we also beat back the theory of is way they had the policy to do what they did and if that had been accepted basically the federal government would have no limits. we also want to extend the court did not give them what they asked for. the same thing happened with the obamacare challenge which i talk about near the end of the book and all that went to that challenge. i was grateful in thatue case. the first case was so enormous that i was one of the lawyers for the nfip in that case we won on the law. we have five votes that i'm individual insurance mandate was unconstitutional. if you lost the case they rejected your version of the law but we won on the laundry had 50 -- votes that we lost the fifth vote because chief justice roberts said if there was a perfect mandate it would be unconstitutional but i can

reasonably construed to be it's not a regulation of commerce and that's how we ended up. and the way our victory there was greater for number when we got five votes with the idea to purchase mandates are on contest in the great purchase mandates are unconstitutional because of that case. congress can do other things but they can't do that anymore. that was a pretty big victory and that's what i was fighting for. the other thing is we got the court to reject thee governments argument adopted by 99% of all law professors that gave them the national power and the court definitively rejected that and reaffirmed we are a government of limited power. that was anotherig big victory that came out that case. unfortunately we lost the obamacare piece of it. i'll take the constitutional piece if i can get it over the policy piece.

>> what is your day job? >> my day job? i'm a law professor. they teach law and i teach at georgetown. i have great students there. i teach constitutional law and i teach a seminar on the constitution and its it's like the book to give seminars. i invite five authors to talk about the books with my students. it's a wonderful course so that's what i do and even though i could retire if i wanted to i don't impart because i have a personal trainer. i exercise every day and that the fitness regime. teaching is a fitness regime for yourur mind. standing in front ofth bright students and being challenged by them takes me fit and i'm hoping it will intimate productive years. how often do serve as an outside counsel? >> hardly ever.

i don't think of myself as a constitutional litigator. i'm an academic first and foremost in my write books for this is my 12th book in the next one will be a sequel where i discuss my time as a criminale prosecutor. the book after that is going to be a reconsideration of liberalism. it was based on the afterward of this book in which i ask what snacks for libertarianism and i try to address that at the end of the book. these are pieces of work for me. what i wouldke like to do is mae it the of my book writing. my first book was about libertarianism. it was called the structure of liberty published by oxford in 1998. that was my first book and possibly my last book will be

libertarianism revisited and it's not an abandonment of libertarianism but how these principals can be rethought and re-litigated. it's been somewhat frozen for 50 years. >> how would you like to see an update? >> libertarianism has a theory based on natural rights. i believe in natural rights that it's necessary to bring in natural love the idea of human forcing what it takes to beat a human nba human society with others. thatcher right should be -- i have foror the things that shoud be thought about what i describe in the piece that you can read on law and liberty. >> randy barnett as a law professor professor and the libertarian how do you answer the question why should we rely 12, 20 old dead guys who wrote

the constitution 250 years ago? >> great question and i've heard it before. i would just say this the constitution is not the original constitution. the constitution we have today and the constitution we have the date was amended 27 times. to be an originalist means you want to see the original constitution enforced whenever it was added to the constitutions of the original meaning dates back to 1868 by last book was called the original meeting of the 14th amendment published by harvard university press. that was all about what that meant. we don't need and maybe we spend too much time talking about the founders and we should talk more about their republicans gave us the newly formed republican party who gave us the 13th of 14th and 15th amendment. having said all that i do think

the people that wrote the constitution were extremely smart and knowledgeable and well-educated about political theory. that's the reason they actually devised a system of government that was to some degree remains unique in its uniquely good but only if it follows in part of the problem have their governmenter are at their important chunks of the constitution which i call the law of the constitution that have been ignored. we would be a better society we would function better if we could bring back all the parts of the constitutions and activate the o mall and that's w i miss originalist to revise the constitution nolcutt. sprint does the build breaks stand in your mind? >> the bill of rights is important. it was something the federalist did not necessarily want to add and was put into the constitution because of the

anti-federalists but the federaliststh who wrote that the anti-federalist had a bunch of amendments that would limit the federal government the federalist said that so we need so how can we satisfy the concerns of the anti-federalist ands, remember the time they wee writing as they were two states he didn't join the union and north carolina had not jointed rhode island had not joined so when they metet to consider what were they were doing they only had 11 states. what james madison said was these people don't trust us. we promise them would give them the bill of rights to ratify the constitution so we honored it was not to pullback our powers to protect the individual rights that people have. that's the reason why the bill of rights we have focused on individual rights because they could know of by the critics by giving them the bill of rights without leaving the structures

of government and that's the reason and if edwards were satisfied with the amendment he cuts we are to have our individual rights but it turns out over time the anti-federalists were right. as government powers have expanded beyond the original meanings of the constitution we have become more and more dependent d on the right includg the bill of rights that we can thank the anti-federalists for portionsli of that. >> what you like like to be a libertarian at georgetown university? >> it'ss wonderful. it's great. my colleaguesy are great my colleagues treat me with respect and people think if you are a political minority and education were an undergraduate you must be. if you are nicef to them they will be nice to you back and i haven't had any unpleasantness. weem have our differences about internal matters. politically i leave them alone and they leavee me alone in my

