lynch talks about the justice department's prosecution of civil rights cases. this week, president obama attended the righteous among the nations awards assembly in washington, d.c. the award recognizes those that risk their lives to protect jews during the holocaust. this year's ceremony was the first to be held in washington, d.c. and the first to include the participation of an american president. it's an hour and 20 minutes.

>> mr. president, honored guests, it's a great honor for me to be here this evening with all of you. some of you may recognize me from television, but most of you probably recognize my voice and not my face from national public radio. we are assembled here at the embassy of israel in washington, d.c. to award medals and certificates of honor of the righteous among the nations to the late master sergeant roddy edmunds and to the late valerie sveski of poland who risked their lives to rescue jews. the holocaust remembrance

authority was created by the state of israel in order to gather all information about the holocaust to commemorate, document, preserve, research and educate. when it was established, the jewish people did not forget the non-jews who stood by their side in it the darkest hours of history, struggling with the enormity of the loss and grappling with the impact of the total abandonment and betrayal of europe's jews, the state of israel made a point of remembering the rescuers. thus the law establishing this added yet another mission to pay tribute to the non-jews who risked their lives to rescue jews during the holocaust. since 1963, a public commission headed by an israeli supreme court justice -- i could say

maybe that's why i'm here, but i don't think so -- has been responsible for making the decision as to who will be recognized as righteous among the nations. this title is the highest honor that the state of israel bistr s s on non-jews. our ceremony here today is unprecedented in that this is the very first time that american citizens are post ooh mousily receiving righteous honors on american soil. i'm honored to invite to the stage our host, his exlc excelly ron dermer. >> on behalf of the state of

israel, my wife and i want to welcome all of you to the israeli embassy in washington. i want to begin by expressing my profound thanks to you, president obama, for being here tonight. mr. president, your presence here on international holocaust remembrance day is a powerful tribute to the memory of the victims as well as a testament to the unique nature of this ceremony in which we have come together to honor two americans and two poles who risked their li lives to save jews. your presence is a testament to the unique relationship between israel and the united states. it is not every day, nor every year, nor even every decade that a sitting american president speaks at a foreign embassy. in fact, this is the first time that a sitting president has ever spoken in our embassy in

washington. [ applause ] so, mr. president, i deeply appreciate the message of friendship that you are conveying by being here with us tonight. i want to welcome the chairman, the rabbi. as a child, he survived a c concentration camp. he would eventually become the chief rabbi of the state of israel. i can think of few individuals who better personify the spirit of the jewish people. i also want to welcome the chairman of the american society, leonard vilf who is a child of survivors. i want to thank you and the entire family for everything that you have done to support

the mission. i want to recognize someone else who is here tonight who has done so much to preserve the memory of the holocaust, and that is steven spielberg. mr. spielberg, thank you for using your talent to spread awareness of the holocaust across the world and across the generations. and thank you for your remarkable work to preserve the memory of tens of thousands of survivors. some of those survivors are here with us tonight. and i would like to ask them to stand for a moment and be recognized. [ applause ]

finally, i want to say something to the nearly 60 members who are here. the jewish people are an ancient people with a very long memory. we forget neither our most wicked enemies nor our most righteous friends. tonight, the names of your four esteemed relatives join the names of schindler, wallenberg and other righteous among the nations to become a part of our nation's heritage to be remembered by our people for generations and generations to come. ladies and gentlemen, 71 years after the liberation of auschwitz, we still try to make some sense of the holocaust. we still try to learn some lesson that will shine light in the darkness. for some, the holocaust

represents man's inhumanity to man. its primary lesson is to be ever vigilant against racism, sdeen phobia and intolerance. for others, the holocaust shows what can happen when extremist ideologies come to power. its primary lesson is to always safeguard the cornerstones of a free society, to protect the rights of all. for me, the holocaust was the attempt to wipe out the jewish people. and its primary lesson is for the jewish people to never be powerless against our enemies. that is why like many jews, i take great comfort in the rebirth of a sovereign jewish state in our ancestral homeland. the jewish people once again having a voice, a refuge, and

most important the power to defend ourselves. but regardless of its meaning and its lessons, the holocaust poses two difficult questions for all of us. questions that challenge both our faith in god and our faith in man. first, how could a compassionate god allow the holocaust to happen? second, how could seemingly civilized societies produce so many individuals who could perpetrate such horrific crimes? in trying to grapple with these two questions, perhaps we should consider two other questions. two much older questions. they are recorded in the bible. they are the first question asked by god and first question asked by man.

after adam and eve disobeyed god in the garden of eden, we read that they hide in shame as they hear god's voice. where are you god asks. the sages of the jewish people teach us that where are you is not a question god is asking for his sake, it's a question god is asking for our sake. it is a question meant to spur introspection, to instill in us an appreciation that we are morm agents in the world. that we are responsible for the moral choices we make. ladies and gentlemen, the six million jews killed in the holocaust were not the victims of an earthearthquake, a hurricr some other random natural disaster that would understandably turn our eyes to the heavens for answers.

the six million jews killed in the holocaust were murdered by other human beings. by human beings who had a choice. so perhaps the question where are you, a question that so many asked god during the holocaust, and which so many of us have been asking god ever since, is not a question for us to ask god but a question for god to ask us. where was man during the holocaust? where was the moral compass of the millions who simply looked the other way as the nazis and their army of willing executioners perpetrated such monstrous evil? rather than honestly confront this question, people instead try to excuse their inaction. too often they justify their

failure to accept our moral obligations to one another by hiding behind another question. they answered the first question asked by god in the bible with the first question asked by man in the bible. it was the question asked by cane after murdering able. am i my brother's keeper? am i my brother's keeper? ladies and gentlemen, we are all here tonight to honor four people who were their brother's keeper. we are all here to honor four brave individuals who saw their actions not as an act of courage but as their most fundamental moral obligation to their fellow man. and that is precisely what makes them true heros. they are heros not simply

because they had an answer to cane's question. they are heros because they had an answer to god's question. to the question, where are you, these four had an answer. in an age of so much indifference, they acted. in an age of so much cowardice, they were courageous. in an age of so much darkness, they were a source of light. so in honoring these four righteous souls tonight, let us not only recognize their remarkable heroism, let us hope that their light will inspire us to live our lives so that we, too, will be able to give the right answers to those timeless questions and in so doing build a better future for all humanity. thank you. [ applause ]

>> it's now my honor to call upon the rabbi, the chairman and holocaust survivor. >> president barak obama, we will never forget friday morning your visit signed by the president and the prime minister. your remarks is unforgettable for us. thank you for joining us tonight. our host, the ambassador of israel and his wife, thank you for hosting this.

honoring the honorees of righteous among the nations. all what we will say about you is nothing, is zero. what you deserve for your families knowing that your fathers or grandfathers did not only for the jewish people but for mankind. you are a symbol that a man can be good even in an evil period of time. we were in that dark tunnel six years. i was in a city when i was born. the first ghetto located in poland was in our city.

the first. october '39 started the misery, the suffering, the separating of families, the liquidation. in those six tunnels, six years, we thought that he concurred the whole world. every day a new transport came from where? from hungary, romania, bulgarian, greece, tunisia, paris, belgium, holland. so we inside diskeconnected fro media six years didn't see a newspaper, didn't hear a voice of a radio whatever. what did we think? that he concurred the whole world. in this dark tunnel there were some stars. the righteous among the nations.

