techniques is really bolstering all your openings. either covering your openings or putting other reinforcements in place. then the gold standard is looking at the building kind of end to end, looking how it's anchored at your foundation through the walls and to the roof. so these are techniques that we are very happy to say some states have embraced. alabama, coast of alabama, has now embraced the fortified standards within their codes and their counastal counties and al put in a program for mitigation grants. so we're seeing a lot of success with these programs. we're even seeing some builders voluntarily building these homes. >> thank you. and lastly for fellow hoosier, mr. mickey, center provides valuable services necessary to understanding the disaster threat and risk. how does the center help us understand making services known to others and can you expand on some of the successful collaborative projects with state and local entities at the center has taken?

[ inaudible ] >> thank you for the opportunity to talk about the center and quite honestly the state i'm very proud of, the state of indiana. we've been around since 1989. we've got 27 years of successfully linking community and academic expertise. our goals are to build capacity in a state's agency. the volunteer associations, the citizens of the state of indiana and so forth. we've done a lot of work in emergency management, but the reason we've been successful is not because uniquely of the resources in our center but because of the atmosphere that exists in the state of indiana. case in point, within indiana we've had the privilege of working with the indiana department of homeland security to complete mitigation plans in close collaboration with the counties and cities and towns of the state of indiana. the approach we take is highly collaborative, so unlike many

situations that we hear about where a plan is created and set aside on a shelf, if you would, which unfortunately i think does often happen, that plan becomes a living document. something that the community is engaged in, people are brought to the table to discuss and be a part of. i think that's a critical component of making mitigation a sack spes. part of the reason we're also successful and something i'm exceedingly proud of is in the state of indiana we understand the importance of information. fema created a tool i'm sure many of you are aware of a few years ago, and it has become a very significant part of the portfolio of resources in the state of indiana that we use. it's a technology that allows communities to estimate the impact of hazards, specifically floods, earthquakes and hurricanes, and they're able to do that in a more profound and successful way by integrating local resources. in my state, i'm happy to say that we have 100% of the counties that even though they

have disagreements, to be sure, they've managed to find a way to agree to share information. so anyone, anywhere, anytime can go out to the indiana map and download every single parcel in the state of indiana, road information, hydrology information, and of course, hazard information. that information combined with other resources in the state makes it possible for our citizens to be much better protected and much better able to respond to disasters than others might be. we have taken that success story, i'm proud to say, to other states as well. we're very much about building capacity. we've worked extensively in the states of georgia, in west virginia, in many other areas. in total, we've worked in over 36 states including i believe everyone represented by members of this committee and over 100 cities. building capacity means building tools. it means building work flows. it means, very importantly, education and not just in how to do hazard analysis but also what that means to a community in terms of its long-term resiliency. we believe firmly in connecting

the fabric of the community to the solution so hunger, homelessness, issues like that are just as important in understanding how a community will or will not be resilient to a disaster as understanding whether a building is going to fall down or stay upright. and we look at all of those things and try to bring together in a synergistic way the conversations to allow people to take advantage of that knowledge. >> thank you, sir. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> okay. mr. graves? >> thank you, mr. chairman. commissioner nimmich, the bigger number 12 directs fema to incorporate simulations of climate change into some of the estimates that you develop in regard to premiums. could you discuss how fema is doing that and how you're addressing uncertainties in regard to climate models? >> so through bigger 12s we've been required to use the best science possible to determine the flood risk maps, sir. and we continue to work with the

scientific community and local communities to be able to identify what those potentials might be in the future in terms of climate adaptation, particularly with the rising tides in flood zones. >> yep. and so the question is, how do you plan to address the uncertainties in regard to the models of future sea rise and potential for storm intensity changes and things along those lines? >> sir, i'll answer that for the record. >> thank you. another question. the technical mapping advisory committee that was established, they indicate in a recent report that they believe that there was about a 40% uncertainty rate associated with some of the flood models that were used. if you take that degree of uncertainty, which is extraordinary, and you put on top of it trying to estimate

future changes in sea rise, future changes in the potential for storm intensity and frequency, it seems like we're getting to a range of uncertainty that is just no longer helpful to even use those types of models and predictive information. could you comment on that? >> yes, sir. i don't think you can go to the extent of not using some sort of a model or a predictive capability when you're trying to determine whether mitigation and preventive actions need to be taken. so while there is a certain degree of uncertainty, we continue to use the best available information based on a wide range of scientific data that's available. is there uncertainty? there's always uncertainty in it. but we have to start somewhere to be able to create a basis on which the risk exists in the community. as you well know, sir, in your area, we just experienced floods in northern louisiana that no one would have expected

