very instrumental and indicated that that money will go through a separate endoity of foundation and nigeria will and there ways in dealing with returns of assets and ensuring the transparency since use. >> you are about to host the third form on the asset recovery. can you talk about what you see coming out of that conference that's going to happen the first

week of november and secondly, what you see the role of switzerland not just for purposes of dealing with what may be in the banking system and the action in this space. where things are headed in the perspective. >> the form on recovery. again, that's something that we do in cooperation with the world bank, etc. we do expect the specific result. we provide the forum to look back at the last year and on the

ses us, and the tunesian case, probably they will soon be a return and a lot of the funds probably not compared with the and the case of egypt given the country's development. again, they are very encouraging signs and increased cooperation and we could then also go into a restitution mode soon. i think that will be the topic at the contrary. as for switzerland's role, we have received a mandate, so to speak and the un conference against the corruption. i think all of us come to realize that if you have this great instrument and it's not

staying put, i will give you an example. if you have an international obligation to engage in mutual legal assistance, there so many ways you can do that. if we receive a request from country x, we look at the request and we can say sorry, that request is not sufficient. back to sender. we return it. that's one thing. we can say look, sorry. this is not sufficient. but if you put it like this and if you do that and if you then turn it around, we can do it. that is the decisive factor. do you cooperate? that's an example. or do you apply that? >> it's like come into a new dimension. we have the right rules on the books & without a mandate by the

parties to now look and have organized in switzerland with a group of countries that are experts that have been involved in these cases to see what worked. i think you mentioned the important trust and trust is absolutely essential. it can result in these cases. when i first traveled in 2011, they told me as they indicated, why should i believe you? i am not a banking official. the bank wills took and the government never agreed to that.

you have to establish trust. you have all the issues and you are able to build the relationship. you have all these changes of government. you take the libyan case, i don't know how many governments they had since the downfall of mr. gadhafi. each you have to establish in the relationship, that's what we did. look into the practices. that's the timing. they get the case. if you send it too late, you may not have a case. you really have to choose the right moment. how did you do that? they put them together. we put together a document that we will send them to the

conference and i hope with the help of all the countries involved. and then to see it's a bit like the recovery 20. how can we make it quicker and more efficient. i think these remain the challenges. i agree with the examples that they mentioned. the whole credibility of it relies on that. but we have to get better. it does take more. >> you introduced this thing, but let me ask you this. how much resistance have you felt from the banking community whether in switzerland or otherwise? they talked about putting on banks in the preventive context. to engage in the peps in the field. >> certainly i heard this in the

way they experience the banks and saying look, day these are good guys and the countries that were supposed to be doing business with. the next day the top of the regimes were supposed to be hunting their assets. aren't we getting caught in the political winds? have you felt resistance given on fairly aggressive steps? >> the world is changing and even the banks are changing. we felt it directly. there was as you said, some opposition from switzerland. we froze the funds extremely quickly. they criticized us from doing what they said is an isolated act. they came a bit later. what the european union did was announced the freeze. i don't know if that's clever. you just take out your money. you have to be quick.

what happened in between, they always acted on the kind of an emergency power that is given. why is that okay? they accept it and whether the government did. you have to submit a statute or have the range of activities in this field debated. we are now doing this. we drafted a statute that is a comprehensive how to do manual of everything they did so far. the interesting thing is that the banks are fully behind it. they realized that the reputational risk for a bank is what has changed. the reputation is just to come

to the ukrainian context that the swiss government froze that and that's for the first time we froze together on the same day of the centers that would have been impossible only two years ago. this time we coordinated among the centers, but with some of the big banks in switzerland, we have no promise because we went after the business a while ago. it's too hot. i think that's an indication that the reputation of this is increasingly recognized. they shouldn't under estimate the huge change over the years. the corruption was accepted as a fact of life. that's part of the landscape in

that can'try. it was possible to dedeuce the bribes. it's possible to bribe other countries. they can fight and just have to keep on fighting it. hopefully we won't one day being able to raise it. the recoveries like the firemen. if everything else failed, we have to identify the funds. we shouldn't get these monies in the first place. that's the attitude of the financial institutions. we bring actions against

financial institutions on what we call and for other violations. we are being whipped and what they are focusing on and blocking violations. the pep regulations are completely separate. those are ongoing obligations to make sure they know the source of the income. i think what has changed is that banks are focusing on reputational risk, but also on i think trying to figure out if there is a business model out there that allows them to know their customers in a way that a local community bank does. the difficulty for a global financial institution is you don't have face-to-face

relationships. they are responding to the exercise and it becomes part of what business people do. it's not just telling the business person you need to follow this rule. they will follow it. the question is, when the business person on boards a client, are they asking the right questions to know what their business is and to know who the people are? when the transaction happens, they understand what the source of that income is. that does have to work into the business model before we don't see these. they have to think about something they need to do as

part of that. >> we seeing new methodologies for regimes or them to move money and hide money and the art world and purchasing of art in the context of the islamic state with the use of an tick witties to raise money? are we seeing new modalities or typologies of interest? >> you might see as you mentioned new classes of assets because that happens to be available. that can be invested. if i think of my good friend who was the guy from customs and he went under cover in the cartel

in the giants and did extraordinary work gathering information and wrote a book about that which is currently being tended to a film. he did a lot of customs agency and still does workers and his adviser and still does investigations. he has this magnificent slide where he juxtaposes what he saw in the middle of the giants and what he sees today. it is exactly the same. the modalities are the same. the way that money is actually and new types of companies are

involved. the separation of money in different jurisdictions and making sure there is huge legal distance, i would say, between an asset and the ultimate official. that is still the underlying purpose. that will happen regardless. it's interesting to see. >> money launderers are like portfolio managers. there is a world that services organized crime and there is a nexus between organized crime in a lot of countries. the failed state is the substraight in which organized crime flourishes and work off of each other. there is a financial infrastructure that supports

them. that's a new mode. then there is a trend in this direction. there is a sophistication that is the same as the sophistication on that side. they look like legitimate transactions and place cash in the system and layer it and ultimately integrate it into the economy. that's the reality. a less colorful example is the talk i gave, the 2005 treasury risk assessment. i was shocked that the seven things there were the same things we are looking at today. i don't think we are failing,

but that's the reality. just because crime doesn't exist, but it doesn't mean we failed in fighting crime. crime exists and greed is part of human nature. there realities out in the financial system that can be exploit exploited. they will be exploited in different ways and manage the assets like a legitimate person will manage his or her assets. we need to be careful of shifting the resources to horses because we found out the mexican cartel s are using horses to launder their money. we just need to be limber and understand the financial system the way it actually works and distinguish conduct. >> let's open it up for

questions. we will have a microphone and while identifying, i want to thank the embassy for their support. they brought val tiny and i want to thank you. >> would you like me to stand? >> yes, please. >> my name is sandy and i'm a lawyer in washington. >> before i ask a question, i am serving as volunteer pro bono counsel for the file comments in regards to the repatriation of the assets. one a nigerian nga and the un convention against corruption

coalition which is an off shoot of transparancy in berlin. the u.s. civil forfeiture statute requires the justice department to cooperate fully. i wonder if you can collaborate on that and particularly identify some of the players at the state department that you would work with in the case such as this. if you e will be rate on the opportunities for how the department mechanically would work on the issues and whether views from the public are welcome in the context of a court case.

