it is sometimes -- humankind cannot bear very much reality. the reality that neuroscience is opening up the possibility of seeing, as we found with darwin, a revolution in thinking, which i think is coming again, may, instead of opening the human mind, provoke our response to the way that emancipation greeted jim crow. people cannot handle it -- created and jim crow. people cannot handle its. we have to remember that galileo -- what happened to him? the people that stumble upon the truth of the people most dangerous. -- are the most peoplpeople most dangerous.

the reformation which discovered the scriptures, which removed the authority of certain people to tell people what was in the bible -- the printing press -- gave us which hunts, which trials, burning at the stake, the inquisition -- the most horrifying. of religious power and fundamentalist -- the most horrifying period of religious power and fundamentalism. i took my husband back to my home town. i was showing him around. we came to the oldest church at the top of the town and we saw these big gravestones. we thought some of these people must be really -- i had not been there for awhile. the must be the -- these must be the lord or whatever. there were burned at the stake

30 yards to the left. right next to starbucks. [laughter] you laugh, but people in iran right now, right next to starbucks, are being tortured because they're standing up to this kind of fundamentalism. it is happening. one major political party in this country, seized by fundamentalist religion, has also endorsed the executive power to seize anybody in this country and for them until they tell them whatever they want. and this country's that by and let it happen. -- and this country sat by and let it happen. do not believe that it cannot happen again. do not believe that it will march constantly forward without some horrifying reactions. in this particular moment, we have forces at work of fundamentalism, both in the

middle east and in this country, of all religions, whether it be the hideous fanaticism of the revolutionary guard in itsran, or the biblical fundamentalists in this country. vice-president cheney's speech writer goes on television and defends the use of torture as a good thing and catholic thing to do. there are sellers on the west bank of judea and samaria believe they are there because god has amended this their lands. if necessary, they must launch a war against other countries to protect that. everybody has nuclear weapons. i do not think -- i do nothing. maybe i am being hysteric. maybe it is excitable and through it again, as the

blogosphere -- maybe it is excitable andrew again, as the blogosphere often claims. it is the fact that people in fundamentalist societies are seeing, because they cannot push away any more through the mass media, images of the liberation of women that are fermenting of greater proportion of women -- greater than regression greater -- and greater repression of women. there are very few countries out there that are not becoming more fundamentalist right now.

this is a flight from reason, an anti-enlightenment. i believe in it and light in it, because i think god has to be compatible with truth -- i believe in the enlightenment, because i think god has to be compatible with truth. i do not fear science. but i understand those who have clung to certain options for whom this truth is too scary to contemplate and whose response is a frightened and terrified and violent repression. [applause] >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> we have another winner from our c-span2 studentcam, edition.

we asked students to give us a video on one of our country's greatest strengths or a challenge that our country faces. this week, we meet laura henry for riverview high school in sarasota, florida. congratulations. >> thank you. >> what made you choose this topic? >> the topic of texting while driving is a really important issue with people who are my age, especially, but it also extends to that are driving as well. a lot of people think it is only teenagers that are texting and driving, but it is pretty dangerous. >> what you do to stop a? >> of my friends and i have a thing that we call designated texter. the person in the passenger seat will respond for you to prevent

it. >> what was your reaction to some of the people you interviewed who said they still text while driving? >> i was pretty shocked at the amount of people that told me they do. there were more people that do that and that are against it. i was shocked by a lot of the answers from people that say that, even if they got in an accident, they do not think they would stop. there were several adults i talked to that admitted to doing it as well. i was shocked by that, too. >> do you think the government is doing enough to stop people from text-driving? >> no. it is not under top priorities to do. there are 13 and 14 states that have already enacted laws to prevent it, but florida is not one of them. >> are the loss helping prevent this problem? -- is the law helping prevent

this problem? >> i do not know. if there were an law, many people might stop or reduce the amount of what they're doing. and what you think the hardest part is about making this video -- and of what was the hardest part of making this video? -- >> what was the hardest part of making this video? the most -- >> using the parts of the video i wanted to include appeared dish -- to include. i had a lot of footage to go through to decide which parts i wanted to use. there are a lot of good parts. to make a documentary -- at it was difficult to choose what i want to use. >> this is your fourth time entering studentcam. what draws you to enter? >> the first time, i think it was -- i was really interested in film and i love photography.

i was interested in trying something new. i found that, after i completed my first couple of ones, i was interested in politics and i enjoy making documentaries. it is working under pressure, too. it can be stressful, but i thrive under that. i enjoyed doing it. >> congratulations again, laura. >> thank you. >> let's watch a portion of the video. >> i am on my work. i was standing -- sending and receiving messages when i steered across the center line and i struck another car. in this other car were two men who were both killed on impact. two men that were fathers, husbands that cared for their families and wanted the best for them. and because of my choice to text and drive, i took their lives.