based on the science that was there. so there's a great deal of uncertainty when you deal with any weather event. so we need to continue to find the best science at the time that we create the risk map and then as often as possible come back and re-evaluate that science. >> yeah. and i certainly concur that we need to be using the best information we can in regard to informing decisions. the concern is is that as you know there's significant consequences of determining flood maps and nfip premiums and with your 500 year flood risk management, there could be significant and severe financial implications. my point is that having such severe implications yet having such uncertainty with the predictive models, that's not such a comfortable combination of issues. i just want to urge as you move forward that you keep that in mind, that you need to keep in mind the reliability of the information and models and take into account the consideration of financial implications on

counties, parishes and others moving forward. director koon, first i want to say that i know a number of people that know you, and you have a great reputation. thank you for being here. and i appreciate your testimony. a week before last, congress, the house of representatives passed hr2901 which was legislation -- and mr. nelson, excuse me, i'm going to ask you a question on this as well -- that bill, what it does, it allows for private flood insurance to serve effectively as a surrogate for the nfip. sounds like a good idea, private sector in many instances can be more efficient than government can. so face value sounds like it's a good idea. however, being from your area, being from the area where i was born and live, i'm very concerned that what we're going to see is we're going to see private insurers come in that start cherry picking the policies that have the lowest risk. so what ends up happening under biggest waters 12 and the reforms in 2014 is you're left

with the policies that have higher risk. now, biggert waters 12 and the revisions from 2014 require that the loan that was given to nfip following the 2015 floods that it be repaid. it requires that a reserve fund be established. it requires that actuarial rates be charged under flood insurance. so my point is that the private sector insurance companies aren't going to have those same financial burdens. all they're going to have is whichever policies they choose. the nfip is going to have now a smaller pool of rate payers because the private sector is pilling some of those off. so you're going to have the higher risk smaller pool that are still going to be subjected to establish will a reserve fund, paying off this debt of whatever it is $17 billion. are those concerns? should i not be concerned about this? is there something there that we should be concerned about and

should nfip reform be more comprehensive than just doing hr-2901? >> thank you for the question, congressman. i think actually the debt is closer to $23 billion on the national flood insurance program. >> thank you. >> they'd like to get to $17 billion. the answer in my opinion is there needs to be more comprehensive reform of the national flood insurance program. and i would urge this committee to become engaged with that conversation next year when it's up for reauthorization to work with the financial services committee on that because there are lots of components of the national flood insurance program that i think directly relate to the conversation we're having here today with regards to mitigation activities that can take place across the country. one of the things that i express quite frequently in the state of florida and did just so yesterday before the governor's hurricane conference general session, as a result of some of the actions during bigger waters 2012, we've seen a significant reduction in the number of flood insurance programs across the country and specifically in the state of florida. state of florida has lost over 10% of the flood insurance policies. we've gone from just north of 2 million flood insurance policies

in the state to about 1.8 million. what that means is those citizens, the next time they have a disaster next time they have a flood in their community they are not going to be able to recover like they would have had they had flood insurance and there will be an additional cost on the federal government because they may be eligible for assistance from fema, may be eligible for assistance from the state, et cetera. so the costs are going to be born by the individuals. those costs are going to be guided by government. so a comprehensive analysis and reform the national insurance flood program i believe is complete apply appropriate at this point. florida last year in the legislative cycle did do some things to reduce some of the regulatory burdens on private flood insurance in the state of florida and so now there are private insurers offering flood insurance policies in the state. it's very nascent at this point. there's probably 2,000 to 3,000 private flood insurance policies in the state, but it is a start. i do share your concern about some of the cherry-picking aspects and i'm not an insurance expert. i'll defer to mr. nelson on that. but we have had a similar situation in the state of

florida with the citizens insurance company, winborn insurance. they have depopulated a large segment of their policies to the private market and still remained financially feasible. so i believe mr. nelson may be able to elaborate on that a little bit. but i believe, again, comprehensive reform of the national flood insurance program is absolutely appropriate at this point and can tie in some of the mitigation activities we've discussed thus far. >> thank you. first let me say i would echo your concerns that you're raising. i think those are profound issues that we have to evaluate. so -- >> mr. chairman, for the record, i just want to note he called me profound. >> yes. >> so the -- i do think if you just step back for a minute, travelers -- let me just back up. travelers, we do write flood insurance on a commercial basis, for commercial insurance. we do not write homeowners, flood insurance and we have no plans to enter that market. we also don't have a formalized