stars. many of us other their lives, their survival to those stars. there is a professor in the illinois university. he founded the archives of the gestapo a document. there is a prisoner of war, a russi russi russian. he is risking his life in barrack number eight to rescue the life of a jewish child. his name name is lulick. that's me. why? you have to investigate. maybe some jewish blood.

why is he doing it? four months, rescue this life to save me. risked his life. he was a star. how many like this? from the whole world we have about 26,000 names. after all the investigations, we found them that they end right there. medal of righteous among the nations. 26,000 from a continent of so many millions of people. and they owed, our doctors, educators, merchants, our industrials, whatever. 26,000, including from japan and

schindler, sweden, germany, poland. no more than 26,000. mr. president, we have a long history speaking about righteous among the nations. because as the ambassador mentioned, we have a good memory. 3,300 years ago, we didn't have bread. there was no time to wait for bread. the same date, you attend us the passover. the same menu over 3,300 years. four glasses of wine. what a memory. 2,200 years about, we found some oil in the temple.

happy hanukkah. you grace us. on the same date, 25th, earlier to these two events, we had already a righteous among the nation. order was given by the king of egypt. all the boys who are born to the jewish people throw into the nile. the girls to survive. right and left, boys and girls. it's kind of a final solution. there was a baby of three months put in a box on the nile. his mother couldn't hide him anymore. the thought of peril, not a jewish daughter, opened the box and said, this must be a jewish

child. a jewish baby. she took him from the river, from the nile and he was brought up on the knees of her father. he is the first child survivor in mankind's history. the daughter of him is the first of the righteous of the nation. she saved him. we will never forget. and i want to say one word. as far as we are unable and not authorized to forget the horror, we are ought to, we are commended to remember people who rescued -- who risked their

lives to save us. we will never forget you did. we will never forget anyone who is assistance and helps for the mortality and eternity of the jewish people. thank you. [ applause ] >> let me call to the stage now, the chairman of the american society. >> good evening, friends. it is a pleasure and an honor to address you on such an auspicious occasion. mr. president, you truly honor the state of israel and our

courageous heros with your presence. your participation along with that of the ambassador and the rabbi and mr. spielberg underscores the significance and sing lairty of the event that will take place tonight. for that we deeply thank you. in the first years after the holocaust, when the jewish people were still grappling with the aftermath of the horrors that theyb understanding that along with memorializing and documenting the mass murders and destruction, the jewish people would honor and remember the unknown and silent heros. these were the rarest of men and women who did not go along or stand by as their neighbors, friends and countrymen were rounded up and targeted for death. as risk to their own and family's lives, roddy edmunds and others were guided by a

strong sense of morality to save jewish children and adults. whose descendants and families are here tonight. in doing so, they are identified by the state of israel as righteous among the nations. true exemparticulars of courage and heroism from us and our children. many elements of the ceremony make it distinctive. it's the first time in history that an american president has joined with the state of israel to honor united states citizens as righteous among the nations. it's the first time that american citizens are being recognized on american soil. it's the first time that a u.s. soldier has been so recognized. it's the fourth and fifth time that americans are being recognized as righteous among the nation. that's a s this event, with its bond to american citizens who demonstrated enormous acts of bravery to a polish couple who saved a child would go on to

build a life in america, gives me a strong sense of pride. my family and i have dedicated ourselves to furthering holocaust research and education both in israel and the united states. as chairman of the american socie society, i'm humbled to the task we commit ourselves, to ensure the world never forgets. tonight, not only do we give honor to these incredible men and women, we also proclaim that despite the years that have passed, these stories carry timeless lessons for us all gathered here tonight and for all humanity. thank you again. [ applause ] now, if you would turn your attention to the video monitors on each side of the room for a video greeting from prime minister benjamin netanyahu. >> president obama, ambassador,

former chief rabbi and all the family members whose relatives are being honored tonight, today marks the 71 of the anniversary of the liberation of uauschwitz. we remember the children who never had a chance to grow up. today is a day when we can be grateful for the establishment of the state of israel. the jewish people were once powerless and stateless. now we are a sovereign independent nation with a capacity to defend ourselves. but as we defend ourselves, we know that we do not stand alone. while israel counts other nations as friends, we know we have no better friend than the united states of america. on behalf of the people of israel, i want to thank you, president obama, for coming to our embassy to mark this

important occasion. and i thank you for your commitment to continue to work with us to bolster israel's security over the coming decade. your being here reflects the unbreakable bond of friendship between america and the jewish state. it's a worthy tribute to the four brave individuals whom we honor tonight. the jewish people owe gratitude to valley and maria and louis and to master sergeant roddy edmunds. we are indebted to them because of the jewish children and soldiers who were saved thanks to their bravery. their courage was a special courage. they not only risked their own lives but the lives of their families and the life of their soldiers. there is no greater courage. god bless you all. [ applause ]

>> so as we turn to the presentation of the righteous among the nations honors ceremony, i would like to invite the ambassador and the rabbi to the stage. you coming to the stage? i think they have chairs for you. it is my honor as a cousin of holocaust survivor elizabeth wilk to read the story of her rescue in poland. on july 22, 1942, the germans began the mass deportations from the ghetto. by september 21, some 260,000 inhabitants of the ghetto had been deported to an

extermination camp where they were murdered. two women managed to flee from the ghetto and to go into hiding. i'm named after my aunt yanina because my father thought by the end of the war when i was born that she was dead. my aunt and her daughter stayed for two months at the home of acquaintances. my aunt then brought her daughter to it the home of valerie and marila sbeski until my aunt was able to rent an apartment under a false name and take her daughter back. despite the enormous danger the germans announced that helping jews would be punished by death, they carried for the girl and

protected her until her mother was able to take her. i would like to call dr. voytek of johns hopkins medical school, grandson of the late marila and valerie. righteous among the nations from poland to receive the medal and certificate of honor. [ applause ] so now let me introduce my cousin who was rescued in

poland -- we witnell get this right. the sbieskis. [ applause ] >> i am here today because of acts of tolerance, kindness and heroism. when the war started, i was not either 3 years old. during the time of the nazi occupation, there was fear, m menice and terror. when jews were ordered to the ghetto, my parents and i did so in spite of offers of help.

my father said that he will go where his people go. he died there at the age of 41. my mother and i were able to escape from the ghetto. once outside, we didn't know where to go. my mother knocked at the apartment door of friends from before the war who took us in without hesitation. we stayed with them until bombardment destroyed their house. we did not have a place to live and my mother slept one night here and one night there. she feared for my safety. she turned to marila, friends from before the war. they took me into their home and i stayed there for some time with them and their children and

i do not know how my mother managed during this time. on posts everywhere there were notices by occupiers that anyone who fed a jew, knew about a jew in hiding and did not report it or hid a jew would be executed together with their entire family. there was always a possibility that someone might notice something or a child might say one word too many. these families who helped were in peril. we survived the war because of people like them and others some of whose names i cannot even know. in time of an unspeakable horror, they all showed heroism and humanity in the highest

sense of the word. history repeats itself. i am frightened by aggression, hate and a lack of tolerance. we cannot forget our humanity and the lessons of the past. thank you. [ applause ] >> i now invite to the stage, mark kalish, son of a holocaust survivor, who is here with us this evening to read the story of her rescue by righteous among the nations from the united states of america lois gundon. [ applause ]

>> 1941, lois, a 26-year-old teacher of french from indiana, volunteered to work for the mennonite central committee in southern france. she established children's home which became a safe haven for a number of children. including jews whom she helped smuggle out of the internment camp. there lois pleaded with the parents to give up their children and give them to her in order to save them from deportation and almost certain death. my mother, who is with us tonight, is one of the several children saved by lois. my mother said at the time i was 12 years old and certainly scared. lois was kind and determined to take me and other jewish children to protect us from harm.