job there is to focus on my students and notag on my colleagues. my job is to be a resource for them and be a voice for them if they get into trouble -- i get nothing but appreciation for my colleagues. >> you write in "a life for liberty" when antonin scalia died he went out and got. >> i met antonin scalia but i was a research fellow at the university of chicago and before he became a law professor i sat inra on his contract class. that's when i first got to know them and i got to know him when i went to georgetown. i had not realized until the day he died how fond i had become of him. on a personal level. it just sort of snuck up on me. i knew him and liked him. he talked about his most recent book in the day he died michael

walker called to tell mel the news. i wasas obviously affected by it in ways that i had not comprehended and i got a call from cbs news to do the nightly news to talk about his legacy. i said sure. they would send a card to take me to the studio and i'm showering to get ready to go on the air and i realized i can't do it. i'm just too emotional. i can't go on tv now and talk about him. it c is candice i call them back and i said i'm really sorry but i just can't do this to my wife isis out-of-town. i walked to a bar in connecticut avenue and i proceeded to have a series of margaritas and i just got sloshed in commemoration of antonin scalia. i think he would have approved. >> on a macro level what your take on the's current supreme court? >> we have the most conservative supreme court without a doubt

extend service on the court and that's unprecedented in my lifetime but why was a a law school taking constitutional i got turned off. i gave up on the constitution at the end of the course because every time i got through part of the constitution i turn the page of the casebook and i would say that doesn'thi mean anything and that's the lost constitution so by the time at the end of the course i had given up on constitutional law generally. if you would have told me then, that was 1975 and if you are told me then that 49 your slater we would have the court that we now have writing the opinions that they now write i would have asked what kind of weed you were smoking.ve i never could have conceived it but but this is the book that ts the story about a first-person

account about how we got to where we are today. where we are today is we have five conservative justices who identify as originalist and now they are trying to navigate what they thinknk that means. they disappoint a me a lot and they disagree with each other live about in their key opinions thatat they reached like the trp presents a mini-case which is not originalist at all. what do think it's a good or bad outcome if they would have kept with the original meaning of the constitution or a concurring opinion. they don't always do it and sometimes they will use professional docking to reach results but there's a danger in doing that because it involves what you might call off the books where you are showing your work and that my dependent on armchair originalist. it's but it's better if you

aren't using conservative, originalistt results even if you aren't using originalist briefings. they do still use original list briefings. the case that had to do with the meaning of appropriations and the constitution was strictly originalist written by justice thomas.ut they are perfect and they are trying to work it out amongst themselves. disappointing sometimes but have we come a long way. as a result which your take on the chevron case? >> in the book before last i were public and constitution but i argued the chevron should be reverse. thats was 2016 and eight years later it's been reverse. i think that's a a good thing in the meaning of the law that congress is something that is for the judge is to interpret not for the agencies who are supposed to be bound by the law. he shouldn't have the people who are supposed to be bound by the

law be the ones that are interpreting the scope of their own power under the law. it should be deciding that would challenge properly by an individual. you should have a neutral tribunal to decide what the meaning of the lot and a to the person down by it which is the administrative agency. this is not the end of the world because one of the things the court had not rejected his idea that courts will defer to agency expertise about what agencies are concerned about. the courts will defer to their expertise when they are acting within their competence in their subject member confidence. that's what courts are expert in so courts should decide how to interpret the law and administrative agencies will be

left plenty of discretion to decide what they are expert in which is the matter of their governance. thanks if somebody picked up your f current book "a life for liberty" the making of an american originalist what will they learn? >> the first thing is they will see pictures which some people want to say to their pictures throughout the text and with a nice insert. their a lot of things i learned about myself and about writing memoirs. the first thing i think is they think about the first thing to learn is how can you live a life that makes a difference while remaining true to your principals and still be happy and not drive yourself? this is an example of how somebody is a 10-year-old kid who started off with a passion for liberty and by 12 eels -- 12 years old arguing for barry goldwater in his class and make

a difference not by running for office which is the idea had when i was young. being an academic and some respects by beingin a lawyer or criminalmi prosecutor and how yu can live or rewarding life. one ofak the takeaways that i would buy is if everybody whether they buy the book or not i think you would love a happier life if you lived your life as though you're going to write a memoir about it. i didn't tell the truth about all the stuff including the mistakes i made. there were lot of mistakes i made that you want to live -- you won't to make. i think you lived better life. would i be proud or shamed of what i'm about to do and never s book?put in the there's one last less thing i think a get out out of it and that's the importance of -- and cultivating them.

am the man i am because of other starting with my father moving to my gradeschool music instructor mai high school debate coach and philosophy professorseg in college that had an influence on me and mentors who helped shape me. this book is a thank you to them. thean other piece of advice i ge people is thank your mentors while you still can because at some point you won't feel the thank the many more. i was able to think most of them while they were still alive but i didn't get the o, mall. a life can be well lived and make a difference anden still ba joyous one. >> randy barnett "a life for liberty" thanks for joining us on booktv. >> thanks for having me. always a pleasure.