position on this. i'll just express my points of view. i've looked at a lot of fema rate plans. the private industry should not be able to compete with fema on price. remember, we have to buy reinsurance. we have to have enough capital to meet our obligations. that means we have to have a pool of money. typically that's our shareholders' money. they have to get a return on that. should not be able to compete with fema. their plan needs to be modernized. it's not at all consistent with how the private sector looks at insurance, sells insurance and has a rating plan. so let's start with that. let's modernize the program and then let's evaluate how we can privatize to think about that cherry-picking aspect. thank you. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman, for your generosity. >> i think mr. graves made a good point earlier that congress needs to look across the federal government including levees and flood control projects when we try to bend the cost curve of disasters.the disaster cost mon

fema authorization bill should help. and it makes such recommendations to congress. and i also want to thank administrator fugate for the disaster deductible proposal. i don't know if it is the right solution, but we need a vigorous debate and innovative ideas if we're to drive down losses and not just shift costs between payers. i want to thank you all for your testimony. your comments today have been helpful in our discussion. if there are no further questions, i would ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers. any questions that may be submitted to them in writing and unanimous consent. that the record be left open 15 days for additional comments and information submitted by members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's hearing.

without objection, so ordered. i'd like to thank our witnesses again for their testimony today. if no other members have anything to add, this subcommittee stands adjourned.

coming up tonight on c-sp 3 c-span3, "american history tv" and conference hosted by the smithsonian national museum of african-american history and culture. that museum opens this september. you can get a preview tonight starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span3. 30 years ago, gavel to gavel u.s. senate coverage began on

c-span2. c-span took a look back at 30 years of televised senate floor proceedings and how the senate has adapted to tv. >> the senate is, as i said, it's a 12 21st century institution conceived in the 18th century trying to make the best use of the technology in the 21st century to remain true to its 18th century conception. it really -- it's a difficult thing to do to forge compromise. everybody has to give a little when you forge compromise and that's not photogenic. and so to a certain extent, the cameras both reveal the greatness of the senate, but also conceal it by not being able to show these kinds of discussions taking place. >> this, indeed, is a humbling moment for me. i'm honored to serve as majority

leader, but i also recognize that the majority is slim. this is still one of the most closely divided senates in all of history and we have just witnessed something that has never before happened in all of senate history. the change of power during a session of congress. >> you can see our entire look back at 30 years of the u.s. senate on c-span2 saturday on c-span starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern. madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. ♪

♪ and joining us from memphis is the constitution party nominee, darrell castle. sir, thank you very much for being with us. >> thank you. glad to be here. >> i mentioned earlier one party does have its nominee. no second ballot. no question as to your own nomination. why did you decide to become a candidate for the constitution party? >> well, i think that the rule of law is very important, the constitution is very important. and i'm trying to preserve those things and to reestablish the rule of law in america.

and the people in the constitution party wanted me, so here i am. >> and the platform of the constitution party includes the following mission statement. "the mission of the constitution party is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to posterity to the election of all levels of government, constitution parties candidates who will uphold the principles of the declaration of independence, constitution of the united states and the bill of rights. it is our goal to limit the federal government. it is delegated, enumerated under constitutional function." so elaborate. what does that mean to you and to your party? >> well, it means that in the constitution, article 1 section 8 delegates only 17 powers to the federal government. and under article 10, the 10th amendment, all other powers are reserved to the states or to the people respectively, so that's what we mean by that.

we think the constitution should be followed in its original intent. >> what is your background and what do you bring to the party and also to this national debate? >> well, by profession, i'm a lawyer. i've been a lawyer for 35 years, approximately, but i've been in the constitution party since its original founding in 1992. so 24 years. i've been vice chairman of the party three different terms. and in 2008, i was a vice presidential candidate. >> your nomination and the constitution party convention, itself, which took place in salt lake city, we were there, we covered it, we covered your speech along with your running mate. it did not, however, get a lot of national attention, so how do you break through in this kaleidoscope of media, how to you get your message out there? >> well, i'm sitting here talking to you, so that is certainly a help. i mean, i've only had the nomination for a week and here i am on national television. so it is going out thanks to you

and i think al jazeera was there as well, but it's not easy to cut through the fog and to get media coverage in this day and age, but people seem to be so -- so dissatisfied with the four candidates still existing in the democr democrat/republican parties that we are getting some attention and thanks to your coverage and al jazeera's coverage, as i said, we've gotten quite a bit of attention from the convention. >> scott bradley is your running mate. what does he bring to the ticket? >> well, he's -- i've known scott for 20 years, i guess. he's a man of integrity and he understands the issues that confront the country. he is especially gifted in the issues of -- the land issues from the west. he is from utah, and he has a very good understanding of federal control of land in the west which is a big issue for

