television, radio, and online. connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. sign up for stifel alert emails at c-span.org. >> this is c-span public affairs programming, courtesy of america's cable companies. next, remarks from connecticut democrat senatorial candidate richard blumenthal. after that, both candidates in the senate democratic primary of colorado. after that, president obama delivers the commencement address at west point. . . thank you. host: we will leave ithere.

we can get the front pages of papers acrs the nati. this is the "hartford courant" this morni. ing us now to give a little concept of what happenss jon lender. tell us what happened yesterday as far as what happened and what it means for november and we will talk about the specific parties involved. guest: both the republican and democratic parties chose -- endorsed their candidate for u.s. senate in november. the seat thats being vacated by christopher dodd. the democrats nominated ricrd blum and fall, the state attorney genal. heony alamation when an opponent with true.

it was a pretty early night last night. it went from about -- it was er at about 8:3 on the republican side, linda mcmahon, who was the ceo of wwe won a close first ballot ov former congressmanobert simons for the convention endorsement. he was going to force a primary on august 10 for the ax will nomination. there is an author who did not get the reqred 50% of the delicate, but pledged that he is going to petition his way up to the primary ballot. --5% of the delegates. housecoat how it his campaign fairing and light -- host: how it is his campaign fairings?

est:here is trouble. he is a very popular guy. he has been in the public otlight for two decades. he had been very popular. he never reay had too much political trouble, until "the new york times" struck this bomb. it had to do with a two dozen a statement that he made- the 2008 statement tt he made at a gathering of honoring the veterans. when i served in vietnam -- said later, they said it was part of a pattern. he said that it is not a pattern. there were other instances since that first story where he had been quoted in the newspaper, giving statements that could be

he was in vietnam duringheaiming war. at one point, he said, when i wore a uniform in vietnam -- again, he said it was misspeaking and there were man other times tt he made it clear that he has not been in thvietnam. host: how is that resonating? what does it mean for m going forward? guest: mcmahon has acknowledged providing part of the information to "the new york tis." their capital link -- capitalizing on it. everybody in the republican party s criticized him. the democratic party, people are concerned. we tooto the pium last

night, they playethe tom petty song, "i won't back down." the last week showed -- emphasized what my wife has been telling me for 30 years. i at perfect, that i make mistakes. the national democratic party and the people of connecticut had thought was a pretty safe seats for theemocrats and it is now ver close. it is in a dd heat between the blue and fall and mcmahon. host: as far as money is concerned, talk about the coition of eachf those campaigns. guest: linda mcmahon is a vy wealthy person. she has already spent60 llion to get to the point where she is.

she only held won public office before. shnever held elected office. she willing to spend $50 million on the campaign, s said. richard lowenthal will be able to raise money into e millions, but linda mcmahon has an unlimited wealth of mon to draw on. there will be a lot of advertising and a lot of it will focus on criticism of his character with this i vietnam -- with is in some controversy. host: what is her appeal then? if she is never held political office and her background --

what is in her appeal? guest: she has been pretty frank about it. outsider in a year whe relative outsiders are winning race she ignored alleged early in the campaign that e had not even voted in the 20 gener election. she said lastight, when she accepted the endorsement of the nvention, reenergize in the republic party. it isn outsider appeal. host: is e pollg suggesting -- what is the breakdown as r as to has the advantage? guest: it is roughly even. i cannot quote you the numbers

right now, but last week, after the story had and the controversy had a couple of ys to develop, this was an even race. at this point. host: when will the runoff take ple on the republican side? guest: it will be a three-way race. if what has happened is any guide, he did not get 15% of the nvention delegates, but he is a very intelligent guy. he comes over very well on televisi a very articulate guy. it will mainly be between rob sions and linda