we want to introduce you to matt ridley the copy of this book "viral" the search for the origin of covid-19. what do you do for a living? >> i'm retired from most things. i've write looks and i was a journalist. these days i see myself as a writer. do you have a scientific background? >> i do. i've a ph.d. in biology and research. i've spend a lotbe of time beina scientist so i was in the economist and the columnist for "the wall street journal." >> who was your co-op there? >> she is ama fascinating womana young brilliantt researcher a

canadian by birth by. chinese by ancestry and she was doing interesting work on the source of the concept the origin of covid. i reached out to her and ended up proposing to her when we wrote about because we are convinced that it was wrong to rule out the source. nor could they rule it in. we began to collaborate on this book. the wrote a book without media. >> welcome to the 21st century. >> it was published in the u.s. in 2021. obviously we paint loss of ideas back and forth across the atlantic and it was a wonderful

experience. i've never cowritten a book with anyone. she's a very good writer and she didn't need me for the verbal skills. but i think we were good for each other and challenging each other. i enjoyed thepe experience. >> it's 2024 and does it matter where it came from? >> it matters. 28 million peoplee are dead trillions of dollars have been and if we don't find out how it happens there are three reasons why that matters when because we owe it to the people who died. the family of the victim of a plane crash itit matters. we need to learn lessons and make sure it doesn't happen again. went to think about her safety. we are not doing either of those things.

the third reason rogue states and bad actors in the sphere are taking notice of this and thinking we need to. we can do a heck of a lot more damage than we can with explosives and the world health organization was the bin investigated.. i worry. just this week before a congressional committee and expert at m.i.t. ordered the ingredients from 1918 influenza virus under the pseudonym. if he can do is soak it all qaeda. do you see what i mean?

>> did you conclude the covid 19 virus was a bio weapon we don't consider it it's if a biological weapon. i don't think it is. inc. her book we think it's a -- since the book came out the evidence has been much stronger. the question is what were they doing most dangerous experiment. for? they had very little upside. the theory was the reason they were doing it which is believable as to and prevent the next' pandemic. while that one out well, didn't it? >> you do t believe it? >> i believe that's what they were trying to do. but inhe the process they got

carried away with the technologies they were excited about doing andde the idea competitively doing it. they it looksnd like again we can't be sure because the chinese will not collaborate but it looks like they put together a virus soup it up a little bit with the unique ingredient and there was military involvement and they do have a bio weapon in china. but i think it's mostly defensive in other words the reason we are studying it we are ready for enemies release on. you can see up comes the reason for doing dangerous things which

didn't intend to be and could be more dangerous. >> in reading "viral" reminded me of the search for the hiv virus and he came to the conclusion that it was in camera in the jungle of camera in the 1920s that started hiv. is that a fair comparison? >> there's no doubt hiv came from a not from but how i got into the human race we don't know. there is a theory it might have happened through contamination of an earlier vaccine trial which did involve deceased in the late 1950s in the congo put investigative dad and i thought it was probably wrong but it's not completely rolled out. either way both are from

wildlife so hiv is a virus that was more dangerous than not and that virus is dangerous but it has been souped-up. >> thema wet markets why has ths not happened more frequently given the ubiquity of these viruses? >> that's a really good question. there are markets all over southeast asia all the time. further north in most of the markets and southern china you find most of these markets in vietnam. that's where you'd expect the market effort to happen. people pose the danger these markets and we had a very good example ofpl the virus coming up at one of these people affecting people. that was in 2002. by the way that virus leaked at

least for time once it was eradicated. it does you both sides of that story. buying in eating live mammals is a risk but on the whole it happened with mars in a middle eastern virus and things like spillover viruses from wildlife but on the whole they start out as not very infectious. they aren't very good at infecting people. it takes if you months to adjust their genes to work out how to transmit from person to person. you can catch them from other animals and catch them from other people and so on. this one was different. it was highly infectious between people from the get-go.

it was highly transmittable and the thing about this is they looked hard for an infected animal in the market. they found a similar virus in bangladesh and nothing. from the 98 to 99% genetics from a similar prices is what you would expect to find. they never, found one. that's what the chinese themselves decided it was not started there. the animal that brought the virus to the market their conclusion -- so >> was the difference between a spillover in a lab late? >> a spillover is when something natural happens. you eat to an animal and get

infected or you get bitten by an animal or something like that and a lab leak is when scientists take a virus do experiments on it in one of the scientist gets infected in the lab. >> matt ridley how is the covid 19 virus mutated over the time we have known about it and by the way did it exist prior to us knowing about it? >> has for his begin tell it dio not exist in a form that it is but what we do know is there some 96 advanced a similar viruses. the bulk of the viruses the thing about this virus something happened to it between us to change its genes by two or 3%. that's enough to make it highly

adaptive. we don't know where that happened in that place a new looks increasingly like it was the exactly the right expert at exactly the right time. the nine closest relatives to sars to in the world before the pandemic rogue out were in the institute of virology. that probably tells you something. obviously viruses evolve over time and we have been able to watch in real time during the pandemic evolution happening. they mutate a lot specifically the coronaviruses. they have rna genesth and dna tt are more stable. they can't correct themselves so there were lot of mistakes made

ho