she sheltered the children when the french police arrived. and she ran the children's home even after the united states entered the war and she herself became an enemy. she continued her work until january 1943 when she was detained by the germans, fortunately released in 1944 in a prisoner exchange. i, my sister elisebeth and her grandson eric are here today representing the scores of jewish descendents of the children lois saved. through lois, we are bound in gratitude to the gundon family. thank you. [ applause ] >> i'm honored to call upon mary jean gundon, niece of the late

lois gundon, righteous among the nations from the united states of america to receive the medal and certificate of honor and to offer some remarks. [ applause ] >> on behalf of my late aunt, her family, friends and her broader mennonite community, i express our deep gratitude to the people of israel for this great honor. our family was blessed to have

lois among us. she possessed an inspiring spiritual dignity and grace. humble about her many achievements, we knew little about her war-time activities. her flunsy in french allowed her to communicate with the 60 children in the home and their parents. lois was grateful for every opportunity to in her words add just another ray of love to the lives of youngsters who have experienced so much of the misery of life. from contact with other relief workers from organizations such as the american friends service committee, or afsc, and the jewish organizations, lois knew the dangers her children faced. after a visit from her colleague from the afsc on august 9, 1942, she wrote, mary elms informed me

of the return of polish jews to poland where death awaits them. learning that three children sought by police had been saved from deportation on september 3, 1942, she wrote, when i heard of how the children were finally snatched from the fate hanging over them, i felt as if god must have had a hand in preventing anyone from coming after them during these two days. had they been taken to camp, all efforts to save them would have arrived too late for any good. marking a year on october 31, 1942, she wrote, but my year's experience has taught me more than ever that one has to live one day at a time. god's faithfulness towards those who put their trust in him can be counted upon throughout the particular problems of the day. without the assurance of his

abiding presence and his sustaining help, i would feel lost in an impossible tangle of circumstances. lois refused an offer by the resistance to leave france and avoid german detention. she, a pa would not risk danger those helping her nor others that might be harmed in retaliation. this young woman, not much older than the children she strove to save, is truly an american hero. [ applause ] >> i'm honored to call upon lester tanner who will tell the the story of how he and his fellow pows were rescued by righteous among the nations from

the united states of america master sergeant roddy edmunds. [ applause ] >> good evening. i am honored tonight to present this narrative of my commander and my friend. master sergeant roddy edmunds of knoxville, tennessee, participated in the landing of the american forces in europe and was taken prisoner by the germans. in january 1945, the germans ordered all jewish inmates in

the pow camp to report the following morning. understanding the imminent danger in which this would place his fellow jewish prisoners, like myself, master sergeant edmunds ordered all the pows, jews and non-jews alike to report together. when the german officer in charge saw that all the inmates standing in front of the barracks, he said, they cannot all be jews. i remember standing by his side

when edmunds retorted, we are all jews. he did not waiver even when the german took out his pistol and threatened to shoot him. according to the geneva convention, said edmunds, we have to give you only our name, rank and serial number. if you shoot me, you will have to shoot all of us. because we know who you are. and after the war, you will be tried for war crimes. the german finally gave up and left the scene. and the jewish pows were saved

from certain death. roddy could no more have turned 200 of his men over to nazi persecution than he could stop breathing. my fellow pows who are with us tonight, paul stern -- raise your hand, paul. [ applause ] paul was one of the jewish pows saved by roddy edmunds. he recalled, although 71 years have passed, i can still hear the words he said to the german camp commander. according to his diary, these

events took place on january 27, 1945. 71 years ago today. and tonight, my comrade paul stern is celebrating his 92nd birthday. [ applause ] i would also like you to meet one of my other comrades. he is actually the kid among us. he celebrated his 90th birthday last august at s-- sergeant irwn fox, would you stand up? [ applause ]

sonny is actually a tv star. he was president of the national academy of television arts and sciences. and at 90, he is still a consultant. thanks to roddy for saving us. and thank you. god bless america. [ applause ] >> all i can say is i, i want t look like these guys when i'm 90. i'm honored to call upon chris

edmunds to receive the medal and certificate of honor on behalf of his father and to offer some remarks. [ applause ] >> lester, you did good. thank you. ambassador, mr. president -- might i say, it's an incredible honor to have you here. one memory that our family will cherish always. i might also say, it's my first

time speaking at the embassy as well. [ laughter ] [ applause ] rabbi, senator alexander, senator corker, the gunden family -- i'm going to mess this up. i'm from tennessee. the sbieski family. there we go. i will get it right next time. and distinguished guests, tonight on this noble occasion, my mother mary ann who could not be with us and my family are blessed to receive this remarkable honor. righteous among the nations on behalf of many i father. thank you god for our

treasuresh bestowing this on dad. the first recognized for protecting american jews, our family is forever grateful. more personally, our family extends warmest thanks to our dear friends larry and barbara goldstein who shared dad's story. they could not be here tonight as well. being named among the righteous is a fitting tribute to dad, a man who lived by a christian faith and a love for everyone. we're very proud of him and we're humbled that he joins a small minority of ordinary people who mustered extraordinary courage to uphold the goodness and dignity of humanity. my dad, like miss gunden and others are heros. in a defining moment, when evil demanded their conscience and a

even their very souls, they refused to join the masses but instead, bowed to no one and chose what is right regardless of the risk. choosing right by their creator and right for god's children. what they did is right today. it's right tomorrow. it's right always. as we honor these enduring lives it's especially fitting that you have favored dad on january 27th, international holocaust remembrance day. as lester shared on this day 71 years ago, my dad fearlessly stood with his jewish and non-jewish brothers and told the nazi commander we are all jews here. we are blessed to know dad's story and blessed by his actions but most blessed to know some of the men he saved.

remarkably, you have met them, they have joined us tonight along with their beautiful families and their three jewish american veterans who stood strong and defiant with dad that bitterly cold january morning. staff sergeant lester tanner of new york. tech sergeant and medic, paul stern of virginia. happy birthday, sir. sergeant sonny fox of california. two men who were unable to attend but wishing us well are tech sergeant hank friedman of georgia and tech sergeant skip friedman of ohio. we must always remember the 1200 courageous and defiant doughboys of the u.s. army who stood in sharp formation that difficuday heroic men and my father. all are heroes. gentlemen, we salute you. thank you for a job well done. my father's legacy like all of the righteous are the children,

the grandchildren and the great grandchildren of these men. i'm often asked why would your father do what he did. dad would say son, what's all the fuss? i was just doing my job. but i say dad's life was guided by one eternal truth, that there is a god and that god is good. and god's love though free has one essential responsibility. we must be good to one another or as jesus proclaimed, we must love one another. that's what dad did. along with these others who are being honored tonight. and they leave an enduring legacy along with the tribe we call the righteous. their actions were founded on god's love and their extraordinary -- and the extraordinary idea that all men and women are created equal.

tonight we celebrate them because they acted on that idea and though we honor them with words, nothing honors them more than their actions. our duty now is to take strength from their example and resolve to live as they did. laying down one's life for freedom and human dignity. god's word says this. the godly people in the land are my true heroes. i take pleasure in them. gratefully, we do, too. thank you. may god richly bless all of you with his grace and his mercy. [ applause ] >> it's my great honor now to

call upon foundation founder and academy award winning director and producer stephen spielberg who will introduce the president of the united states of america. >> thank you. thank you, nina and good evening, mr. president, ambassador, rabbi, the families of the righteous among nations who are -- who we honor today and the families of those saved by these righteous souls and distinguished guests. i'm humbled to be part of this historic gathering, particularly given the significance that this is international holocaust remembrance day. and i am here tonight to introduce my good friend, president obama.