i apologize. >> first of all, i will start with the last one. my view and think it's shared. that's what we do and should do. having said that, we are also working with the governor. we do work closely with the state department and the list is too long. i don't think i can give you a laundry list of who we work with. many people are over there on a budget and people in the areas that we work with. one of the challenges we have is how do we use the authorities that are given to us in our forfeiture statutes to fund things and how do we work with

the state department to identify recipients for how we can receive the funds and who will exercise a degree of oversight to make sure they don't get recycled back into corruption or fuel corruption in and of themselves. different models exist and i'm not sure one model will work in every case. they were illegal and the foundation was created in that instance. i think will agree it was effective. the responsible repatriation is what we want to focus on.

there a number of different mechanisms they will have to use and part of the money was forfeit and part will be going to an undesignated entity and there was a procedure to determine who that will be. i can't say they will be happy with the decisions made, but they will be within the illegal confines of what we will be given. >> right here. >> thanks for the excellent presentation. the first question to the ambassador, the government has been having a lot of dialogue on the recovery of blackmony or

health from india. to what extend are the stringent laws in switzerland an imperiment to not only the recovery, but the disclosure of ownership. the other is to what extend is the recovery of terrorist assets in terms of their legal and judicial challenges. thank it is. >> there is noey is creaty if we talk about illegal acts. if we get the prosecutor, we are quick to get the information. we have all of this and long

discussions. tax evasion used to not have to be a criminal offense. that is in the district. there is a disagreement with the government as to what will have to be disclosed. we will be able to get that much quicker. are from the u.s. perspective, the money laundering and forfeiture laws that govern the same ones. >> the key is that you have to prove it's one of the predicate acts for forfeiture.

there is a public case where we are for getting. in connection with the civil action. the challenges are what you would expect. it's getting at this. often times the challenge in the national security arena is that much of the information is classified. it may be classified in the u.s. or abroad. there may be a concern of gray mail that is a tactic to disclose information that is not relevant. there is something called the

procedures act which requires the government to turn over and declassify exculpatory information. there is a process where a judge can look at the information to make the determination. you avoid the situations on the civil side. and see if we should apply. those are the constellations that really e leverage. utimately through the process. we need evidence and not information. how do we get evidence of national security issues as opposed to what might be criminal. that's it. the structure is the same. we go after those and i think there notable cases where we.

this is most of the debate when it comes to the terrorist acts. it is not know that, but the freezing and the designation of terrorists. with the designation itself. there is a big difference with politically exposed persons when you stop confiscating. you have an act where and it's held on for 10 or 2o years. >> the gentlemen in the back? >> thank you very much for

hosting this any time a ruler steals the money, he is taking away from schools and infrastructure of his own people. a fe for jay. and law enforcement there was a tension between the law enforcement act and the diplomatic aspect. how does it work when you have a ruler in office that is stealing the money for his family? our decision whether to bring a case are tactical and are prosecution decisions. even in those instances and we want to make sure that there is information to the extent that

we are not precluded because of we don't want to be surprised. to anybody in the justice department, i think quite frankly even on the diplomatic side, nobody in the process wants to see the process and how short circuited by people weighing in with considerations. we want to manage the fallout that needs to be managed. i feel confident and i can tell you that in our cases we don't succumb to pressure and we haven't faced pressure. >> this is a fundamental

question and prevention and rulers and regimes. i am very curious to hear from a swiss perspective. they are known for neutrality. how do you think about dealing with this? >> i am happy to hear. as jay said for the u.s. context and said for the foreign ministry, we did have an extremely sensitive case and it's public. we have the baurt who was the you could imagine this and we declared her a person which was

a very serious step you take and we i think you made an extremely important point. there security issues. we were surprised by the actions of the colleagues in the skbruftis ministry. without being aware of it. in some cases they could be at risk for the missions in the countries. the conwas arrested in wits witserland. we had a two-year crisis that amounted to a constitutional crisis because they then took it as hostages. it blocked them for almost two years and thanks for applauding

the diplomacy. they don't play any role at all. we have a strict separation of powers. if they decide to go against anybody, we have to accept it. we do accept it. i'm wondering if when all else fails, if the hackers may not be able to resolve the situations at a cheaper cost. i'm wondering who might authorize that and what element of the thrd or could it be done by the worker bees. the treasury and the hackers might be. i'm wondering how the banks might respond when an asset disappears off the coulds. do they look the other way or make a stink?

>> i used to be a sish prosecutor and i have an appreciation and luckily in a law enforcement agent. we don't engage in that because it's useless to me. i can't use any of that information acquired that way in a court of law. it causes problems from a discovery perspective. i'm in the position of not having to deal with it. i think folks who are on the that side can speak more. i can't use any of that. >> the issue of the kroel of the private sector and civil society. you have experience with the private sector side. these are to gather evidence and be catalysts in other ways.

i think we see increased participation and an interest by the private sector. it has been focused as i said that it's very much focused on the financial institutions. i think where many countries are still facing problems is on the -- the enablers are advisers who in some countries and in the european union are subject.

there is a divide over the american. >> i would correct to the doj official. i just wanted to get your thoughts on a senate report a while back about from ji jeeria who will contest for president about money laundering and i'm wondering why no action has been taken.

and what the reach is in a bunch of places. we recognize that we have limited resources. and so we essentially pursue cases that we have and can develop evidence of. and the lit ra purr we are referring to. if we had evidence we would pursue it. we don't have specifics about that. >> there was a senate report and there was a money laundering investigation. >> there is just a difference between the information evidence that is in the senate report and what is admissible in a court of law.

i can't comment on anything specific that is going on. when you ask, a lot of it could be gathering and it takes a longer amount and more time than collecting information of other sorts. i don't know specifically what the situation is there. >> i hope you found it enjoyable and educational. hopefully not next year, but next year. join me in thanking the panelists and thank you all.