i changed the lives of these families. i changed my life forever. >> you can see this and the other winning videos any time at studentcam.org. >> up next, supreme court justices antonin scalia and stephen breyer debate their views on the u.s. constitution. then on "newsmakers." governor mitch daniels discusses how changes on health care could impact the states. following that, former senate historian richard baker talks about the inner workings of the senate. >> this program originally aired on "america & the courts." go to c-span.org and click on

the series link for more. you can also watch it every saturday evening at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> please turn off your cell phones. those of you who are regulars at

these programs also know that there is a regular regime that we follow. i will talk a little bit about the supreme court historical society. when i finish with that short pitch, there are mandatory in reductions of these people, because you probably do not know who they are -- mandatory introductions of these people, because you probably do not know who they are. then we will get to the real reason the you are here, assuming they both state. -- stay. [laughter] welcome and thank you are coming to the first lecture in our 2010 series. the chair for whom the series is named is here with his daughter, who has just been admitted to practice before this court. we're pleased to recognize my immediate predecessor and the

president emeritus who is with us tonight with his daughter. again, thank you for coming. here comes the pitch, but brief. the society began sponsoring lectures series on special topics in 1993. each of these lectures series is published in the society's journal of supreme court history, creating a lasting, historical reference point for our members. through the generosity of the members of the court, this program will be filmed by c- span and will be available for viewing nationally shortly after tonight. the society, as you probably know, places special emphasis on its mission to educate the public about the court. one facet of our educational outreach efforts includes our

programs whic including the supe court summer institute which will be held this year in june. it includes regional programs that have been held in atlanta, st. louis, new york, and this year baltimore. we of several teachers who have attended those programs here with us -- we have several teachers who have attended those programs here with us this evening. the society is also in the process of updating two of our significant reference books -- illustrated biographies and supreme court decisions and women rights, both published by congressional quarterly and will be available this fall. a new volume "court watching -- an anecdotal history of the court" will also be published next year, 2011.

these programs and our publications are made possible by the generous support of our trusties' and society members -- trustees and society members, many of whom are also with us this evening. end of pitch. now we turn to this evening's program. first, let me thank our hosts and panelists this evening, justice scalia and justice breyer, for taking time out of their schedules to share their wisdom and insights on constitutional interpretation. those of you who are regular visitors to these lecture series know that we could not be in this splendid surroundings, except to the generosity of the supreme court justices. we're required to have a justice host these programs in order to be here. usually, the introductions are

conducted by one of the justices. tonight, we have a double -- a two-fer. two justices hosting and two participating. this is probably a unique circumstance. this evening is a bit different from the typical lecturer. -- the collection -- typical lecture. they're going to have a discussion about constitutional interpretation. we will ask questions to move the matter along. now, for the mandatory introduction part of this introduction, just in case there is someone who does not know who these people are. justice antonin scalia was going in trenton, new jersey, received a b.a. in history from georgetown university and his law degree from harvard law school. he practiced law in cleveland,

ohio, until 1967 when he joined the faculty of the virginia law school. in 1971, he became the council to the white house office of telecommunications policy. he served as chair of the administrative conference of the united states from 1972 to 1974. he was appointed assistant attorney general of the office of legal counsel in the department of justice in 1974. in 1977, after half a year as a resident scholar at the american enterprise institute here in washington, he returned to teaching at the university of chicago law school. he was also a visiting professor at the law schools at georgetown and stanford universities. president ronald reagan appointed justice scalia to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia in the 1982 -- in 1982.

four years later, president reagan nominated him to serve on the supreme court. the senate confirmed his appointment on september 17, 1986. that was almost 24 years ago. justice stephen breyer was going in san francisco, california. he received a b.a. in philosophy from stanford university, a b.a. at magdalene college and oxford university as a marshall scholar, and a law degree from harvard law school. he served as a law clerk for associate justice arthur goldberg during the 1964 term. in 1967, he began his academic career at harvard law school, where he taught until 1994. he also taught at harvard university's kennedy school of government from 1997 to 1980. beginning in 1979, he served two years as chief counsel to the

senate judiciary committee. president jimmy carter appointed justice breyer to the u.s. court of appeals for the first circuit in 1980. he became its chief judge in 1980 -- 1990. he served as a member of the u.s. sentencing commission from 1985 through 1989. on may 14, 1994, president william clinton nominated him to serve on the supreme court. he took the oath of office on august 3, 1994, nearly 16 years ago. finally, are moderated this evening is james duff. he graduated from the university of kentucky on this program -- honors program. he received a j.d. from the georgetown law center in 1981. he served as administrative assistant to to chief justice william h. rehnquist from 1996