now, in these times with humanity worldwide, when humanity is buffeted by crisis after crisis, when the need for redemptive action has never been more urgent, i was eager to join you in washington to commemorate the righteous among the nations. many of those in attendance today are here because of courageous acts. the descendents of victims and survivors, second and third generations, they make a significant portion of world jewery today. lador vador is from generation to generation. these in particular i think are a living testament to the love of humankind and the refusal to become complicit in evil that drove the righteous to risk their own lives to save jews. we gather tonight to honor four righteous persons, master sergeant roddie edmonds, louis gunden and valerie zbievski.

i practiced that the whole way here. when we remember and honor the selflessness and bravery and loving kindness of the righteous among nations, we are actually committing our lives to their legacies by promising simply to listen to their stories because they can help us find our voices. i found my own voice at a very early age where i was barely able to reach the top of the dining room table, from where i could watch my grandmother teaching hungarian holocaust survivors english. there was no sesame street back then but i learned my numbers on the forearms of survivors of auschwitz. they taught me how to count. this is an indelible memory and

it set me on the path as a person who began to listen to everything. i have always believed you can't find your own voice for speaking on behalf for the world or speaking against those who would destroy the world, if you can't hear what the world is saying. and with that in mind, i wanted to make a film about the importance of not being a bystander as history passes close to you, giving all of us a chance to do something before it passes us by and so that film was schindler's list. oscar schindler one of the righteous among the nations saved more than 1,100 jews and made life possible for their offspring. from that film came the foundation, the institute for visual history and education, which houses more than 53,000 survivors' and witnesses' testimonies in 39 languages gathered from 63 countries,

ensuring that we will never stop listening, that their stories will live on for future generations and their voices preserved in perpetuity. now it is a great honor for me to introduce to you a man who truly understands what it means to find your voice. time and again, he has honored lifting up their stories and by standing firm against bigotry and hatred that fuels violence and genocide. in 2014, i was privileged to present president obama with the foundation's ambassador for humanity award and that night, the president quoted a holocaust survivor who works to improve the world drop by drop by drop. and i believe that, too, is the president's lifelong mission. it's why some have said that

this president has a jewish soul. he showed this when he created the atrocities prevention board and when he declared the prevention of mass atrocities a national security interest. he demonstrates this in his steadfast support for the state of israel at a time when israel has many enemies and when antisemitism focuses its hatred on a nation that emerged in the wake of tragedy to offer hope and a future for the jewish people. the president's support is needed and appreciated more than ever. and in his commitment to seek a humanitarian response to the syrian refugee crisis and every time he stands up for people who have been attacked because of their identity and denounces antisemitism, islamophobia, racism and hatred in every form, he demonstrates that never again means we cannot be bystanders when people are stigmatized, oppressed, excluded or attacked

because of their identity. the president makes sure that phrase never again is not a hollow declaration by giving it a powerful voice in his everyday life. so it means a great deal to have the president of the united states take part in the first righteous among the nations ceremony to be held on u.s. soil at the embassy of israel and it's my distinct privilege to introduce my good friend and president of the united states, barack obama. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you. good evening.

if a person destroys one life, it is as if they have destroyed an entire world. and if a person saves one life, it is as if they have saved an entire world. what an extraordinary honor to be with you as we honor four righteous individuals whose courage is measured in the lives they saved. one child. one refugee. one comrade at a time. and who in so doing, helped save our world. i deliver a lot of speeches. very rarely am i so humbled by

the eloquence that has preceded me. not just in words, but in the acts that we commemorate today. to my dear friend stephen spielberg, thanks for your moving and generous words. you spoke of the importance of finding your voice and using it for good, and i know that your work, whether a masterpiece like schindler's list or the stories that you have so persistently preserved through the shoah foundation is deeply personal. steven once said the story of the shoah is the story that he was born to tell, rooted in those childhood memories that he just gave you a taste of, the relatives lost, the stories you heard from your family and stephen, the whole world is grateful that you found your voice and for the good that you've done with that voice. it will endure for generations and so on behalf of all of us,

we are grateful. to ambassador and mrs. dermer, to nina totenberg, our friends from the israeli embassy, thank you so much for hosting us today. let me just add tonight that our thoughts are also with former israeli president peres. i had the opportunity to speak with shimon earlier this week. i thanked him for his friendship which has always meant so much to me personally and i thanked him once again for the shining example of his leadership with his extraordinary life as a founding father of the state of israel, a statsman who has never given up on peace, embodiment of the great alliance between our two nations. he inspires us all. this evening we speak for all of us, israelis, americans, people around the world in wishing him a full and speedy recovery.

i also want to just note the presence of two of our outstanding senators from the great state of tennessee. i know that it's rare where you have such an extraordinary native of the state being honored in this way but i think it's also worth noting that this represents the bipartisan and steadfast support of members of congress for the security and prosperity of the state of israel, and they act on that every single day. the survivors, families of the righteous and those they saved to all the distinguished guests, we gather to honor the newest of the righteous among the nations. and make real the call to never forget. not just on this day of remembrance, but for all days

and for all time. in moments like this, as i listen to the extraordinary stories of the four that we honored, memories come rushing back of the times that i have encountered the history+ horror of the shoah. growing up hearing the stories of my great uncle who helped liberate buchenwald and who returned home so shaken by the suffering that he had seen that my grandmother would tell me he did not speak to anyone for six months. just went up in his attic, couldn't fully absorb the horror that he had witnessed. then having the opportunity to go to buchenwald myself with my dear friend elle and seeing the ovens, the little camp where he was held as a boy. standing with survivors in the

old warsaw ghetto and then the extraordinary honor of walking through with the rabbi and seeing the faces and hearing the voices of the lost, a blessed memory. then taking my own daughters to visit the holocaust museum, because our children must know this chapter of our history and that we must never repeat it. the four lives we honor tonight to make a claim on our conscience as well as our moral imagination. we hear their stories and we are forced to ask ourselves under the same circumstances, how would we act? how would we answer god's question, where are you? would we show the love of

valerie and marila zbievski. not bad, right? there in warsaw, they could have been shot for opening their home to a 5-year-old girl. they cared for her like one of their own. gave her safety and shelter and moments of warmth of family and music, a shield from the madness outside until her mother could return. would we have the extraordinary compassion of lois gunden? she wrote that she simply hoped to add just another ray of love to the lives of these youngsters who had already endured so much and by housing and feeding as many jewish children as she could, her ray of love always shown through and still burns

within the families of those she saved. would we have the courage of master sergeant roddie edmonds. i know your dad said he was just doing his job, but he went above and beyond the call of duty and so did all those who joined in that line. faced with a choice of giving up his fellow soldiers or saving his own life, roddie looked evil in the eye and dared a nazi to shoot. his moral compass never wavered. he was true to his faith and he saved some 200 jewish american soldiers as a consequence. it's an instructive lesson, by the way, for those of us christians. i cannot imagine a greater expression of christianity to

say i too am a jew. i ask these questions because even as the holocaust is unique, a crime without parallel in history, the seeds of hate that gave rise to the shoah, the ignorance that conspires with arrogance, the indifference that betrays compassion, those seeds have always been with us. they have found root across cultures and across faiths and across generations. the ambassador mentioned the story of cain and abel. it's deep within us. too often, especially in times of change, especially in times of anxiety and uncertainty, we

