victims, the accused, the role of college administrations the university of miami law school hosted t