we begin with three medal of honor recipients. we spoke at the naval institute and the naval act. at 9:40 on american history tv, nightly news anchor tom brocaw on coverage of the fall of the berlin wall in 1989. also the center for presidential studies to talk about kwided government. and a look back at the fall of

the live on c-span with your comments. this weekend on the c-span networks. tonight on c-span. more reaction and on saturday night at 8:00, a debate on the future of the internet. the saturday night at 10:00 on book of t. jeff chang on racial progress in america. edward o wilson on what makes us human and different to other species. tonight at 8:00 on american history tv on c-span 3. medal of honor recipients reflect on service, vietnam and

afghanistan and saturday at 8:00 on lectures in history. the social prejudice immigrants face in the 1800s. and the 25th anniversary. join the investigation and like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. what to expect next week and the expectations come january. starting at 10:00 and 6:00 p.m.

eastern. >> janice rogers brown began on the district of columbia in 2005. she spoke about her views on restraint. the judge was introduced by edwin mees. >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the heritage foundation.

those joining us on c-span tv. we would ask that your cell phones have been turned off, especially when weather bull tips come. we encourage you to watch online. hosting our guests and welcoming her to heritage and he served as the 75th attorney general and serves heritage as the ronald

reagan it's a pleasure to welcome you to the heritage foundation and the distinguished lecture. this is the most prestigious event with the constitution series. it's part of the legal officers of the freedom-based public interest law organizations throughout the country, some 40 of them get to plan their efforts to defend the constitution and bring justice to the people of the united states. for two reasons.

and second bee because of his influence on the law. oliver webbedle holmes said the story who did not always agree was the story said he had done more and served as a professor of law at har verdict and he was almost single handedly broad that university's law school into being. and it's interesting to note that he continued a pattern that the early justices followed and

appellate courts and trial courts in the north eastern part of the united states. and also to do his noting the experience and his brought reach of his activities relating to the justice system, we have a distinguished guest who has an often broader experience in the law. she had experience in every aspect of the justice system. she is married to dewey parker and graduated from the ucla law school and received her llm degree from the university of

virginia in their program for judges. between law school and her appointment to the bench, her first experience in the council's office with the state legislature, she served in the attorney general's office, almost a separate branch in california. from the state business and transportation housing organization there. she was legal affairs secretary to governor pete wilson. she then had experience in private practice and one of the state's law firms there. she went on to the experience

and the associate justice of appeal in sacramento and california supreme court. because of this distinguished service in 2005, president george w. bush appointed her as the judge of the court of appeals where she continues her distinguished service to the nation. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in recognizing the joseph story distinguished lecturer for the year 2014, the honorable janice rogers brown.

>> i want to thank them for asking me to deliver this year's storied lecture. i am honored and a bit intimidated to be in such company. i have attended many of the other lectures. i especially want to express my gratitude to ed for his friendship and many kindnesses and being such a mench. for those of you who do not speak yiddish, it means a man of integrity and honor. but for his courage and integrity, conversations like this probably would not be taking place. we are all indebted beyond anything we can repay because he took seriously his oath to support and defend the constitution. this is where -- [ applause ]

this is where i usually offer my caveats. and tell people i am not a scholar or philosopher and certainly not a theologian. today i will do something different and i'm going to speak as a conservative and as a conservative judge. one who has the good fortune to be particularly ill-educated having escaped an ivy league education, i find myself free to think however i like. i suppose if i had been around when the judge was teaching, i might have rethought that. i thought about the present evils of the world. unlike my liberal counterparts, i spend time thinking up new ones. these days i find myself like

gladys knight having to use my origination to think of good reasons to keep on keeping on. and for those of you too young to know as i grow older, i have developed a new appreciation for justice's plaintiff query, reform, reform, aren't things bad enough already? perhaps that is why of late conservative discussions about the constitution and about american constitutionalism generally have had a distinctly remedial if not down right el geeic tone. we speak of restoring, reviving, rehabilitating, repairing and defending the constitution. i do not think our sense of urgency is overblown. our panic is justified. the title of this speech adds my

incremental bit to the theme of preserving the fortress of our liberties. my analogy is drawn from the stone mason. i suggest we might also consider repointing the constitution. some may be unfamiliar with that term. when we first moved to washington, d.c., we purchased a row house in the district, and being from the valley, california, a part that has little experience of old houses of any kind, we were completely unprepared to deal with the mant. nance required for structures that had been withstanding the elements for more than a sen century. even as we were moving boxes, our next door neighbors to warn us to expect strong smells, noise and dust because they were having their house repointed. our response was, what? they explained that the failure of brick and mortar structures was more likely to come from the

bricks than any other cause. periodically the old cement must be cleaned out replaced. it's a pain staking and labor intensive process and as i learned more about it, i became more aware of the critical importance of the replacement cement having properties similar to the original mortar. newer and stronger cements might be too good. according to ian cam, author of the art of the stone mason, modern materials can hasten the deterioration of the stone by being so unyielding they actually crack the bricks, a calamity nothing can repair. the result is a pile of rubble. thus repointing seemed the perfect analogy in supporting and defending the constitution. is it not the new ingredient, progressism, the love child of the modern enlightenment and post modernism that has ruined the constitutional edifice and

impoverished our original understandings. so we must ask ourselves, what were the ingredients of that mortar, that binding spell, that gave us statesmans like adams and madison, judges like marshal and story and presidents like washington and lincoln. what made america possible limited government conceivable. and can we capture the optimism and certitude of the founders in big government and judge made rights, none of them could have imagined. or was a republic, peopled by free men, a naive and childish dream to which we wiser grown ups should bid good riddance. though america seemed a miracle was only a product of its time destined to fail as the sensibilities faded from the national conscience. . is there anything to be learned about constitutional repointing

from a judge like joseph story? perhaps. a couple of examples of constitutional interpretation based on two very different species of normative reasoning the issues into clearer focus. at one time the judge's wrote an interpreting text was based on the anchor of a fixed constitution. joseph story was part of that tradition. he was born three years after the colonies declared their independence and a year before john adams helped draft massachusetts constitution in 1780, which in language rem any sent of the deck la ration confirmed all are born free and kbaul equal. the high court of massachusetts held those words incompatible with slavery. the chief justice admitted it was an accepted use but whatever

formerly prevailed, my favorable and to that natural innate desire with which heaven and i had to quote this part because i loved it so much. without regard to color, complex or shape of noses features has inspired all the human race. as a man, story condemned slavery under any shape as utterly repugnant to the natural rights of man, who professed he was and had been a lover, a devoted lover of the constitution of the united states and a friend of the union wrote an opinion in pennsylvania declaring a statute making it substantially more difficult for slave catchers to recover fugitives unconstitutional. they placed the supreme court in the midst of a national, moral

and political conflict and the court heard arguments reviling the constitution as a pro-slavery compact. while story recognized that the constitution was built on a compromise that did not forbid slavery, he saw the constitution itself and the union it sought to perfect as the means by which the wrong would be ameal rated and eradicated. he would con joel the congress s saying they u might save or lose the last best hope of earth. story was prepared to exhibit whatever patience was required to support and defend that constitution. it might be said of him as he said of justice marshal that when others despaired of the republic and allowed it to succumb to a stern necessity, he