people who don't own 90% of their own state. i think that's the figure in nevada now. but those are the things that he brings. he's a -- he has a complete understanding of the history of the country and the founding fathers and the precipes under which they founded our government, so that's why i chose him. >> certainly, history of third parties in recent times, 1992, lesser extent, the last time a party, self-funded ross perot, had any impact, perot getting 1% of the vote in 1992. why is it hard for you and other third party candidates to break through in america's two-party system? >> democrats and republicans control the system, access to

the ballot. that makes it very, very difficult. the states that have the most electoral votes like california, like texas, new york, many other states, those states have the hardest requirements for access to the ballot. those are all controlled by the democrats and republicans in the state legislature. here in tennessee now, we are in the ninth year, we just entered the ninth year of litigation against the state for access to the ballot. we won several cases but they always appeal, so it's very difficult. i mean, you control the process and you make the process exclusive and that's how for about 160 years, i guess it is now, they've traded power back and forth. they don't want to give it up. it's like a drug. once you have it, i suppose, you don't want to give it up. >> we are talking with darrell castle, the constitution party presidential nominee. what's your goal in this election cycle? >> well, my first goal is to be

president. and along with that goal, my goal is to get the issues that are important to the constitution party out before the public and have the public hear them. and as the third goal, i would say, to make the constitution party stronger and to help build state parties around the country. >> our conversation with darrell castle includes your calls and comments. our phone lines are open. 202 is the area code. 748-80001 for republicans. 202-748-80 00 for democrats. if you're a member of the constitution party, or a third party in general, 202-748-80 02. sue is joining us, utica, michigan. good morning. >> good morning. i'd like to ask mr. castle the difference between the tea party views and the constitution party and what is the views on the constitution party about the social issues that are going on?

thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. i heard the first part about the difference between the two party groups and the constitution party. the answer to that question is the constitution party is actually a political party, and the tea party groups are simply political activists. they're not -- a candidate for public office might say that he's a tea party candidate or he's a member of the tea party. that just means that those groups support him, but it's not a legitimate political party like the constitution party is. not -- i missed the second part of the question. >> the second part dealt with social issues. whether it's gay rights or abortion or other hot-button issues like that. >> well, what -- i mean, are you asking me a question about where i stand on those issues? >> that was her call. that was her comment. the specific question was your views on social issues. >> if you want to take the issue of abortion, we're certainly

against it. it's a foundational principle of the constitution party. we believe very strongly in the right to life and we believe that those waiting in their mothers' wombs to be born are legitimate persons. and are deserving of the right to life. now, if you take same-sex marriage as a social issue, if you want me to comment on that, i'm a christian, so, you know, i personally don't believe in it but i believe the government has no place in marriage to begin with. the government wants you to buy a license to do everything, but in my view, marriage is an act between us and god. god determines what marriage is, and it's not up to the government. so it shouldn't be a governmen . licensed event in any case. >> this is from j.d. reading. what is the constitution party's goal of darrell castle of doing

to get on the debateses in the general election? do you have a strategy? >> well, that is a very good question. my good friend, christine tobin, with free and equal, has done some things to get us in debates and we usually end up relegated to third-matter debates because like ballot access, the republicans and democrats control access to the debates and they're simply not going to legitimatize other parties by letting them in, whether it's the constitution party or the librene party or libertarian party, they're not going to let them into the debates because i suppose they assume that if people had a chance to hear their views and see their candidates, they might choose someone different. so it's a very difficult process when you have a debate system that's set up and controlled by the two major parties. >> and this is from jody. is it too late for the constitution party this year? will you be on my ballot in

november? we just take from that question, how many states will you be on the ballot? >> okay. i don't know what state you're from, jody, but right now, we're on the ballot in 18 states and we're moving forward and we certainly expect to be the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election. so if you told me what state you're from, i could probably tell you whether we're on the ballot there, but, i mean, we hope to be on the ballot in enough states and i think we will be. >> we'll expect another tweet as a follow-up from jody to find out where she's from. in the meantime, maria, westfield, new jersey, independent line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you so much for broadening the conversation. i just wanted to make a comment and have a question. my comment is essentially i feel that jefferson said the tree of liberty has to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. if everything is founded on we,

