over the long run a state is going to turn down that type of money permanently from the federal government. governors change, political parties shift. it's easy to say before you get any of the money that we are not going to want it. it's hard to see five, six years down the road, ten years down the road that a single state or two is going to say you know what, you other 48 take our money. it's hard to see that. >> what i wonder more is whether a lot of people will decide to opt out of the insurance purchase and pay the tax penalty? you can save yourself thousands of dollars a year by making that choice. if i get sick, i can buy insurance when i need it. why not save all that money and use it to have a better life in the meantime. >> people might make that choice. now we know the law completely

allows it to happen and there are no criminal penalties for it. what do you have at the end of the time. if you put that money into a health insurance policy, at least you have that. if you then pay the tax, you are giving it up. it will be interesting. i think it's a valid question about what will people do now that they have that choice? >> if i were healthy and 30 years old and i could have an extra $2300 in my pocket to go to the movies, take a vacation, buy an engagement ring for somebody, maybe i would rather have that knowing if i get sick next year, i can have insurance. >> i'm not 30, i have insurance. question? >> thank you. in my mind, there's an inconsistency of justice scalia not looking at history. it seems to me you can do one or the other.

i think if he would look at what somebody from south carolina thought about the constitution in the 1700s would be different than what somebody in new york thought object the constitution in the 1700s. can anybody reconcile that inconsistency? >> we happen to have a scalia expert here. >> i'll defer to joan. >> two points. on the originalism, he feels like he goes back to the real deal. he goes to the framers and what they said and wrote in the context of that era. his beef on legislative history is it's not as context yule as the 18th century era because it's not what was passed into law. he says all the speeches you gif on the floor, the committee reports, the artifacts of ledge sl slaytive history, they are not what gets signed into law. he's going to look at the bill.

that's his argument on that. it seems inconsistent to plenty of people for plenty of reasons. the majority of the court has a high regard for history. >> two things are reconcilable. he doesn't want to know what was in the minds of contemporary legislatures when they passed the laws. he wants to know what the words meant. he doesn't care the intention of the framers, he wants the public understanding at the time. i think it's not very different from reading the text of the statute. >> next. >> i have a question about the affirmative action case that's coming up and just want to hear more about it. i heard potentially the decision justice roberts position, he was lining himself up to strike down affirmative action. if you have thoughts about which way justice's might go or which

way they might be swayed, i'm curious to the insights you have. >> justice roberts made it clear he has little use for affirmative action type programs. you'll remember he wrote the decision in the seattle cases in which race was used as a way to sort of balance out school populations and he was quite critical of that and was only held back from saying the schools could not use race at all by justice kennedy who wasn't ready to go that far. he came up with a different test. it can be used in this situation but not that situation. so, you know, it seems pretty clear there are at least four very strong votes and then justice kennedy. >> so, we have had four new justices join the court.

almost none of those matter in terms of vote switches. they were one for one, conservative for liberal. the one that matters is aledo for connor. aledo has taken that place. that means that same group of five tilts the other way. there's reason to think the affirmative action regime that we are used to may go down. >> this is the 50th anniversary of a case. i happen to work as justice warren's law clerk on that opinion. one of the thing that is struck me recently in looking at cases regarding representation was the opinion of justice scalia that fairness is not traditionally usual basis for upholding or

drafting legislation much less drafting it as a justice. i think the justice warren is turning in his grave at that notion since he thought that fairness was indeed the test stone of all appropriate judicial thinking. i wonder what thoughts you have about, first of all, baker versus karr, did it achieve anything. warren wrote it was the most important decision of his tenure. i wonder if it has been lost in effectiveness because of the view that there is a standard by which appropriate legislative districts can be formed. the other aspect is it seems that brown versus board, which is what he is known for has also

been sort of put in the trash can. there was a recent new york times article that said racial segregation in public schools in america is greater than it was in 1954 if you look at the nation as a whole and particular irving schools. >> it's very hard to measure. i would think since then, if you were studying that, the legislatures all around the country are more fairly reflect the people of the state. reflect the cities. they are not dominated by rural interests the way they were before. my guess is that baker versus car had a broad impact around the country. it says the districts should represent the people. if the people live in the cities, there should be more representatives in the city and suburbs, not people representing the state legislature.