resisted the impulse and clung to the union and named its colors to the mast of the constitution. the early period between the frame of government and personal as we would say natural and inailable rights which are not the same as the abstract rights of man, they recognize the natural law as a ground of moral reasoning but reasoned that exceeding their authority under the positive law would violate the natural law in whose name they purported to act. such reasoning included concern about the preservation of kind of governmental structure which made liberty possible. unless the framework of limited government, the constitution of liberty was preserved. the project would fail. modern commentators take strong issue with the assessment and are sharply critical. professor dorcan assumes that story rejected ideas of natural

law entirely, otherwise he would have recognized that american constitutionalism presupposed a conception of individual freedom, antagonistic of slavery. similarly, professor kent said story misunderstood the way in which moral choices and political interests necessarily inform legal doctrine. what they identify as moral reasoning has quite a different root than the natural law enterprise, judicial reasoning requires judges to identify principles of justice. the problem is story's certitude. he would not have settled for the easy answer. but both would deny there's any source of normative authority independent of man. in contrast to the close

attention to the constitution, many modern judges see themselves as translators of the lofty generalities of the evolving constitution. considered justice's position on the death penalty, in a speech he described the constitution as a public text and a sublime or ration on the dignity of man whose judges must resolve. thus in the process of translating the majestic general tis of the constitutional text, justice brennan concluded capital punishment is under all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the 8th and 14th amendments. he acknowledged that his interpretation is one to which neither the majority of his fellow justices nor countrymen subscribe. he ignores the fact that the text of the constitution does not forbid capital punishment. instead brennan articulates what he sees as a larger constitutional duet. on this issue the death penalty

i hope to embody a community, although perhaps not yet aarrived, striving for human dignity pr all. he would impose his biases to force a community into being, even though the believes he seeks to foster contradict the text of the constitution. in brennan's view, the judicial task is not the pain staking work of appointing, it's wholesale renovation. much in the spirit of the insistence that the aspirations of the constitution licensed judges to identify and impose their own moral principles. perhaps justice story's activity cannot be described as repointing. the constitution was still too new, but we can see ingredients on which he relied. respect for the positive law, prudence, patient and precise expli indication, unshakable faith in the natural laws

universal moral truth. if we are to repoint the constitution today, these understandings seemed to be essential ingredients. justice brennan used a different framework. he from the normal of the constitution a concern about human dignity. a phrase u whose meaning and particular circumstances is highly undefied. he then purports to give meaning to those abstract values. surprisingly both justice story and justice brennan are identified as natural laws, but it makes little sense to put judges in the same camp with judges like brennan for the ladder would dismiss the principles to which those early judges were devoted as quaint relics of a bygone age. it's easy to trace the trajectory that has landed in this predicament but difficult to phantom why as if we act why the transformation was seamless. in 1977 yale's author reviewed the book "knowledge in

politics." in the form of a memorandum from the devil identified the problem at the heart of any book on human action. he asked, how does one tell and tell about the difference between right and wrong? why are a person or society do any r particular thing rather than any other. how can one ground in the form it is right to do x in anything firmer than the quick sand of bare reiterated assertion. left is candid not only about the near term implications of the conclusion, but about the reason for rejecting the obvious solution. if there's no external source on which to ground assumptions, the answer to why x will have to be because p believes so, where. p is some person or group of persons. i call this the zip code theory of jurisprudence. the opinion of those people who

went to school in the same zip code that you did. or because p equals everyone, where p represents the general will. here finally, he explains the real stakes. if he says human nature is defined as the good, there can be no argument for change. in that case, an intellectual rightly appalled at the world would have no role at all. to escape that dreadful possibility, the good has to be not what people were now, but what they were become or could become ever more perfectly, ever more fully. it is impossible to see this comment without hearing the echo of lincoln's warning that men of ambition, members of the family of the lion or the tribe of the eagle who thirst and burn for distinction will have it whether at the expense of emancipated slaves or enslaving free men.

unger's book says moral discourse presupposes the acceptance of humanity and the thriving to be and to become ever more human. he goes on the first assumption that there's a human nature, though one that changes and develops in history. the second premise is that this human nature constitutes the final basis of moral judgment in the absence of objective values and in the silence of revelat n revelation. in 1979 professor left gave us the short and sprietely academi on the absence of objective values. he said if we cannot believe in a complete tran sen dent set of propositions, findable rules that are authoritatively and direct us to live righteously, all premise for any system of ethical rules flounder on the problem of the grand say who is.

in other words, in order for any normative evaluation to be binding and unquestionable, the evaluator must be beyond question. it must be the unjudged judge, the unruled legislator, the premise maker who rests on no premise. the uncreated creator of values. in short shs the e great i am, god. and left candidly admits if god is rejected, the result is total elimination of any coherent or momentarily convincing ethical or legal system dependent upon finding authoritative extra systemic premise. this is an academically opaque way of saying forget about constitutionalism or even a rule of law that is more than skin deep. when man replaces god, the focus is not on god's goodness, but his power. and here it may be useful to contemplate the rejoinder to an earlier educational effort.

quote, a dogmatic belief and objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule that is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery. it's on this idea of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true and others really false that america was established. the founders presumably believe the statement adapted by thomas jefferson from the virginia declaration of rights, edited and endorsed by those who founded this republic, quote, we hold these truths to be self-evident. that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inailable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. the most famous single sentence ever written in the western hemisphere. or he says, perhaps the second

most famous right after coke is it. for those under 30, a more recognizable choice might be "just do it." or for the 40 somethings, "may the force be with you." you get the idea. and yet as he acknowledges what seemed self-evident to mr. jefferson would appear either false or meaningless and superstitious to the great men who shape our political imagination, men like air stot l, marks. we need not go so far back to find despairagement. we could add wilson and roosevelt to the list of those who argued for liberation from constitutional piety in favor of a reevaluation of the constitution. natural rights and its evil twin seem to move in an eerie an

tipny. the modern idea of economic freedom grew upside by side with the rationalistic refusal for belief in objective value. this is a big problem for limited government and for liberty. these self-evident truths on which this nation was founded and although they must be reexcerpted to apply to changing circumstances, what future exists for a a regime founded on the e ter na. if no one quite believes in it anymore. is this is where the life of a conservative judge becomes difficu difficult. a legal philosophy that does not recognize absolute moral norms cannot limit the state's power. indeed, it is not clear that a legal philosophy that does recognize absolute moral norms can limit it, but the law is rooted in a series of objective value judgments about morality or justice or it is about