to 2000. from 2000 to 2006, he served as managing partner of the washington, d.c. office of baker donaldson. he has taught constitutional law at georgetown university since 1999, and has served on several boards, including the capital hospice foundation and the lawyers committee of the national city and state courts, and the supreme court historical society. he knew i would get that in somewhere. he is the director of the administrative office of the united states courts. just so there is no confusion, the man immediately to my left is justice breyer, the man in the middle is the moderator, and a man on the far left is justice scalia. [laughter] why did you laugh? >> i cannot see them, and that

means they cannot see me. i was (over there -- conferring over there so we can move the show up to the bench. [laughter] [applause] >> lest you mistakenly assigned responsibility for the seating arrangement, let me tell you that my wife said to me nobody would be able to see them. i said to the person running the show, and nobody is going to be able to see them. she said, yes they will. jennifer, you lose. [laughter] >> i'm going to sit in my regular seats. >> this is where the chief justice usually sets. -- sits. >> pitch and introductions done.

up sabers, gentlemen, being. -- begin. >> thank you and thank you for inviting us to attend. we're very fortunate to have to be distinguished judges who are willing to discuss publicly their somewhat differing approaches to the constitutional interpretations. it is enormously educational for the public. i feel like i am participating in a beer summit without the beer. i'm certain it will be a teachable moment for all of us. in our course at georgetown, civil liberties during wartime, we've taken an historical look at cases involving civil lyric -- civil liberties during war. it will not surprise you that one of our texts is by chief justice rehnquist.

he discusses the case during the civil war concerning a decision that president lincoln alone did not have authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and that only someone subject to the articles of war could be brought before a military commission. chief justice rehnquist, the historian, sites editorials in newspapers from the time that were severely critical of the decision. it is interesting to see chief justice rehnquist quote newspapers. president lincoln basically ignored the decision. just as written -- justice breyer you have written about the -- justice breyer, you have written about the importance of the work of the declaration of independence. to secure certain unalienable rights, governments derive their power from the governed.

my opening question is -- does this reaction enter into your thinking or decision making as a justice in a case here? [unintelligible] >> you have to train yourself to that. it is different from the point you're making. whether decision will be popular or unpopular, i think we come close to [unintelligible] have a group of people will be able to apply the constitution. >> enforcing it, either way, the

person protected was the least popular person in united states. that was particularly true. if it was popular, he may not need the court's protection. that is the job. the answer is zero. >> justice scalia? >> same answer. i do not know any judge worth his salt would not give that answer. whether we all live up to it is another question. that is why we have life tenure. we're not supposed to be fearful of telling the truth. the bill of rights, which is the most important part of the constitution that is placed within our chart, is a validly anti-democratic document which tells the people they cannot do what they want to do, even if they want to. not without amending the

constitution. one should not expect us, all the time, to come out with opinions that are popular. the whole purpose of the bill of rights is to protect you from the majority, in some cases. >> justice scalia, why is it important to tie current decisions to former decisions in your view? >> i do not care a fig for the framers. i care for the people who ratified the constitution. i do not believe in our original intent. i believe in the original meaning. what was the meaning of the constitution when the people ratified it? you quoted jefferson. the validity of government depends upon the consent of the governed. you find that consent in what

the people agreed to. what they agreed to when they adopted a constitution, what they agreed to when they adopted the bill of rights is what ought to govern us. the bill rights is, in essence, anti-democratic in that it prevents the current majority from doing what it would like to do. in another sense, it is quite democratic. it was adopted democratically. it was the people self-limiting their pwoer. -- their power. the meaning of that, whether it -- for example, whether it prohibits the death penalty, whether the amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishments permits the death penalty -- there is no doubt that no american ever wrote it for that when they voted to ratify the eighth amendment.

that was the penalty for all colonies. --- that was the penalty for all felonies. worse beating was up penalty. that is why we have western movies. things are different nowadays. we think the death penalty is a horrible thing. since we think so, it is prohibited to the people. that is not being faithful to the will of the people. states are free to adopt it or to refuse to adopt it. tuesday there is something in the constitution that requires -- to state their is something in the constitution that requires the abolish it is not following the will of the governed. but justice breyer, you have written that our constitution begins with the words -- >> justice breyer, you have written

that our constitution begins with the words, "we the people, ," not we the people of haiti -- 1787. why is that important? >> we're in tremendous agreement. we're unanimous in 30% deal 40% of the cases. -- 30% to 40% of the cases. it is our job to patrol the boundaries of the constitution. we are there -- it is a document that predates the government. it was supposed to create a government that would work. that kind of workable democracy was supposed to last a long time. our job is to apply the words that created the government, d