are too willing to give in to a base desire to find someone else, someone different, to blame for our struggles. so here tonight, we must confront the reality that around the world, antisemitism is on the rise. we cannot deny it. when we see some jews leaving european cities where their families have lived for generations because they no longer feel safe, when jewish centers are targeted from mumbai to overland park, kansas, when swastikas appear on college campuses, when we see all that and more, we must not be silent. an attack on any faith is an attack on all of our faiths. it is an attack on that golden rule at the heart of so many

faiths that we ought to do unto others as we would have done to us. for americans in particular, we should understand that it's an attack on our diversity, on the very idea that people of different backgrounds can live together and thrive together. which is why your father was right. we are all jews. because antisemitism is a distillation, an expression of an evil that runs through so much of human history, and if we do not answer that, we do not answer any other form of evil. when any jew anywhere is

we all have to respond as roddie edmonds did. we are all jews. we know that we will never be able to wipe out hatred from every single mind. we won't entirely erase the scourge of antisemitism. but like the righteous, we must do everything we can. all of us have a responsibility. certainly government has a responsibility. as president, i have made sure that the united states is leading the global fight against antisemitism and it's why with israel and countries around the world, we organized the first united nations general assembly meeting on antisemitism. it's why we have urged other nations to dedicate a special envoy to this threat as we have. it's why when a statue of an anti-semitic leader from world war ii was planned in hungary,

we led the government to reverse course. this was not a sidenote to our relations with hungary. this was central to maintaining a good relationship with the united states and we let them know. it's why when voices around the world veer from criticism of a particular israeli policy to an unjust denial of israel's right to exist, when israel faces terrorism, we stand up forcefully and proudly in defense of our ally, in defense of our friend, in defense of the jewish state of israel. america's commitment to israel's security remains now and forever unshakeable and i have said this before, it would be a fundamental moral failing if america broke that bond. all nations that prize diversity and tolerance and pluralism must

speak out whenever and wherever jews and other religious minorities are attacked. in recent years we have seen leaders in france, germany and great britain stand strongly against antisemitism. in israel, president rivlin has spoken about tolerance and acceptance among all israelis, jewish and arab. meanwhile, governments have an obligation to care for the survivors of the shoah because no one who endured that horror should have to scrape by in their golden years. so with our white house initiative, we are working to improve care for holocaust survivors in need here in the united states, and with the compensation fund we helped create, claims are finally being paid that even more jews deported from france during the holocaust, including survivors here in america, can benefit from. but the task before us does not

fall on government alone. every faith community has a responsibility, just as all religions speak out against those who try to twist their faith to justify terrorism and violence, just as all faiths need to speak out when interpretations of their religion veer in an ugly direction, so too must they speak out against those who use their faith to justify bias against jews or people of any faith. we know that there were muslims from albanians to arabs who protected jews from nazis. in morocco, leaders from muslim majority countries around the world just held a summit on protecting religious minorities including jews and christians. his holiness, pope francis, has spoken forcefully against antisemitism saying every human being as a creature of god is our brother regardless of his origins or religious beliefs.

these are the voices we must heed and anyone who claims to be a religious leader must project that vision. that truth. and finally, all of us have a responsibility to speak out and to teach what's right to our children and to examine our own hearts. that's the lesson of the righteous we honor today. the lesson of the holocaust itself. where are you, who are you? that's the question that the holocaust poses to us. we have to consider even in moments of peril, even when we might fear for our own lives, the fact that none of us are powerless. we always have a choice and

today for most of us standing up against intolerance doesn't require the same risks that those we honor today took. it doesn't require imprisonment or that we face down the barrel of a gun. it does require us to speak out. it does require us to stand firm. we know that evil can flourish if we stand idly by. so we're called to live in a way that shows that we have actually learned from our past and that means rejecting indifference. it means cultivating a habit of empathy and recognizing ourselves in one another, to make common cause with the outsider, the minority, whether that minority is christian or jew, whether it is hindu or muslim, or non-believer.

whether that minority is native-born or immigrant. whether they are israeli or palestinian. it means taking a stand against bigotry in all its forms and rejecting our darkest impulses and guarding against tribalism as the only value. in our communities and in our politics. it means heeding the lesson repeated so often in the torah to welcome the stranger for we were once strangers, too. that's how we never forget. not simply by keeping the lessons of the shoah in our memories but by living them in our actions. as the book of deuteronomy teaches us, justice, justice, you shall pursue. i want to close with what i'm told is a jewish legend.

it's said that within every generation, there are 36 virtuous individuals, individuals so honorable, so filled with compassion that their good works sustain the very existence of the world. they are called -- and without them society crumbles, according to the legend. we don't know who they are. they are entirely indistinguishable ordinary people like valerie and marela and lois and roddie. you wouldn't necessarily recognize them in a crowd. but i believe that their jn

rati generation, the generation of schindler demanded a lot more than 36. it called for more than 26,000 righteous among the nations. it called for the millions of heroes who did not go quietly and who stood up and fought back. may we all strive to live up to their noble example. to to do our part to sustain each other and embrace the humanity we share and in so doing, save our world. may the memory of the lost be a blessing and as nations and individuals, may we always strive to be among the righteous. god bless you, god bless the united states of america and god bless the state of israel. [ applause ]

>> ladies and gentlemen, please stay in your places for a few minutes. >> with the iowa caucuses on monday, "washington journal" talked to students at simpson college near des moines, iowa to find whout what they think of t presidential race. >> olivia and zach are sophomores here at simpson, both active in politics on campus. olivia anderson, you came to simpson college specifically for iowa politics. what did you find? >> absolutely.

when i was making my college choice i saw simpson and i saw its location near des moines and i wanted to come here for politics. since coming, it's been a whirlwind of opportunities. whether it be senate or house elections, or even presidential elections that are currently happening right now, i was able to be a fellow with the hillary clinton campaign this past summer just due to the fact that i conveniently live in iowa. >> you are also president of the college democrats. were you always a democrat? when did you start becoming a democrat? >> actually, whenever i was growing up, i grew up in a fairly conservative area. i grew up a republican but after just learning more and just really trying to educate myself, i figured out i aligned more with democratic values. so that transition happened in college and it's definitely exciting that it happened here in iowa, too. >> zach goodrich, alining a little differently. active in the rubio campaign. what do you do with the campaign? >> i'm the chairman for the warren county campaign. i also help run the campaigns across college campuses in iowa.