nothing. to divorce the government's monopoly of force is ultimately to justify tyranny in its most naked form. with pure hearts and good intentions, conservative judges, the judges most convicted of the accuracy of the founders intuitions and most anxious to preserve a robust constitutionalism that can effectively limit government, have, instead of defending the constitution, unilaterally disarmed. with high hopes and grand theories, the proponents of the living constitution have rewritten the charter, but the result is inevitably incoherent or both. left's candor is useful in this proverse result. the consequence of everyone going into business for themselves is not just the eclipse of natural law. it's the privileging of unnatural law. once the conservatism more

accurately becomes pervasive, neither the theorists or judge has any place to stand. the denial of any moral reality is both culpable and incoherent and leads to different but equally destructive errors. if as the late judge argued there's no way to navigate, the only option is for the proponents of judicial restrangt to remain silent. i get this, his position has the virtue of being entirely consistent. and i understand why that recommends itself. on the other side, admitting nature has no moral concept fill the void with surrogates of oir thaen design. these are admittedly devoid of any authority and range from

generally accepted standards, the zip code theory of injuries prudence to radically personal convictions. it's worth considering where these theories translated into styles of constitutional interpretation lead. the best example that i can give you is barack, the former chief justice of the israeli supreme court. it's safe to talk about him. he's very candid about what he believes and how he does this, he also doesn't have a constitution. so it's a little bit better. he argues that judges must defend democracy by defining ultimate values. he suggests, quote, a process of common conviction must take place among enlightened members of society regarding the truth and justice of norms and standards that people cherish before we can say that a general will has been reached and that these should become binding.

presumably when the elites consensus changes, so does the law. coupled with judging based on abstract stated in a single word like dignity, this approach allows judges to impose predispositions under the guides of an objective standard. a very similar defense of judicial subjectivity can be found in "active liberty." it seems to me that judicious quietism and adventurism are both problematic. the result is democratic december pitism or supremacy. neither bodes well for american constitutionalism. on this record it's hard not to sympathize with the proponents of judicial restraint. i consider myself to be one of them. it is a principled position and there are good reasons to fear arbitrary discretion in the courts and to promote the morality of the jurists.

a discipline that requires judges to sustain from giving their own desires free play. self-restraint is part of judicial prudence, but the founders clearly believe they provided a standard by which to judge political institutions. the arguments for radification marshalled in the federalist papers were framed in terms of presumptively moral considerations and recognition of the real failings in human enterprise. james mcclelland focuses on the perceived inconsistencies in story's natural law. he gets very hung up on that. he wonders whether his approach owes more to burke or adams or more indebted to the classical christian tradition. i think finding some precise coalition is beside the point. he was a child of the american revolution. ideas about liberty, duty and sacred honor were part of the

air he breathed. he was with a founding of a deep understanding of the way the first principles of moral reasoning were integral to those that defined american constitutionalism. he like the drafters of our constitutional documents assume that any good regime must respect the nature of the creature to be govred. man was a creature of those whose rational nature created by the god was guided by the moral law engraved in every heart. the only ga toir force of the law of nature is derived from its coincidence with the will of the creator. he begins by observing that the law of nature is that system of principles which human reason has discovered. these reflections illustrate a very fundamental distinction between the vision of natural law embraced by the founders and revered by american conservatives and the idea of inevitable transformative progress. the progressive idea highlights the difference between progress in science and technology, which

can be cumulative and progress in morals and politics which must start again with every generation. there is a deep paradox in the progressive insistence that the nature of history is settled and the nature of man open to any definition that captures the imagination of the moment. to install this view of humanity is to take away what the constitution tried to preserve. the opening of a grand scene and design in providence for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth. he was not alone in this feud. those who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in those revolutionary times gave credit to a providence to divine intervention to being in the hands of a good providence. in fact, anyone who reads about the days of the revolutionary

war escapes the intuition that america's success was something more than certaserendipity. there must be awareness that sp something extraordinary was afoot. it shifts every 500 years. 500 years takes us to the great reformation. the long view of history echos in a shorter time frame some of the same elements of mythic struggle. he invokes st. augustine in the city of god, recalling how god enriches history by the same kind that gives beauty to poetry. there's beauty in the composition of the world's history arriving from the contraries, an eloquence in events instead of words. thus he concludes the devil often tries with great success to convert good into evil, but the battle is never ceded to

him. he may reforge evil, havoc and destruction into instruments of his own design. the point of his essay is that the reformation, which was intended to purify christianity, morphed into the entitlement which began to matured by insisting the progress of humanity consisted in forgetting religious tradition altogether. and this law, this twisting of light into darkness had the potential to turn politics into a shear struck l for power. stanley rosen says the enlightenment led to the repudiation of reason by reducing all that is not objectively verifiable, rational reduces truth to a matter of perspective and makes all perspectives equal. since our choices can only be justified rhetorically, that is by reference to compassion or felon tlo pi even a quality is

reduced to the equal right of all e desires to be satisfied. . the assertion of a prospective becomes its justification, the claim is that a particular perspective serves the general welfare what is really served is the will to power. the branch of the enlightenment provided for the french revolution. john adams contrasted what the french call reason with reason rightly understood. the american revolution rejected the idea of reason that made war on human nature. the mistake of the french revolutionaries was not contempt for tradition. it was contempt for man. natural rights rightly understood was a framework for governance that respected man's nature. in the words of the poet, now we

know that has made all the difference. or at least for about 150 years it's seemed like it would. but liberty is hard. free government is not inevitable, it's only a possibility. a possibility that can be fully realized when it is generally governed by recognized imperatives of the universal moral law. it requires self-control and self-restrai self-restraint. people capable of understanding that freedom is not the power of doing what we like, but the right of being able to do what we ought. natural law cannot always produce easy answers and sometimes it cannot produce any. it it is a response to a hard question. what is man that you made him a little lower than the angels? this is both glory and curse, and in trying to design a government of the people, for the people, by the people, we

must relish the tension that is an inherent part of humanity. we are not brutes. we are not gods. before architects had structural steel to allow buildings to extend upward, early builders invented a partial solution. it was this innovation that made the soaring knaves of gothic cathedrals possible. thus the buildings stood and the spaces reached heaven, not in spite of the tensions generated by opposing forces but because of them. human beings are similarly designed. so the longings of our heart and the destiny of our souls are forever straining against each other. when left and unger see as the devastating of modern human thought, those basic positions about reality that are simultaneously necessary and contradictory, the framers would

easily have recognized, did not st. paul voice the same in roman 7? i have the desire to do what is goods, but i cannot carry it out. and so i find this law at work when i want to do good, evil is right there with me. for thousands of years the idea of natural law played a dominant role. cicero is favored tells us true law and right is universal. it is eternal. calvin coolidge approved similar sentiments in a a wonderful o speech given in 1926 to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the declaration of independence. he lamented that most of those that clamber for reform, are ill informed. he believed they would realize america's foundation was spiritual and founders were people influenced by a great