the people, what is our duty as citizens to effectively march on washington and arrest the people who have violated us? and i guess the other thing i wanted to know, if the gentleman could go into, like particulars about having an import tariff, replace the irs, and with the amendment that lets people automatically become citizens, and steve, could you have somebody on from the american citizens party? thank you so much. >> maria, by the way, we're covering all the third parties not only here on the "washington journal," a chance to introduce you to the nominees but also party conventions, the next major baema major will be the libertarians as they gather in florida memorial day weekend. darrell castle, your response? >> i'm going to try to answer as many of the comments as i can remember. first of all, mass action and march on washington as the lady put it, i think, is certainly a

right. i mean, i'm a candidate for public office and for national office. so i'm pledged to not propose to overthrow the u.s. government by force. so i certainly don't advocate anything like violence or anything like that, but i think people expressing their opinions through mass action and so forth is certainly a political right and it's justified. the rest of her question, i kind of -- i think i remember a question about taxes and what would we do about it. yes, i mean, i'm an advocate of the constitutional tax as set out in article 1 section 9 paragraph 4 which essentially puts the taxing authority in the hands of the states. it says that tax should be collected through apportionment in the states. as the census is apportioned. so the states would be responsible which would return

power to them and take it away from washington. as far as taxes on imports and things like that, yes, that is one of the planks that's in the constitution party platform that we would do that. i personally have no problem with free trade. i'm opposed to the various free trade agreements for many reasons, but if the united states wants to work out a deal with mexico, for example, where it says, look, you know, you don't charge us for trade, we won't won't charge you for trade, i mean, i see nothing wrong with that. i'm not a person who wants to go in front of the american people and say, look, if you elect me president, everything you buy is going to cost a lot more. so we have to be careful about too much tax on imports, could promote trade wars with other countries, damage the economy. so other than that type of fear, we certainly support it. >> and our friend, jody, who has tweeted back, jody is from arkansas. are you on the ballot in

arkansas? >> yes, yes i'm on the ballot in arkansas, yes. jody would be free to vote for me. i'd appreciate it if you would. >> another viewer says what's the difference between the constitution party and the libertarian party? could there be a merger between them? >> well, there are many differences, but i can give you a couple of primary differences. the libertarian party in general supports open borders. we don't. we support secure borders. i mean, i read the other day where their most likely candidate, gary johnson, he identified himself as -- as an economic conservative but he said that he was in favor of open borders and he's in fave of abortion which he preferred to refer to as pro-choice. we're nert one of those things.

those are two primary differences. we do have similarities. he said he's an economic conservative. so am i. i try not to label myself with the terms conservative or liberal, whatever they might be. i don't like to wear those labels, but there are some differences like that. >> let's go back to your phone calls. robert is next joining us from graycourt, south carolina. independent line. >> caller: yes. i hear over and over that we don't have a right to vote for president, but according to the 24th amendment, i believe we do. would you clarify that, please? >> i'm sorry. are you talking about the electoral college? or what -- >> caller: bush v. gore decision. >> robert -- >> okay. >> go ahead. clarify your question a little bit more for mr. castle. >> caller: okay. let me read the 24th amendment. "the right of citizens of the united states to vote in any primary or other election for

president or vice president for electors for president or vice president or senator or representative in congress shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or any state by reason of failure to pay full tax or any other tax. tax is not the issue. the issue is voting for president and vice president. >> so, i mean, i don't understand the problem. that's what the amendment says and, i mean, why would you be denied the right to vote? >> caller: if i recall correctly, chief justice rehnquist placed his opinion on gore v. bush that the people did not have a right to vote for president. but then i'll go back to the 24th amendment and said it shall not be abridged which is correct. >> yes, that's what it says for sure. >> robert, thank you for the call. this is from another robert,

robert simpson, mr. castle, saying ask your guest to comment on road blocks, if any, by the democrats and republicans to nullify third parties. we touched on this earlier. if you could elaborate any further. >> well, i don't know about the term, nullify, but they keep third parties from becoming a much louder voice by denying us access to the ballot. it takes millions of dollars which quite often third party people do not have to gain access to the ballot and that is because the requirements to get signatures in so many states are so high and so egregious that you actually have to hire people to collect those signatures for you. that makes it very difficult. there are other ways. shut out from the media except for programs like this and so forth. those are all ways. refusing to allow us into the

debates and marginalizing the third parties in many other ways. so those are all ways that we are, i suppose you could say, nullified, but marginalized would be a better word, i think. >> this program is carried live on the bbc parliament channel. you can also listen to us on c-span radio. our conversation with darrell castle, the newly mibt minted constitution party nominee. background, graduate of east tennessee university and earned his law degree from what was known as memphis state university. now university of memphis. he is retired u.s. marine corps officer and he's a lawyer in private practice. mike from tampa, florida, democrats line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: i have a question regarding the constitution party. the efforts that you make to try to get a presence in the congress of the united states. i'm not very well versed on constitution party, but i don't believe there are any members in the congress that are members of