represents people in the rural district. i think it had a big impact. >> we have time for a couple more, i think. line up. >> hi. we didn't see any specific fallout from the narrower clause. are there any cases on the horizon where the courts will be able to put that into action and if so, where do you think they'll come out? >> it's a good question for one of my colleagues here. my sense is that the commerce clause holding, if it is holding, there's a lot of controversy about whether the five votes on the commerce clause amount to a holding have

teeth. the decision itself said the mandate was novel. that would make you think all existing laws are insulated from challenge under this theory. you would also think that those same congress are going to use the vehicle of this mandate to be the sole justification for any law in the future. so it may be that this great ruling applies to a null set. >> i think that that might be right, too. the solicitor general sort of, the court very much wanted them to give limited principle. the only thing he came up with is health care is different from everything else and health insurance is different from anything. there's no other law like this. they weren't particularly satisfied with his answer, but it's the government's view.

there's nothing else like this out there. >> on the spending clause side, i bet there's going to be a ton of litigation about what new conditions are okay. that had seven votes behind it. it opens up a new field of constitutional law. >> interesting that the criticism i have seen so far comes from the conservative side on that. or the celebration, rather. i would think that there would be a lot of optimism on the liberal side as well. the federal government twisted the arms of states to do what the aclu doesn't like, raising the drinking age to 21, the speed limit 55. having a megans list that's just as overbroad, all incompassing as the government wants it to be. there are a lot of things they twist the state's arms to do. some of which liberals like and

some of which conservatives like. >> two justices joined that holding. i thought it was a matter of how the law was supposed to work. i thought the note was in the spending clause, we are going to give you this amount of money for something. if you take the money, you have to follow the rules. you don't have to take the money. i thought, in a way, roberts was restating the basic principle. it has to be a deal that the states can say no to. if they take the money. but, the thing that came up in the oral argument, you had this hypothetical by holding the gun to you. he said you don't have to pull the trigger, just holding the gun is the threat. if arkansas, for example, would say we are reluctant to do this medicaid expansion, take an extra $50 million, it seemed to be the way the law was written. they could say okay, arkansas,

you are going to lose $400 million if you don't go along with it. it doesn't seem fair. it seems they restored the principle, there has to be a deal, that the state gets to choose to opt in, take the money or turn it down. >> i'm curious about the keyable case that the supreme court heard in february, i think it was, which went from just whether corporations can be held liable or whether human rights violations that occur can be adjudicated in the united states. i'm curious what your opinion was on where that decision will go. >> just to give you a touch more background, there's a 1789 law, very ambiguous but there are lawsuits for human rights abuses. some courts said for foreigners

abroad against other foreigners. the case gets to the court on a narrower case. can you sue a corporation for being complicit in human rights abuses abroad? when the case was argued, some of the justices said wait a second, why are we talking corporations. what the hell is a u.s. court doing with this? they set the case down for reargument. making the case bigger and asking that larger question of whether the statute should have another period. where is it heading? at least some people are able to answer the larger question, that answer may well be no. no application. >> my question is about the improper reporting or incorrect

reporting that was done early on in the health care case. i guess law students learned early on you have to read the whole decision before you kind of decide what the case is about. of course, lawyers know that well. i'm wondering within the press corps, are there going to be new rules or standard that is are adopted by a media organization to try to prevent what happened from happening again? >> i'm going to quick do a stand-up report on the court steps. >> i'm sure the institutions where it happened, it didn't happen at any of ours, there's been a lot of talk about going forward and how to make sure it doesn't happen again. >> i have taught the occasional law school. >> all of us who are journalists are trained to know what we are talking about before we talk, to

know what we are writing about before we write. in defense of some of my colleagues, this was a very difficult complex decision to be able to read in a couple of minutes and digest. honestly, if you were sitting in a courtroom, you had to wait a long time to figure out what happened. those of us who were downstairs, we were able to flip through the decision fast and find the keywords. if you didn't read the entire section, it's easy to see how that mistake could be made when you are trying to do it all within a minute. >> i would give a shoutout to our colleague pete williams who when i asked him how he was going to handle it, was he going to be out there and run the opinion out to him or tell him? he said absolutely not. i'm going to read it on the way out to the stand and then say what it said. that worked well for him.