spiritual development who required a great moral power. only the exercise of god's providence seemed adequate to explain the declaration of independence and he did not believe it should be discarded for something more modern. he concludes if all men are created equal, that is final. . if they are endowed with rights, that is final. their just power from the consent of the governed, that is final. no advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. if anyone wish os to deny their truth and soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed is not forward, but back ward toward the time when there was not equality, not rights of the individual, no rule of the people. those who pish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. they are reactionary. cool age is exactly right, but now his insight seems

counterintuitive. even after the great depression, the spell had not been entirely broken. speaking at a conference of judges, i was really surprised, but it was in 1946. they anticipated by three decades warning of the essentially anti-democratic and totalitarian philosophies gaining ground in american universities. such teachings mcken nan believed the essential elements of a regime. he argued that the denying the existence inhirnt in human nature, which limits government coercion would be but a prelude to tyranny. if there's no higher law, there are no natural rights. if there are no natural rights, the bill is a delusion. and everything a man possesses are held by sufficient rans of government and if there are no external truths, if everything changes, everything, then we may

not complain when the standard of citizenship changes from freedom to civility and when democracy relapses into tyranny. rema remarkably, our regime never made the unnecessary choice between truth and reason. for a time rejected the strict separation between what is just and what is legal. and it is this thread -- a conviction that there's such a thing as human nature. it is fixed and cannot be changed and that this same nature provides a standard by which to judge political institutions that unites john adams, joseph story and calvin coolidge. to turn away from the principles of 1776 and 1778 is to turn back towards arbitrary government. that's why repointing the constitution is a useful analog. a z it suggests not oj repairing

but repenting and reorienting. in the early days of the republic, patriots hoped for the perpetuity of the constitution. they were sensitive to the fragility of free institutions. story expressed his well-founded fears in a a powerful metaphor. in our government, he said, the force is far greater than the sin trip tall. thus the danger was not that we would fall into the sun, but we would fly off in orbits and never return to our paraheelen. what he feared came to pass. the nation's bargain could not be sustained. the civil war and amendments shifted the balance from the state to the national government. america was granted what lincoln called a new birth of freedom. the declaration became an explicit part of the constitution, but our time is different, our task is different. in our age the sun has collapsed

becoming a dark star, a cosmic phenomenon sometimes called a black hole. with a gravitational pull so strong it can hold time hostage. our pearl is not we will fly too far but we are already too close. so close that liberty may be entirely extinguished by the force that overwhelms even the idea of limits. perhaps in a liberal democracy government cannot be limited. the constitutional republic is bound only by a lu of laws and being a month notary public lis on all law enforcement can always untie itself. instead in contemporary, liberalism no longer has anything to do with limited government. the regulatory state has expa expanded its reach and even the transmission of culture. judge and legal scholar michael mcconnell borrows without

embracing a distinction articulated between political liberalism. a political conception of justice applies to the framework of basic institutions whereas a comprehensive doctrine is one that addresses all aspects of life including conceptions of what is of value, ideals of personal character and friendship and mediating institutions. the constitutional principles of early american history limited the way it could conduct business but not purport to tell citizens how they should live their lives. the first amendment followed exactly this approach. the american constitution was an attempt to create a government strong enough to keep the peace and promote economic prosperity without the power to effect or coerce the ordinary lives or believes of a people. contrast that thought with today's new vision, that the state should force citizens to be neutral, tolerant, and open

minded. and by the way, i have to pause here to say that some miss come i learned at my grandmother's knee. one was, it's a fine thing to have an open mind, but your mind should not be so open that everything in it falls out. or much more sin zingly if your mind is open on these questions, please let your mouth be shut. consider the even more ominous view that government should force citizens to accept a singular, secular vision of the good. this is where i think deference to the enlightened elite will take us to a sterile dull and futureless vision of the future where we will all be democrats, but democrats who like any sort of faith worth fighting for. while the earlier tradition fills gaps in the way that

strengthens freedom, the newer understanding constrains, constricts and reduces. it does not strengthen, it shatters the whole e edifice. limited government should mean limited judges too. but so long as we have unlimited government, we may need a less limited view of judges. judges may need to intervene for the sake of individual liberty and they must sometimes do so with reference to ultimate values. western civilization's greatest achievement has been so discover a network of principles that jointly under gurd individual liberty. that achievement owes to rationality and sacredness both athens and jerusalem. somehow those sources of value jointly should and inform the act of judging. the solutions overed by homes and theorists end either in might making right or in coerced virtue based on an unnatural law

that seems uncontrary to both. to the entire network of principles individual liberty. while it would take more than i possess to suggest an exhaustive answer to the question of how to define the values in a constitutional democracy, there's some usefulness in saying no to obvious errors. the error of opinion among a certain social group and mistaking it for democratic consens consensus. that authorizes unlimited government, positive rights when the clear import of the constitution its context and history is the creation of a government of limited powers aimed at protecting negative rights. the era of indifference to the written of the constitution. writtenous has to sides. judges are resisted the importation of ideas.

this is the point of recent books challenging judicial abdication and their u criticism of deference has some validity. it's no more principle to permit limits to be written out of the constitution than it is to insert obligations that were never there. this is a modest proposal. no theory of everything is in the offing. in fact, i think far ber is right that brilliance defined as new ideas that turn conventional thinking on its head should count heavily against any legal theory. neither the reason that has destroyed define authority or the untrem led will that destroyed self-government can be endured. we must live with our tensions for the true way is in the middle. politics is downstream of culture and the cultural problem

will always turn out to be a religious problem. rather than fleeing from the sacred, perhaps we must embrace it. in the orthodox jewish tradition, it is filled with god's glory. they secured a space in which to encounter god. in the city of governed by the grand says who, the world is filled with law. in other words, the source of our differences may well be religious for a persons or a nation's relationship to liberty is a spiritual matter. coolidge fts right about that. we cannot have it both ways. for the promise of the permissive cornucopia offered by the limited state, we give up freedom. earlier i acknowledged that if the state u is limitless, maybe judges must be too, but that's second best. the unlimited state is never a mere instrumentality. the question is not whether we

will change with the times. we will. the question is whether we can repoint our constitution so we may preserve the fortress stones that made us an exceptional nation. a wonder in the world, the land of the free. it turns out that if we would be free, the unjudged judge is a logical necessity. some widespread consensus must exist. even hyatt conceives the constitution of liberty requires commitment to a narrative privileging ordered liberty. otherwise, liberty loses to expediency every time. the grand says who is not enough. if you want liberty, something more awesome, powerful, gloryhouse, worthy of reverence and unquestioning obedience is required. something like the spirit that moved upon the deep and spoke the world into being. the one who lit the sun and laid

earth's cornerstone when the morning stars sang together. the god of the great i am. [ applause ] >>. i think you can see from that response how much we appreciate your fine words today. and the judge has agreed to take a few questions and who would like to ask the first question. yes, roger. >> thank you very much, judge.