the constitution party. so are you not just spinning your wheels? >> well, that's -- that might be your opinion, but it's not my opinion. you're right, we have no members of congress are in the u.s. senate, but we don't think it's spinning our wheels. we object to the two parties that have led the country for 160 years. we think it's the wrong direction. and we offer people a return to constitutional government and a return to the rule of law. and we believe that sooner or later, we're going to be successful. the system as it continues down the same road, sooner or later people are going to start going back to the charter of liberty and that's the constitution. when they do, we're here. >> another viewer saying that i had expected a third party to be very popular following the anti-government sentiment out there. and certainly in both parties with the rise of donald trump in

the republican party and senator sanders on the democratic side heeding into this anti-establishme anti-establishme anti-establishment fervor. do you sense that with your own party and sense an area you can grow to tamp into that sentiment? >> yes, absolutely, i do. i mean, i've only been the nominee for one week now, but here i am on national television and that hasn't happened in a while. so, yes, i do sense that sentiment. we've had a tremendous response to my speech at the convention that c-span did for me and that al jazeera covered. and, you know, our e-mails, our web responses, are all growing so we sense it and we're going to try to take advantage of it. >> from decatur, arkansas, james is next. republican line. good morning. >> caller: yes. the question i got is i want

somebody to get this crooked law enforcement back to the constitution laws and the part of oklahoma, there's a sheriff that don't believe in the constitution, the judges don't believe in the constitution. they think they can walk on people on one hand. and it says in the constitution book that they cannot come on private property at any time to arrest anybody. and this is my question to darrell castle. >> well, it says that they can't come on private property to arrest without a legitimate warrant, but there are certain acts now that have given them authority over that like the patriot act and the nsa security and such things. but in general, i certainly agree with you and i respect the constitution. that's why i'm here. and what i would say to people such as yourself is that if you want things to be different,

you're going to have to elect different people. you're going to have to choose something digit besides democrats and republicans because for 160 years, they've led the country exchanging power back and forth, each time it getting worse and so forth. so we're here and we do represent a return to constitutional values. >> our guest is joining us from memphis, tennessee. that's where our next caller comes from. . tony. good morning. independent line. >> caller: good morning. my question is really a comment in regards to the constitution as a whole. i'd like to hear your viewpoints on this. and that is the misleading word that has always been prevalent in the constitution that is we, the people. we, the people. that has not been properly defined because the reality is that we, the ruling,

aristocracy, in order to form a more perfect union, justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common sense, provide the general welfare, security, liberty to ourselves and our prosperity. do ordain establish this constitution. for the slaves without rights on their -- the reality is that the united states people are really slaves to a document formulated handful of powerful men for the purposes of maintaining a status quo in this country. >> tony, thank you for the call. we'll get a response. darrell castle? >> well, thank you for your comment, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. the constitution does provide under article 5 an avenue for amendments, so if at any time we think it's outdated or it's not

valid law, we can always amend it or change it. to ignore it is to ignore the rule of law and to elevate people in positions of public trust beyond what they have a right to have. >> the website is constitutionparty.com, and they list seven fundamental principles that make up the constitution party including life, liberty, family, property, the bill of rights, states rights, and american sovereignty. again, full details at constitutionparty.com. chester, dayton, ohio. good morning. democrats line. >> caller: good morning. my question is about the 10th amendment. what the last part of it says, "or the will of the people." people keep saying like the democrats have all these programs, social security and now obamacare. we're violating the constitution. but the will of the people

counts also. what is your comment on that? >> well, as i told the last gentleman, if you want to amend the constitution, there's an avenue for doing that. it is what it is, and it say quhs what it says. now, you painted with a broad brush a lot of the thing, social security and many things. things are either constitutional or they're not. as i said, there are 17 delegated powers. everything else is reserved to the states or the people. the people and the federal government are two different things. if the people and the states want to do something, want to have this program or that program, that's their business and their right. the constitution limits the federal government. >> and darell moore says the constitution is a living, breathing document. you have to amend it. darrell cast l, your thoughts? >> yes, that's living, breathing document. that's some people's opinion.