>> at the convention, blame enthat will aired a video for their candidate. this is about five minutes. >> in a moment like that, you're facing things much bigger than yourself. it's devastating. + we don't know what to say or what to do. >> everyone has a story about richard blamen that will more how he -- >> we were left with nothing and very emotionally destroyed when we had to call the

environmental company to clean the waste out of the basement of the house. we were devastated and it came out of the money that we believe eligible to receive to rebuild the home. within 72 hours, we had money to start rebuilding our home. >> it started with gary feeling tired and just not feeling right. >> when they initially told me i had leukemia, they told me i only had 30 days to live. >> we assumed that because we had chief meterologisto and radiation there that the bone mario transplant would take place, too. here we are in the hospital and the insurance carrier wanted to send us away. if you call blumenthal's office, he could help you with this. i thought i would get a machine but blumenthal stepped in and

fought the insurance company and helped us convince them that this was the best decision for gary's health. we're living proof that he was there and he made a difference in our lives. >> my grandfather started voters in 1923. it's been here the whole time. >> almost one year ago, general motors made an announcement that they were going to be reducing their dealer network. we received our notice that we would not be renewed. >> attorney general blumenthal wrote letters on our behalf. he did whatever he could for us. >> we're back thanks to you, thank you. >> he say fighter and we were able to save our jobs and save the seat from placing anyone else unemployment. >> on july 21 of last year, the company announced that they wanted to close our plant. we would all be out of a job by

december this year. we found that was in violation of our contract and ended up taking it to court. richard blumenthal stepped up. he stood shoulder to shoulder with us right in the fight. he was with us in court and with us at almost every valley that we have. >> if richard blumenthal wasn't involved, i would be unemployed. >> the first time my daughter had regular formula, he blew up like a balloon and he practically died in my arms. he is allergic to soy, milk, eggs and other allergies. what he wasn't allergic to would cost us $1,200 a month. i called richard blumenthal and he got it to change the law so that nobody else would have to suffer the way that we did.

today she is 10 years old and she will watch richard blumenthal on tv and say, mom, there is the man who saved my life. he is a fighter. he is not afraid to stand up to big business or to anybody. >> i'm going to vote for him and encourage anybody i know to vote for i am. >> i truly believe that richard blumenthal is someone who has proved his willingness to to help people. >> that's who we need to fight for us. >> i'm registered independent. >> republican. >> independent voter. >> i pride myself as i take a look at the candidates and vote for the best. i know that mr. blumenthal will do what is right for the state of connecticut. that's why i am voting for him for senate. >> now remarks by connecticut attorney general richard blumenthal following his selection as the party candidate for u.s. senate. he'll face republican linda

mcmahon in november. this is just over 15 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the next united states senator for connecticut, richard blumenthal! [cheers and applause] >> thank you! [cheers and applause] >> thank you. thank you.

thank you all. thank you. and i also want to thank the people whom you just heard and saw in that video. i am proud to have helped them in some of the toughest moments in their lives. this week as you all know, i had a little bit of a tough time myself. you all have been hearing what my wife cynthia has been telling me for almost 30 years, that i'm not perfect, that i make mistakes. but you also know that i'm a fighter. [cheers and applause] >> and i want to thank you for your support, for your support some of the tough fights that we have had together. i thank you. [cheers and applause]

>> we're in a fight this year, a tough fight. i want to make clear to every one of you, every one in this hall and everyone beyond, i will never be intimidated. i will never back down. i will never stop fighting for the people of connecticut. [cheers and applause] >> and i will never be outworked. [cheers and applause] >> i am proud to except your endorsement of connecticut's next united states senator. [cheers and applause]

>> year after year, i have crisscrossed this state visiting every nook and cranny, listening to people where they live and work, but these days in backyards and kitchens, in officessand factories, i hear a lot of worry about jobs and the economy and a lot of frustration with our political process. and i hear something more ominous and alarming. people tell me they feel washington has forgotten them, left them invisible and voiceless, not served, not heeded, not even heard. we want an economy that works for everyone, but washington isn't listening. we want our entrepreneurs and

small businesses to get loans and credit and be able to compete internationally on a level playing field, but washington isn't listening. we want good schools and affordable electricity and clean energy jobs, but washington isn't listening. our public conversations sound like trash talk, but it's not just the tone or shouting. what is worse, it ignores real people and their problems, their real lives. your voice is missing. people look at washington and they can't find anybody standing up for them. what they see is a wasteland, a gigantic mess. well, you know what? my first job was shoveling