i really enjoyed that. i'm with the center for equal opportunity. let me ask you this. would an atheist judge go about deciding the meaning of the constitution differently from a christian judge? and why or why not? >> wow. i thought these would be easy questions. that is really interesting. i don't know because some of my best friends are libertarians. and they are mostly people who do not believe in a super natural being. they would recognize if you're going to have limited

government, something must be the source of authority. the problem with this lack of normative foundation is all you get is whatever anybody wants to do. so i would hope that if, in fact, you're atheist or christian, it wouldn't make any difference as long as you are committed to the limited nature of the regime. >> okay, the next question. yes? >> i'm with the institute for justice. you've talked a lot about the declaration of independence this evening. and its role in setting forth the role of government that are true everywhere and always. and you also made reference to the 14th amendment as a means of

bringing the declaration into the constitution expli sicily. more than one justice over the last few years, including justice scalia, said the declaration of independence is not part of our law. >> i know. >> and justice kagan in her nomination hearing was actually asked a question about the declaration of independence and she said to the extent that there are rights out there, i wouldn't want you to think that i should enforce those rights. so how would you respond to that? and do you have any broader thoughts about the declaration and its reference to the constitution? >> well, you know, it's clear that the declaration was not part. of the original constitution. there's a a kind of interesting debate about that. one of the things that mcclelland says is, well, they didn't put that in the constitution because by the time

they got around to draft iing t constitution, they were so over all that natural rights stuff. i mean, that was done -- that was the kind of sbub rant thing they did. but when they got around the constitution, they were very sober and they did not bring that up again. my own feeling is that the reason that they did not say anything when they drafted the constitution about the declaration of independence was they understood what those words meant. and just as it happened in massachusetts, it would have meant the end of slavery. i mean that language was very powerful. so i think that's why it wasn't -- because they were very careful in the constitution. they were trying to hold this together. they were trying not to -- to keep this compromise working. so they were very circumspect in all of their language about

slavery, and they didn't say anything that would immediately precipitate that. but i still think that was a background consideration to what they were doing. i don't think it was just, you know, sort of something that happened because they were trying to justify declaring their u independence. so i think that was always in the background of what was happening. and i think the civil war congress, the republicans clearly thought that's what they were doing. they said so. so i don't know. i can't answer your question about how other judges look at this and, you know, decide that this is not there and we should not have any concern about it. i mean, we have a court that has just, you know, refused to acknowledge that privileges and immunities is in the constitution. so we have -- clearly there are

currents in the supreme court that i cannot explain. and won't try to. >> thank you. the reason foundation and the individual rights foundation. this is a great moment for heritage foundation and a great moment for the audience and the broadcast audience. my question back to your theme of repointing the constitution, would you look for the type of mortar that wouldn't be too strong but maybe would be the best for preserving the bricks of the constitution a little bit of locker innism in that mortar? >> whoa. >> he keeps telling me i have u to speak into the mic.

i forget. i'm a pacer. boy, well, i'm going to take the cowards way out here. i am a sitting judge, so i'm going to decide that discretion is a better part of valor and i'm not going to say anything more about that. >> john? >> so i want to pose a question. did the declaration come in only by the 14th amendment, or was it in the main document itself? because there's also privileged immunities, there's a a guarantee of republican form of government. there are some principles there that seem to follow the declaration. we have compromises with those principles and have to live side by side, but isn't the root there first? and if it is, how should a judge go about giving foist to those original claims.

>> you know, i think you make a good point. and i believe that there was much in what they did. because my point in really focusing on the declaration of independence was what was it that they saw as necessary to limit government. because this was the new thing that they thought they were seeing in terms of governance. one, that consent had had to come from the people. and two, that there were limits on what government could do to coerce a certain kind of creature. so i think that that was very much a part of what they were doing and that there are several things in the constitution which probably reflect that. but i have to acknowledge that they were very careful.

i would say even the preamble has a little flavor of that, but i think they were very careful not to say that out loud. >> clark? >> i'll try to give you an easy question. >> heritage promised me only softball questions. i think i need to have a truth in advertising discussion with them. >> i don't know if it's a softball question, i you'll get a base hit at least. you serve a lot of different judges in your career. can you identify one or two qualities that are the qualities you find most admirable and desirable in judges from both sides of the aisle? what are the hallmarks of the kind of judge we should want on our courts? >> wow. well, you know, it's funny. i have been on a lot of courts, and i have served with a lot of

different judges and all of them are quite different. but i think u for me, the thing that i like when i have a colleague who really is engaged, that really wants to dig into it, who is there because they love the work and it interests them, and who are willing to, you know, take the extra time to investigate something. and especially someone who when you have a disagreement, and this is the thing about appellate courts. if you're a trial judge, you are the king. you know, your word is law. whatever you say, you are like you'll brenner. you work around and say so let it be written, so let it be

done. it's over. but when you're on an appellate court, it's a symphony. you have to have the ability to work with the other judges. so one of the things that, to me, is one of the best characteristics of a judge is somebody who when you have a disagreement actually goes back and thinks it through. doesn't just, you know, grudgingly put in a couple of words and say, okay, i have addressed your concern, but goes back and says, how does that idea change the way i was approaching this opinion. >> i think we're done. i hope so. [ applause ]

>> judge, one of the things we present in recognition both of your distinguished career as a judge and in the other jobs that you have done, but also of your talk this evening and your excellent thoughts and ideas and the thinking and research that went into your fine work for tonight's talk, this is our statue of defender of liberty award. we're happy to present this to you. >> this is gorgeous. thank you so much. >> and also with it we have -- >> whoa! >> we have the commentaries on the constitution of the united states in two volumes by joseph story. >> this is gorgeous. this is beautiful. >> also what we call the familiar exto position and with all modesty i must say it has a forward by me. >> thank you so much.