>> what do you do in that role? >> we work with the different students, all the chairs for the students for rubio at colleges as big as the university of iowa and as small as schools like simpson. we make sure that they have events planned whether it be debate party or even just coming out and let's discuss the candidates and the issues. >> do you think your generation is as active in politics as previous generations? >> i like to think we are. obviously we will have some people who are pretty pessimistic about our generation and they like to think we are not as civically engaged. from what i have seen here at simpson and across the state there are plenty of young people who are concerned about the state of our nation and who want to be involved and help make sure we get back on the right track. >> how did you become a republican? >> i became a republican because like olivia, raised in a fairly conservative household and i like to tell people i bleed red because it's just been part of my family for generations. my great grandfather actually involved with the republican party of iowa, served as its treasurer, helped run president

ford's campaign in '76. it's just something i have always taken pride in. >> where are you going to be on caucus night? >> caucus night i'm going to be supporting marco rubio. >> olivia, where are you going to be? >> i'm going to be here on campus. we have caucus locations. i will be supporting hillary. on saturday's "washington journal," iowa state university professor stefan schmidt with a preview of monday's iowa presidential caucuses. then former senator tim hutchinson, a supporter of marco rubio's candidacy. and hillary clinton supporter, former senator tom harkin. "washington journal" live with your phone calls, tweets and facebook comments at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. we have main engine start. four, three, two, one. and liftoff. liftoff of the 25th space shuttle mission and it has cleared the tower. >> every weekend on american

history tv on c-span 3 we feature programs that tell the american story. some of the highlights for this weekend include saturday morning at 11:15 eastern, author and new york state supreme court judge dianne keisel discusses the life and accomplishments of dorothy ferraby. at 10:00 p.m. eastern on real america, 30 years ago this week, the space shuttle "challenger" exploded shortly after liftoff killing all seven crew members. watch president reagan's address to the nation about the explosion. and a 1986 nasa video report detailing the accident's causes. >> today is a day for mourning and remembering. nancy and i are shaken to the core by the tragedy of the shuttle "challenger." we know we share this pain with all the people of our country. this is truly a national loss. >> sunday morning at 10:00 on road to the white house rewind, a look at the iowa caucuses including howard dean's 2004 speech featuring the dean scream and the conference on the

history of the iowa caucuses whose speakers include retired democratic political advisor tim kraft, the campaign manager for jimmy carter in 1976. also two panels with former campaign managers and political reporters. and at 8:00, journalist paul brandis on his book under this roof, the white house and the presidency, 21 presidents, 21 rooms, 21 inside stories. he explains how presidents from george washington to barack obama have left their imprint on the executive mansion. >> here's what i find interesting about the theater. if you look at records of what the presidents have watched over the years, the tastes are obviously eclectic and everything and they reflect the tastes of the presidents, they reflect the times in which they lived and everything, but there's one movie, this is a quiz section of our evening here, there's one movie that really resonated with more

presidents than any other. can you guess what that one movie might be? >> for the complete american history tv weekend schedule, go to c-span.org. in 2012, the supreme court struck down mandatory life sentences for juveniles. this week, the court ruled in a 6-3 decision that those life sentences should be struck down rets actively. justice anthony kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the case of montgomery versus louisiana. here's the oral argument from october. it's an hour and 15 minutes. we'll hear argument this morning, case 14280, montgomery versus louisiana. mr. bernstein. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. the issue is whether to decide the question of miller's retroactivity in this case or in a federal habeas case such as johnson versus mannis, number 15-1 on this court's docket. in today's case there is no

jurisdiction over that question because the point is enforce the supremacy clause which states that when, quote, the laws of the united states, unquote, apply, quote, the judges -- these are the key words -- in every state shall be bound thereby. there is no such thing as supreme federal law that depends on whether a particular state voluntarily makes federal precedents binding. when a state does that, when a state voluntarily adopts non-binding federal precedents, that creates no right under federal law, which is what 1257 requires, and michigan versus long does not apply. >> how would you describe the adequate and independent state ground on which this decision rested? >> i would say that the lack of a binding federal law question is an antecedent requirement, to borrow the terminology of the

sg's brief, before you get to the adequate and independent state ground analysis. >> why don't we have jurisdiction to answer that question? >> you certainly have jurisdiction to answer the question whether teague is constitutionally required in state collateral review courts. the second part of the brief said why it is not constitutionally required in state collateral review courts, and that's basically this court's precedents from danforth to the beginning in desist and in kaufmann have said the teague, what have become the teagu exceptions are matters of equitable discretion and not matters of the constitution, and the federal habeas statute on its face, only applies in federal court. so the federal habeas court can grant relief if relief is warranted under the teague exception. >> if a state says we

acknowledge that we are holding a prisoner in contravention of federal law but we choose to do nothing about it, then the answer is federal habeas corpus, there is not a second answer that the state can be required under the supremacy clause under its own procedures to enforce the federal law? if i am -- if i were to take -- to argue the second position, i am not quite sure what case i would have to support me. >> well, i think that your honor's opinion for the court in martinez versus ryan. 132 supreme court at 1319 to 1320, suggested that there are advantages to citing the federal habeas right in the federal habeas statute rather than what the court called a free standing constitutional claim. a major advantage here is, if you say that the state courts are bound by the teague exceptions, by the constitution,

then when it goes to federal habeas there will be deferential edba review. if you say that the redress question, as the rationale of danforth indicated, in state court is a matter of state law, then, when the issue goes to federal habeas, it will not apply because the state court will not have decided the federal issue. it is a major difference. you would actually be weakening the federal habeas statute to recognize jurisdiction in this case. and this court will benefit from having de novo percolation in the lower courts, the lower habeas courts, which all would be out the window if there is jurisdiction because the lower federal habeas courts will only be able and the courts reviewing them on appeal to apply the highly deferential edber review. >> are you saying the supremacy clause binds the states only in

direct criminal proceedings? >> no. >> is that another way of phrasing your argument? >> it would be that the supremacy clause only binds the states in direct proceedings and in collateral proceedings where it's an old rule. because that's the equivalent of a direct proceeding. but if you are talking about the retroactivity of a new rule, then -- that's where the teague -- the two teague exceptions apply. they apply to new rules and they apply to collateral review. those are based in statutory equitable discretion rather than the constitution. the court has already held that both direct review and the application of old rules present federal questions. >> how do you differentiate this case from standard oil? >> in standard oil the issue was the underlying status of the

federal government arm and the court said that question is controlled by federal law. standard oil is like miller itself where the issue was what does the 8th amendment require. that's a federal constitutional issue that applied. in standard oil, as a combination of statute, regulations and federal common law, federal law controlled the question. here the statute doesn't apply in state court as danforth and numerous other cases have held, like the federal rules of evidence don't apply in state court, even though many courts follow similar provisions and certainly follow federal precedents in interpreting. >> we did say that that state could define the exemption any which way it wanted. >> correct. >> it's almost identical here. we would announce what the federal law is, send it back. the state has already said it's going to follow teague. but i guess it might or might not be free to change its mind about doing that.

>> i think the difference and what makes this case special is that this court has held since murdoch versus city of memphis over almost 150 years ago. 87 u.s. at 326 to 327 that the 1267 jurisdiction is question by question. it is not like 1331, case by case. it is question by question. and i do not believe the court has jurisdiction to skip over the question of whether federal law applies and then answer the hypothetical if federal law applied, what would it be. i think the question of whether federal law applies is a jurisdictional question. >> how -- let's think of the first teague exception. suppose, substantive matters. suppose that many states had sedition laws, that make certain conduct unlawful so there are 1,000 people in prison.