he's a very smart and careful guy. >> you know what he said the hardest part was? not reading the opinion. >> it was crazy. >> if pete williams is terrific we all agree. there are not many tv networks, they all had a person who was a full time reporter at the court. they don't anymore. so, people was in the best position to report this because he knows the court and knows -- knew the case well. i do feel really bad for the people out there, though. it's -- they got themselves in a bad situation of trying to say we are going to be on the air live and report this instantly when, you know, they didn't have a chance to read the syllabus. somebody is calling out to them saying, you know, the first point is this or that. somebody higher up in the organization should say let's not try to beat everybody to be

the first to report this. it's going to take a minute or two or five minutes to read the decision. then let's go out and report it. let's not get on the air live and beat everybody to be the fastest. >> the only part i disagree is is that, part of our job is to beat the competition. it's what we all do. but, one of the things they drill over and over is first get it right. and, there's no way you are going to read one page of a supreme court opinion and get it right. so, you still want to be first. you know you have to read before you commit anything to paper or now to computer or say it on the air. >> just for the record, does anyone know who was first with the correct headline? >> well, i can say that the associated press had it out at 10:07. >> pretty good. >> there is -- there may be

argument about seconds. 10:07 at what? but, we weif we were not the fi- >> reuters was. >> i think we were the first. >> really? i was in the courtroom hearing it all be unspooled by john roberts. i think my colleagues came close. >> i will say, i know this much. the associated press, reuters and bloomburg all had it at 10:07. we are fighting about what second in that minute that we got it. but we all had published at 10:07. >> i really need to say that my power is out and i'm staying at the home of a bloomburg executive. i think bloomburg had it first. >> on that note, we have ran a little past 2:00. i hate to leave someone standing

with a question, but i'm sure c-span wants to stick to their schedule. thank you all for coming and come again next year. [ applause ] >> i don't mean to sound like i'm crazy and want to regulate the internet, on the other hand, i don't believe the internet should exist as a place outside the law. >> co-executive editor of all things d. the future of personal technology and the relationships between technology makers and the federal government. tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. wednesday morning on c-span, mens health magazine editor on surveillance in cities across the u.s.

data is being unknowingly collected on millions of americans via closed circuit cameras and internet monitoring. mr. moore joins us on washington journal at 9:15 eastern to take your phone calls. shreveport in march. april in little rock. oklahoma city may. wichita in june, and this past weekend in jefferson city. watch for the continuing travels of cspan's local content vehicles every month on book tv and american history tv, and next month look for the history and literary culture of our next stop, louisville, kentucky, the weekend of august 4th and 5th on c-span 2 and 3. this is c-span 3 with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our websites.

and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. colorado christian university hosted its western conservetive summit. one discussion on national security featured geert wilders, a member of the dutch parliament who wants to ban muslim immigrants from coming into his country. >> among a handful of magnificent truth-tellers, i'll use that word again, that have been with us to address all three of the western covertive summits is frank gaffney. he founded and still heads after 20-some years an organization that he established upon leaving the national security ranks of the reagan administration because he knew a voice like this would be needed in washington, the center for security policy, the lead editor of an important book called "the report of team b, the threat of

sharia." he'll be signing that afterward outside as well, and most recently the author of a remarkable online course to wake up america as it is now minutes to midnight with that threat of islam. please welcome back for the third consecutive year with a compelling important message that will rivet you and i hope move you to action, our friend dr. frank gaffney. [ applause ] >> thank you. well, you've had a full afternoon as my friend john says. dr. coburn said he would prescribe prozac after his address. after phil's i think morphine is probably in order, and you may be wanting cyanide after mine.