[ applause ] >> now if you'll join us all, we'll have a reception where you can personally meet the judge. before we leave, i want to thank you again personally for being with us for all you have done for the law and particularly for being with us tonight. thank you. [ applause ] we begin at 8:00 p.m. eastern with three medal of honor recipients who served in world war ii, vietnam and afghanistan. they spoke at the u.s. naval institute in maryland. then at 9:40 on "american history tv," former "nbc nightly news" anchor tom brokaw on the

follow of the berlin wall in 1989. the 2015 c-span student cam video competition is underway. open to all middle and high school students to create a documentary on the theme "the three branches and you", showing how a policy, law or action by a branch of the government has affected you or your community. there's 200 cash prizes for students and teachers totaling $100,000. for the list of rules and how to get start the, go to studentcam.org. in maryland's congressional district, has conceded to john delaney. the associated press called delaney the winner thursday night after absentee votes were counted. in a statement to supporters, he said, it's now time to move on and allow the citizens of maryland to be heard.

in the last four years, the house of representatives has voted more than 50 times to repeal all or part of the affordable care act. yesterday john boehner held a news conference and said the house will vote again to repeal the so-called obamacare legislation. >> you mentioned obamacare, the second paragraph of your op-ed with mitch mcconnell talked about it. how do you walk this balance without getting sucked back into that being the predominant issue? or is it when you have new freshmen coming in who never had the chance to vote no to repeal and try to tweak this in some way to go for a full repeal. >> obamacare is hurting our economy. it's hurting middle-class families. and it's hurting the ability for employers to create more jobs. and so the house, i'm sure, at

some point next year we'll move to repeal obamacare. it should be repealed. it should be replaced with common sense reforms that respect the relationship. now, whether that can pass the senate, i don't know. but i know in the house it will pass. but we're going to pass it. but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do other things. there are bipartisan bills that have passed the house, sitting in the senate that would, in fact, make changes to obamacare. you know, there's a bipartisan majority in the house and senate for repealing the medical device tax. i think there's a bipartisan majority the house and senate for getting rid of the independent payment advisory board, the rationing board in obamacare. how about the individual mandate. there are a lot of democrats and republicans that believe this is unfair. just because we may not be able to get everything we want,

doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get what we can. >> reporter: you mentioned three or four distinctive issues there. doesn't that siphon this congress back into this obamacare and then the number gets up into the 60s or 70s in terms of roll call votes? >> there are bipartisan majorities in the house and senate to take some of these issues out of obamacare. we need to put it on the president's desk and let it choose. >> this upcoming wednesday, both the house and senate will reconvene at o'clock eastern. awaiting action in the house, federal spending for remainder of fiscal 2014, the government is currently operating on temporary funding that expires in december and in the senate votes are planned on judicial nominees and a child care block grant program. also next week, both parties will hold leadership elections for the 114th congress which starts in january. when congress is back in session, live coverage of the

house is on c-span and you can see the senate live on c-span 2. coming up sunday on c-span, bernie sanders will answer questions about efforts to revamp veterans medical care and what to expect in the lame duck congress next week and his expectations for new republican majority in the senate come january. senator sanders is our guest on news makers sunday on c-span at 10:00 a.m. and again at 6:00 p.m. eastern. this weekend on the c-span networks, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span, more reaction to the midterm elections. on saturday night at 8:00, a debate on the future of the internet. and sunday evening at 8:00 on q&a, author and television host tavis smiley on his latest book "death of a king." tonight at 8:00 on c-span 2, amherst college professor ronald rosbottom on german occupied

paris in world war ii. then author jeff chang on the idea of racial progress in america and sunday night at 10:00, edward o. wilson, winner of two pulitzer prizes on what makes us human and different to other species. tonight at 8:00 on american history tv on c-span 3, medal of honor recipients reflect on their service in world war ii, vietnam and afghanistan. saturday at 8:00, the social prejudice immigrants faced during the 1800s. and sunday night at 8:00, the 25th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. find our television schedule at cspan.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. or send us a tweet #comments. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. here are just a few of the comments we have recently received from our viewers. >> just calling to tell you how

much i enjoy q&a. at 5:00 on sunday on the west coast, everything stops in my house. i turn off my phone, i get my cup of coffee and it's the most enjoyable hour on television. >> the guest today was very informative, gave good opinions, i enjoyed listen to him and the comments that was done today. me myself as living over in the middle east he was very accurate and he was on point. he was not using his own personal innuendos. and i greatly enjoyed it and i hope you have more guests like that but he was right on target this morning. i'm calling to say that i think, like many people, c-span is wonderful but as to criticisms i almost have none. and i'm a very partisan kind of person. the reason i almost have none is

i think you dual a tremendous job of showing just about every side of everything and the way people look at things in d.c. and elsewhere. i take my hat off to you. thank you very much. continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-6263400. e-mail us or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. the foreign policy research institute and the cannon institute looked at u.s. efforts to promote democracy around the globe. we'll hear from a former ambassador, the head of the national endowment for democracy and the deputy assistant secretary of state for democracy and human rights.

good morning, everyone. i think we'll get started. i'm the director here at the cannon institute. i'm very pleased to be able to co-sponsor and present this conference to you. welcome all of you this morning. there's no question this is a timely and important subject. it's always been an important subject, but i think never has it been more timely. for us in particular the development of democracy, democracy building and democracy promotion matters, whether it can be successful, what are the tools it takes to make it so. these are all questions i think we'll address today, particularly compelling now and i think questions on which many other important questions hinge, including those of security and prosperity not only for the region we work on at the cannon institute but the wider world.

so i look forward to hearing the insights that our panelists have that all of you have and i look forward to a spirited discussion. before i and this floor over to the ambassador, i want to thank him for taking point on organizing this entire event for many months now. we've just become more and more compelling as we've approached the date as well as ambassador ken yawitz who unfortunately due to transsiberian sin dome, i guess we call it, he just came off a two and a half week train journey from beijing to moscow and picked up the cold that i think maryanne you remember we all got on the train last year. so he's not able to join us today. i also want to thank my deputy will pomerantz who will monitor this next panel, melinda herring, madison grady here and many others who made this possible. ambassador, i think we'll introduce the first unanimously the conference.

>> thanks very much, matt, welcome to you all. ken was -- has the duel hat of having been associated with the project on democratic transitions for the last nine years since its inception and being a global fellow at the cannon institute. so working with him, with will, matt, we put it together and he's very kind to give us all the credit. it would not be at all possible without the extraordinary cooperation we've had with you. so let me thank you and the wonderful team here at the cannon institute and the wilson center and for these wonderful facilities that you provided by as well. it would be very hard to imagine a more appropriate venue for today's event than the woodrow

wilson center. given that president wilson started it all, in some sense, a century ago when he called for the united states to strive to make the world safe for democracy. further more, the timing could not be more opportune. as matt suggested, it was on for tune when we started planning it last spring, even more so today. this is the 259-anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall and the entire change of central europe the revolutions in central europe. but it's also a season of severe testing or threat to democracy. in many of these same countries where things looked promising two decades ago but also most notably in ukraine and hong kong tod today. we are extraordinarily fortunate in having as our lead speakers

today two of the most respected and revered american figures in the field of democratic transitions. carl gershman. for over 30 years president of the national endowment for democracy. and larry diamond who is flight the second row one of our most eminent scholars based at stanford university and the hoover institute. we are also breezed, very pleased, to have several outstanding younger scholars and practitioners in our two panels. they have been chosen from their fresh perspectives and their often dissending views from traditional policies in the last 30 years. indeed, one of the goals of this conference -- could we have -- if there are guests in the back row, could we have them move up? we don't need to