this court, in a new rule, holds you cannot criminalize that behavior. all right. what is the law that would make that retroactive to people in prison? it sounds to me that it isn't like some kind of statutory discretion. rather, there are human beings who are in prison who are there without having violated any valid law. because it was always protected by the first amendment. if that's right it's the constitution, the due process clause, that says they are being held, even though they committed the crime 22 years ago, they are now being held in confinement without due process of law because you cannot criminalize their behavior. you see where i am going? that being so, teague drops out

of the case, the only question is whether to satisfy the two exceptions. >> well, in your hypothetical, respectfully, i don't think that would be a new rule. >> i have made it a new rule for purposes of my hypothetical. i'm making it a new rule. >> if it were a genuinely new rule, then under danforth and going all the way back, the justice harlan's opinion in mackie said we're not creating the substantive exception because the constitution requires that -- >> danforth is a case saying the states could be more generous. it wasn't a case -- this is a case that the opposite of being generous. can they be more stingy. and i cannot find anything in harlan. maybe i'll read it again, but i cannot find anything there, nor can i find anything in danforth that answers the question. so i thought, it is a new question. hence, that question i posed you because i want to get your response. i don't think you can answer it

by means of precedent. i think you have to try to figure it out without the help of precedent. >> if it is a new rule, the court has held and sorry to cite a precedent, linkletter held retroactivity on collateral review that it's not constitutional. >> then we have teague and teague is saying we don't like linkletter and -- >> teague said we don't like -- >> you're saying that we have -- maybe then that's wrong. i mean, why doesn't it violate the constitution to hold a person in prison for 20 years for conduct which the constitution forbids making criminal? >> well, it does violate the constitution. >> it wasn't criminal at the time. it wasn't prohibited by the constitution at the time he was convicted, right? >> fair enough. >> would be the reason. >> fair enough. >> but the -- the constitution,

according to the cases, is satisfied by the federal habeas remedy. i think this is where -- >> is there anything else you can say? i could say, which -- witches, being a witch. some people in salem were imprisoned for being a witch. lo and behold, in 1820 it was held by this court that that violated the constitution. now, you see, i just make a more outrageous example of the same thing. i want you to say, okay, i got your point. it didn't violate the constitution at the time. i also got the point you have some authority. anything else? >> this court has been reluctant, even when there is a violation of the due process clause, to create an implied judicial remedy on top of the federal statutory remedy. that's cited in our briefs. >> that's not what's happening here, mr. bernstein.

i mean, if you assume the premise of justice breyer's question, which is that there is a constitutional violation in keeping somebody in prison for some conduct that can't be criminalized, the state has set up a collateral review mechanism. we're not asking it to set up a new mechanism that it hasn't had before. it has a collateral review mechanism. and the only question is whether it's going to comply with federal constitutional law in that collateral review mechanism. >> and the other question is whether that issue of retroactivity is itself a federal constitutional issue. if it is, obviously there is jurisdiction. if it is not, i would submit there is not jurisdiction and that the proper remedy is federal habeas. if i may reserve the remainder of my time. >> thank you, counsel. mr. plaisance.

>> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. miller versus alabama established a new substantive rule prohibiting mandatory life without parole for juveniles which should be applied retro actively. this court has jurisdiction to hear henry montgomery's claim because the louisiana supreme court relied exclusively on federal juris prudence. in miller this court held that mandatory life in prison was unconstitutional. it also held that life in prison would be an uncommon, rash sentence even today. >> isn't it just like a state saying, we have a fourth amendment, and the federal constitution has a fourth amendment. we are going to apply our own constitution, but in applying it, we will follow the federal precedent. i think we would say, in that case, the case has been decided on the state constitutional

ground, even though the state court, in interpreting that ground, is looking to federal decisions. >> in this case, your honor, the louisiana supreme court did not state that it was exercising any independent grounds at all. under michigan v long -- >> i thought the case it cited said that. the case -- i thought it cited an earlier louisiana supreme court case, which made it very clear that it was following the federal rule as a matter of discretion and not because -- not because it had to and it could, in a later opinion, decide not to follow federal law. >> it is my interpretation of the earlier case that the louisiana supreme court said, we have a choice. and they made the choice to apply teague. in fact, they said in that opinion, we are dictated by the teague analysis. and that's what was done in this case.

under michigan -- >> did they not say in taylor that they were not bound to follow teague? didn't they say we're going to follow teague but we want to make it clear we're not bound to do that? >> they did say that. >> they've never retracted that. >> correct. but the choice itself is not necessarily a matter of state law. while the supreme court had the authority to make that decision, it said, we believe by choosing teague we believe that is the better law and therefore we will follow the federal guidelines from teague, the federal juris prudence in doing so. i believe that under michigan v long, unless they state a clear and independent ground, this court can conclusively presume that they applied federal law as they believe this court would apply. >> i thought it's unless they clearly state otherwise, we will assume that they're applying federal law.

and here they did clearly state otherwise. they said we don't have to follow federal law, but we're going to model our state law on federal law. it seems to me that satisfies the exception requirement of michigan. >> it is my opinion that michigan v long indicates the reverse, your honor, that the state must say we are following state law in making this decision. we are applying state law rather than federal law. >> they did say that here. they said that. this is a matter of state law. we don't have to follow teague, but we choose to, as a matter of state law. i thought that's what they said. >> and i believe that that's sufficient to indicate to this court that it is applying federal law. it is not applying state law. >> mr. plaisance, i think what people are saying to you is that this is different from your standard michigan v long

question. i mean, this is a different question. it's a state that says, we're not bound to follow teague. we know we can do something different. but we want to follow teague. that's what we want to do. and then -- in all its particulars, all right. then the question is, if the state commits to following teague, it's not -- it doesn't think anybody else has committed it, it self-commits to following teague and to following federal law, then what happens? is there enough of a federal question to decide this case. that's not a michigan v. long question. it's more like a merrill-dow question or something like that where federal law -- the state has chosen it but it's part and parcel of the clam because the state is so committed to following federal law in all its particulars. >> i agree with your honor. even in danforth this court said that the question of retroactivity is a pure question of federal law.

>> i'm sorry. why don't you finish. >> that's the answer to your explanation or hypothetical, that you said if the state decided that they were choosing federal law, then what's the next step. and the next step, the question is retroactivity, which both the majority and the dissent in danforth said the question of retroactivity is a pure question of federal law. >> federal statutory law. right? i thought that was the point of danforth. that the reason the states can go beyond the federal interpretation is because we're are talking about the federal habeas statute. right? >> that's correct, your honor. but even in yates this court said that, on state habeas if the state considers the merits of the federal claim and the merits of this claim are, is mr. montgomery serving an unconstitutional sentence. is miller retroactive to address the fact that he is serving an unconstitutional sentence. >> how do you deal with mr.

bernstein's point that your client would be worse off if you are correct, that is, if the question comes up on federal habeas, then the federal court decides it without any edka problem. if the state court goes first then the federal review is truncated. >> that would be my understanding, your honor, that, while mr. -- while henry -- while jurisdiction in this court does not depend on what has occurred so far, it depends on what this court does decide. again, whether he can go to federal court or this court doesn't affect the jurisdiction that i believe this court has today. and the question is -- >> but in -- how do you answer the argument -- all right. suppose you're right. but your victory is going to leave your client in a worse

position because, when he gets to the federal court, he will be saddled with edba. >> not if this court rules it has jurisdiction and it would be retroactive. makes miller retroactive. then at that point he would not be going to federal court. the question is is mr. montgomery being held unconstitutionally. in miller the court said a mandatory life in prison sentence is unconstitutional because it fails to address the fact of the matter that this court believes kids are different. >> mr. plaisance, on the jurisdictional point, let me see if i understand what you're arguing. a lot of state rules of procedure are modeled after federal rules of procedure, and a lot of state courts simply follow the federal rules but they follow it as a matter of choice. and not because they think they're bound by the federal rules. so let's say that there is a

disagreement in federal court about what federal rule of evidence 403 means. the state court says, well, you know, we're going to follow the federal rule, and we think that the right course as between these two divergent federal courts of appeals is the second circuit. so we're going to follow the second circuit's interpretation of federal rule 403. would we have jurisdiction to review that decision as a decision on a question of federal law? >> if it was clear to this court that the state court made a conscious choice and sent enough of a signal to this court that it was adopting federal law to use as state law but in this case there is no indication that the state of supreme court of