what you find is when it says what you want it to say, then it's fried chicken. otherwise it's living and breathing. >> john joining us from new jersey, line for independents. with darrell castle. good morning, john. >> caller: good morning. thank you so much for c-span. how about bringing a very public lawsuit against both parties? and nobody should be afraid of competition. a party or candidate who's afraid of competition means they don't have confidence in their own ideas or solutions so their solutions are inferior in the first place and they don't deserve to exclude people in that fashion. >> john, thank you. >> thank you. as i said earlier, there are many lawsuits around the country including ours here in tennessee against the state of tennessee

for access to the ballot. we, several time, have gotten a federal judge, a clinton appointee judge, by the way, to rule that the tennessee ballot access laws are unconstitutional, but sfars as far as the other thing, yes, it's hard when you control the entire system and you have the ability to eliminate competition. give us the illusion of competition by debates between their candidates and so forth but when you get right down to it, so many times they're exactly the same and they serve the same interests and once they're in office, nothing ever changes. it continues in the same course of action. it reminds me of the way they used to do it in the old soviet union, you know, they tell the people, here's a free election, here are your candidates, choose either one you want. but keeping out competition is certainly what they do and, you know, we're trying our best to overcome that by presenting

ourself to the people and letting them decide. >> from your standpoint, does the president have the right to sign executive orders? >> no. the constitution, article 1 section 1, the most important provision, in my view, says that all legislative power herein granted is vested in a congress. so congress has all legislative power. the president does not have the authority to issue an executive order. he can only issue that makes law. he can only issue executive orders to enforce a law legitimately passed by congress. >> which cabinet department, which agencies would you eliminate? >> a the llot of them, but i'm - i'm not ready to say that yet. you know, there are a lot of people i would have to consult with assembling a team around me and so forth, but there are

certainly a lot of government that needs to go. >> jesse from muskegon, michigan. good morning. democrats line. >> caller: good morning, steve. >> good morning. >> caller: i listened to the gentleman's call and he sounds like right-wing republican. people usually ask him -- i almost fell asleep. you asked him about abortion. and uh -- the calls, you asked him about abortion and i don't hear 9 0 % of people talking about abortions are men. and you brought the question up for him about abortion. i want to ask any one of you all, would you all want your wife to have 18 babies? men don't have babies.

>> we'll get a response. again, do you want to clarify or elaborate your view on abortion, mr. castle? >> well, the gentleman is absolutely right in that men don't have babies and that some women have a lot of them. you know, that is inarguable. but i still think that each one of those babies, once it's conceived, has the right to live. that's, you know, god grants life. he gives us life. there are ways to prevent having babies. there are such things as birth control. you know, some people might want to consider using it sometime. but killing babies in the womb is not the answer. >> tom is joining us. our line for independents. from erie, pennsylvania. good morning, tom. >> caller: good morning. my number one key point is that there are faults in the constitution and the number one most obvious one is the anchor

babies clause. the constitution has to be a living, breathing document for the simple fact that times change and you and we elect peo- to make good decisions. and i want to hear how mr. castle feels about the anchor baby clause. because it is ridiculous that it has provided this situation where people sneak into the united states just to have a baby so they can stay here. our borders can't be totally open because then we'd had everybody in the world in here and we don't have the capacity for it. and because of things like that, situations like the anchor baby clause, that the constitution has to be reviewed and it has to be reviewed from a moral,

political, noble view point, not whatever is the convenience of the moment. thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> well, i certainly agree with the gentleman in part. as i point out before and i'll point out again, the constitution has a provision for amendment if we don't like what it says. but it is inconceivable at the time the constitution was written the anchor baby clause would have been interpreted boys those gentleman the way it is being interpreted today. they meant the clause to mean people living here in the united states, when they have children, those children would automatically -- were automatically citizens. it did not mean in my view that people who come to the united states illegally bear children even though they are illegal on undocumented that the term many people use today, that their children would not be. so if -- and agree with him in

concept. but i still think it is very dangerous to just routinely ignore the law and say it is a living document we could change it any time we want to. we could amend it any time we want to. >> we've had a number of tweets from james ard dealing with your tax plan, the flat tax. but let me take one of the basic questions, what is your tax plan? >> well, as i pointed out earlier, i favor the tax system that is set out in article one section 9, paragraph four and that is that the tax would be apportions among the states. in other words, if you have 1% of the nation's population, you would be responsible for collecting 1% of the people -- a portioned by sent a census and would take power away from the washington and return to to the people and the state where's it belongs and eliminate some of the concepts of washington