actually, that's a joke. don't do it. we need your help. i'm going to race through about probably 25 minutes worth of material in 15 because that's what i've been allotted, and i don't want to steal a minute from one of the men i admire most in the world, geert wilders. will be treated to a profile in courage here, and i'll get out of the way as quickly as possible, but i do want to tell you about the piece of the problem with the obama administration and with our country at the moment that phil didn't cover, and that is the national security piece, and i'm going to go through, as i say, very quickly some slides with you here that will explain a couple of things. i'm going to start with the first slides. let me have the opening, and a series of, well, pictures that i'm going to ask you what's wrong with them.

next slide. this, of course, is mohammed morsi. he is now the president of egypt. he is a radical islamist, a muslim brother, a man who seeks to impose sharia on his own people, and pars of the brotherhood on everybody else. we have helped him come to power. we have also transferred to his government as recently as a month ago, two maybe now, $1.5 billion, no strings attached, no conditionality, lump sum, do with it as they will. what will they do with it? one of the things, next slide, we're going to see a lot more from mr. morsi and his friends including this felle haney noor eldin, a terrorist given a visa by the obama administration to come in and petition the guy on the right to go. the guy on the right, of course, is the blind sheikh, the man who

compared to blow up the world trade center the first time and also a number of other places in new york city and is still calling on his co-religionists, his fellow adherence to sharia to kill americans. the fact that the obama administration is even digfying this request let alone actively considering it is scandalous but symptomatic. next slide. this is one of my favorite pictures. it's, of course -- next slide, if we can there. it's really not captioned what's left of our counterintelligence capabilities in the fbi but it should be because now we have the muslim brotherhood telling us what we can know, what we can train to, who we can use as trainers. did you know that? 700 documents have been shredded under mr. muller's direction. 300 briefings because they might give offense to the muslim

brotherhood and now we're consulting with them about making sure we don't do this. this would be, and i'm of a certain age and certain of you are, like having the kgb telling us what we can know and think and do about soviet communism. it's madness. next slide. this gentleman, of course, you're familiar with, but did you know he was involved in workplace violence? yes. that's the finding of a report that's been tried in connection with that kind of thing, killing 14 of our countrymen and wounding many others. today you may have heard that the department of homeland security would advise those who shot him and kept him from killing god only knows how many more, today they are being advised in the event they are faced with a shooter to run and hide. if all else fails to throw something at them. i don't know about you, but i'm

entirely with the border patrol folks who are crazed about this kind of direction. obviously, next slide here. something's wrong here. but what is it? next slide. i'm going to argue if we simply connect the dots it becomes pretty clear pretty quickly. next slide. we have, as john mentioned, published a book, a man that i had the privilege of introducing to you two years ago here, lieutenant general jerry boykin, one of our great national heros. [ applause ] co-led the team that put this together. this is the most important thing i've been involved if i think for 24 years with the possible exception of the next slide which is something we put out just earlier this year in april. it is a free course. you can, by the way, get the book for free, too. i'd love to sell it to you and sign one, but can you get it downloaded for free if you want. you can take this course for

free at muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com. yes, that's right. they are in america, and i think that helps explain some of those otherwise inexplicable things i just showed you. what are they trying to do, the muslim brotherhood? next slide. well, they are trying to promote sharia. what is sharia? sharia is a comprehensive, totalitari totalitarian, supremacist doctrine that is at the core of mainstream islam. let me hasten to add, this might counter what john just said, but i believe firmly, because not all muslims embrace, practice or seek to impose sharia on the rest of them, on the rest of us, they are not the problem, but those in islam who do unmistakebly are.

they are, as i've mentioned, brutally repressive. they are particularly horrific to women, to religious minorities, to homosexuals, to artists, to others who are living beings, as a practical matter, just about everybody other than them, and the trouble is they seek, as i said, to impose this doctrine worldwide. and, in fact, next slide, the brotherhood is the driving force internationally now, not just in egypt or tunisia or libya or shortly probably in syria, maybe bahrain, yemen, jordan, perhaps saudi arabia, kuwait, who knows where all else, but also elsewhere in the world and sadly, yes, including here. next slide.