louisiana was making that decision. they said that we are -- our analysis is dictated by teague. and in doing so, they found that mr. -- they would not apply miller retroactive. that's the real issue of this case. >> suppose we hold that we can review the -- we have jurisdiction because the state court said it was going to follow teague and then we go on and we say that, under teague miller can be applied on collateral review. then the case goes back to the louisiana supreme court and they say, well, we said previously in taylor we were going to follow teague, but that was based on our understanding of teague at that time. but now that we see what it's been interpreted to mean by the u.s. supreme court we're not going to follow teague. then what would happen? >> i think louisiana would be bound to follow this court's ruling, as you set forth. >> why? because it said that we would

because it said that we would voluntarily follow it in taylor? that bound them? >> i think they made the conscious choice to follow this court's laws, this court's juris prudence. in doing so, it must follow this court's juris prudence. as i said before -- >> they changed their mind. they have now chosen the course not to follow our juris prudence. what forces them to stay where they were? it's a matter of state law. they decided to change state law. >> they didn't do that in this case, your honor. >> not yet. if we agree with you and send it back and they look at it and they say, oh, if that's what teague means, we're not going to follow teague. what stops them from doing that? and doesn't that make us look foolish? >> no, it doesn't, your honor. >> we render decisions that can be overruled by somebody else? >> if a state considers the merits of a federal claim, it must grant the relief the federal court --

>> but the question is what's the federal claim. why isn't you cite standard oil versus johnson in your response to questions from justice scalia and justice alito? >> i believe my friend the solicitor general -- >> the name of the case. standard oil versus johnson. >> that was a case cited by the solicitor general. i believe my friend from the solicitor general's office can answer that question a little bit better. >> are you asking us to decide the question of -- left open in danforth? danforth said that it was a minimum -- there could be a cons -- constitutional minimum but it wasn't answering that question. are you asking us to answer that question? >> i am saying, your honor, you don't need to get to that question. >> let's assume -- >> under michigan v. long this court has jurisdiction. i reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, counsel.

>> mr. dreeben. >> thank you mr. justice. may it please the court. this court does have jurisdiction to decide the question of miller's retroactivity because louisiana has voluntarily incorporated into its law a holy federal standard. in this court's decisions in standard oil, merrill-dow, three affiliated tribes and most recently ohio versus reiner the court recognized that when a state chooses to adopt federal law to guides its decisions and binds itself to federal law there is a federal question. >> they can change their mind, right? you said voluntarily chose to follow it. they can voluntarily choose not to follow it any more. >> the same is true in any michigan versus long case. what that says said is that this court has jurisdiction under section 1257 to revolve state court resolutions of federal law and it will presume that a state

constitutional decision of a mirror image say of the fourth amendment will be binding but recognized that the only circumstance in which the court will not treat federal law as governing both questions is when the state makes clear that it would reach the same result under state constitutional law as it did under federal law. it did not preclude the option of the state going back and reaching a different decision once enlightened by this court as to the content of federal law. standard oil is completely clear on this. it says the state chose to use federal law to determine whether a federal post exchange was a federal instrumentality. we're going to correct its understanding of federal law. on reman, the state now freed from its misapprehensions of state law decide what it thinks state law requires.

>> how does it work. should be pretty elementary. i mean, i looked at the indian case. that seems a little far out. the -- definitely gives you support on your statement here. suppose you took justice scalia's example. we have iowa state rule 56. we interpret iowa state rule 56 the same way as the federal rules of civil procedure. that's our rule. now this is what it means in that case. they say but we're doing it under iowa state rule. you say we can review that because they said that iowa state rule is the same as the federal. is that right? how do you fit that in the words of 1257? >> i doubt that that would satisfy the court. there is a theoretical answer and a practical answer. let me give the practical answer first. the states that govern the federal rules of evidence and civil procedure uniformly say we

will treat federal precedent as guidance in our decisions as for its persuasive value. they recognize that there are state rules of procedure and state rules of evidence that will belong to the states. >> they say in a particular case, it's guidance. it's great guidance. we agree. our interpretation is the federal interpretation. >> well, i think -- >> how can we review that because it wasn't in fact the federal interpretation. but can we review it? yes or no? >> there is a distinction between this case and that that may suggest that this case the court has jurisdiction over and that one the court does not. >> you say the court does not in the example of the federal rules of civil procedure that justice scalia -- >> this is a stronger case. i doubt the court wo5+=y jurisdiction or would choose to exercise it because i accept for premises of argument your honor's hypothetical but in the real world it doesn't happen. >> you are implicitly

acknowledging that, if we adopt your argument we are going to get that case and lots of similar cases. and we are going to have to parse the words that -- the words that were used by the state supreme court. well, we're following -- we're going to be guided by it, we're going to be strongly guided by it. we're going to adopt it. we're going to get all of those cases. why should we go down that road? when there is more perfectly available and possible superior yore remedy available to the petitioner by filing a federal habeas petition. >> there are several reasons. first of all, i don't think that it is going to come up in that way to this court because that's not the way states treat their own rules of procedure. i don't think it will be very difficult. there is a principle in the courts' cases that when federal law has been adopted as such the court will review it even if the state could have chosen a different path. >> mr. dreeben, what's the

problem -- >> did you misspeak? when federal law is adopted as state law, the federal courts can review it. isn't that what you meant to say? you are very careful. you don't make mistakes, but i -- >> i think, justice kennedy -- >> you said -- >> this is. >> when state law adopts federal law as federal law then there is review. okay. >> the state has adopted teague for a reason that does not exist in any of these civil procedure cases, and that is that the state knows that that federal law will be applied to the very case in a habeas case. so the state has decided consciously to synchronize its law with the law that it knows will be applied. this supports a very important purpose. the state says, if we have to rectify in a constitutional error in our case that's become final we would like the opportunity to do it. if the federal habeas court is going to treat the decision as retroactive we'd like the first

crack at it. >> you're saying hooray that the federal habeas court will thereafter be found by it. >> no. this is a reason. 2254 d applies to state determinations on the merits. that's the only time that the deference provision kicks in. a determination under teague is a threshold determination that comes before the decision on the merits. this court has said that in any number of cases. it's not a merits resolution of the case. so deference to a state determination on retro activity would never occur. what i -- >> i was going to suggest maybe you're a little bit more on the merits. >> certainly mr. chief justice. the rule in miller versus alabama, in our view, is a substantive rule because it goes far beyond merely regulating the procedure by which youths are

sentenced for homicide crimes. it compelled the state to adopt new substantive sentencing options. an option that is less severe than life without parole. the only other time that this court has ever invalidated a mandatory sentencing provision was woodson versus north carolina in 1976. so we went something like 36 years before we had another decision that concluded that the law must change to accommodate the compelling interests in having the characteristics of youth that mitigate culpability included in the sentencing process. >> is it that the states say with with respect to people sentenced to life without parole we agree it would be parole. >> that would be the same remedy the court ordered in a graham versus florida case which held

that youths who do not commit homicide cannot be sentenced to life without parole at all. the court's remedy for what problem could either be a sentence of a term of years or also converting the life without parole sentence to a life with parole sentence. >> mr. dreeben, how do you explain how your articulation of your test wouldn't apply to the guideline change that we made. >> i think the key difference is that, with respect to the guidelines there was always a minimum and a maximum set by statute, and the guidelines, even when they were mandatory, did not preclude judges from sentencing outside the guidelines depending upon the presence of aggravating or mitigating factors that weren't taken into account. and as justice alito's opinion for the court in united states versus rodriguez recognized, even the top of