funneling money to states and say if you don't do this or that or pass this or that we're going to cut off your money. so it would solve a lot of those problems and -- any way, that is my tax plan. >> what about the flat tax? >> well, if you look at our platform, you'll see that we're opposed to it, because it would certainly be an improvement over what we have now but there are dangers in it and i don't conceive the right of the federal government to tax my income. and if you passed a flat tax and say everybody is taxed at 15%, let's say, next year it is 16% and then 20 and then 25% and then it is down a dangerous road. >> the green party, by the way, will be holding the national convention in early august and we'll be in dallas, texas, for that as well. we cover the third parties as well as the two leading parties and the democrats and republicans. all part of the white house

coverage. darrell castle joining us from memphis, tennessee, and the nominee for the constitution party and randy is on the line from warsaw on the republican line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. my great-great-grandfather fought in the civil war and my sixth grandfather fought in the american revolution and i'm afraid many of the things they fought for we are losing today because of fear. and a lack of knowledge of the constitution. now i encourage all of the readers out there to read the constitution. if you don't feel empowered when you read the constitution, it will empower you. thank you. that is all i have to say. >> more of a comment rather than a question. darrell castle, do you want to elaborate? >> thank you for your comment. and as people read it, sometimes they need to try to understand that the constitution is there

as a protection for the people against the government, against growing government power. the constitution -- the bill of rights and the constitution itself is all for our protection. >> did the founding fathers get anything wrong? >> i'm sure they got a lot of things wrong. none are perfect. they are not perfect. and from 1979 to 2016, they did establish it for us and for our post ert and they believe something written in the declaration of independence and that is that rights come from god and the purpose of government, mr. jefferson told us, the reason that governments are instituted among men is to protect the god-given rights.

they believe it is obvious and it is what they wrote. but i'm sure they got a lot of things wrong. >> joe is zwroining us from -- joining us from houston, texas, our third party line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. your caller said that everybody had the right to vote. and when he was talking about was the restrictions that are placed on the right to vote by driver's license and long lines and y'all did not address his question. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> well, i'm not sure i know how to address it. i would certainly -- i mean i'm opposed to denying legitimate citizens the right to vote. and long lines and so forth in most states now, we have early voting. i know that in 2008 when i was a candidate for vice president, i did a vice presidential debate in las vegas, i was invited

there to debate the vice presidential candidates from the other third parties and that was held in the last week of october just before the election. and while we were dreebating, t state of nevada had announced that barack obama had already won. through early voting. they decided through early voting that he had already won the election before we had the debate. so early voting exists now. and there are ways to reduce those lines if we really work at it. >> and our last caller is from north charleston, south carolina, on the third party line. good morning. >> caller: steve, thank you for having darrell on there. i remember four years ago i got a chance to chat with verge ill good on your show. >> that is right. from virginia. >> caller: that is right. he had tried republican and democrat and he had gotten fed up with the whole mess and went with the constitution party and

i voted for him and so mr. castle, i know you'll be on the ballot in south carolina. so any way, i'm happy about that. i'm a strict constitutionalist and what i tell my liberal friends, they don't understand. they don't understand it is a flexible document and if it weren't, people of color wouldn't vote and we would still have suffrage and 18-year-old people wouldn't have the right to vote and it is flexible and you stated that. and a lot of people feel like we've been ruled instead of governed through executive orders. my biggest problem with the executive order, if the president said we need to -- this country this a big earthquake and we need to send them some money or send them aid. but when you circumvent law, laws like immigration, with executive orders, we have a major problem in the presidency. now i think you would agree with that. and i applaud that. now, i would like to know what

field of law you're in and one more final question, i'm going to put you on the spot. constituti constitutionally, according to natural born citizenship, in your opinion is ted cruz qualified to run for president and i'll hang up and let you laugh about that and chat about it. thank you very much. >> joe. thank you for the call. two questions. first senator cruz, is he eligible if elected. >> i'm going to evade that question and not answer it because i don't know the answer to it. i mean, i really don't. i don't know -- i mean i know mr. cruz's background. i've looked at where he came from, where he was born, who his parents were, who his wife is. those types of things, like anyone else has. but i am not going to -- to say yes or no on that. but as far as what law i practice, in my law firm,

specializes in personal injury and consumer bankruptcy. >> darrell castle, who this past week in salt lake city became the constitution party presidential nominee. he is joining us from memphis. his speech, by the way, his acceptance speech is on the website at c-span.org. thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. >> thank you very much for having me. i have enjoyed it. tonight on c-span, a special prime time edition of american history tv which recently covered a conference on african-american history. it was held at the new smithsonian national museum of african-american history which will open on the national mall in september. this part of the conference examined the history of african-american religion. [ applause ] good morning and thank you for joining us