manure for my grandfather on his farm. i know about noisy animals and big measures. [cheers and applause] >> so when i hear that our political system is stuck, our government is broken and washington just plain stinks, i say give me a shovel and let me go to work! [cheers and applause] >> let me go to washington -- let me go to washington and be your next united states senator and i will fight for you! i will take on -- i will take on, as i always have, the fights that make a real difference for connecticut families, rebuilding our economy, keeping our nation safe and strong, insuring every

taxpayer dollar is spent wisely, keeping faith with our veterans, restoring civility and integrity and common sense to our politics. these are the fights for our time. these are the issues that will define this election. we know what our opponents would prefer. already we have seen them try to make this race about attacks on my character and service. i'm proud of my service. i'm proud of the work that i have done for veterans and my fight for no veteran left behind. [cheers and applause]

>> that fight for no veteran left behind is so that all who have served and sacrifices will finally and truly be told welcome home. i have made mistakes. i regret thee and i take responsibility but this campaign must be about the people of connecticut. i want to get results. i want to get results for the people of connecticut and i have done it in the past and i have proven that i can do it in the future. i have stood up to the biggest special interests, big drug companies, big energy companies, internet providers and i have fought corruption

and waste and it's made a difference in people's lives. this campaign will offer a clear choice. the republicans are selling tired ideas of the past. we can go back to the same failed policies of tax breaks for millionaires and give aways to the big oil companies and the drug companies, or we can move forward to grow our economy for ordinary people and create jobs. we can repeal the health care law and let inssrance company' abuses run wild, or we can -- company's abuses run wild or we can hold the insurance companies accountable, cut waste and fraud and make america a country where decent health care is affordable and available to all. [cheers and applause]

>> we can go back to crooked bankers running wall street and let the bernie madoffs regular themselves or we can move ahead to hold the bankers accountable and say no more bailouts. we can enable small businesses to thrive and create jobs. we can have a culture in washington dominated by political pieo technical nick and partners in chest beating or we can start learn to real concerns of real people again, because if washington isn't

working for you, the senate is working, my dad came here in 1935 to escape persecution in germany with little more than the shirt on his back. my mother came from omaha, nebraska, where my grandfather raised corn and cattle. of all of the gifts they gave me, none has meant more than their belief that i should give back to the cup that gave them both a chance and has given us all so much. [cheers and applause] >> for 20 years, i fought to set things right for ordinary americans when they had nowhere else to turn with every ounce of energy and every fiber of my being.

and now ordinary people feel that they can't turn to washington and i want to go there to set things right. [applause] >> this will be a long and -ptough campaign. i may be outspent, but i won't be outworked. [cheers and applause] >> i have been fighting for what's right, sometimes against long odds through my whole career, but i need you there with me every step of the way. i need you to be ready for a fight. i need you to be on the phones, on the doors, on the street, i need you to raise your voice and raise your hand and make sure we have an election, not

an auction. [cheers and applause] >> i'll go to washington and stand up for our small businesses, our working families, our kids, our jobs, our state. i'll go to washington to fight for you first, last, and always. thank you and god bless. thank you. [cheers and applause]

[cheers and applause]

>> colorado senator michael bennet will face former statehouse speaker andrew romanoff in the parties primary. romanoff received 60% of the votes. bennet finished with about 39%. the senator is seeking a full u.s. senate term after serving since january 2009 as an interior secretary ken salazar. both candidates addressed the convention prior to the vote. rebegin with andrew romanoff -- we begin with andrew romanoff. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, colorado democrats. thank you. thank you very much for that warm welcome and a special

thanks to my friend pauley and mary beth for their nominations. i want to begin this morning where i began by thank my mother who is here today. [cheers and applause] >> every i am or hope to be i owe to her more than anyone in the world. i am lucky to have the love and support of my uncle bill and my aunt sushi and my cousins melissa and mack who are here as well. thank you very much. i wish that my grandparents could be with me today. my grandmother rose was my secret weapon. she came to the state convention in pueblo in 1996 to help me get elected to the democratic national committee.

she sat just inside the front entrance to the convention hall and she wore a name tag that said andrew's nana. she had quite a trick. she used her cane to multiple towards her with one hand and then slap a romanoff sticker on them with the other. i know that nana would be very proud to see so many romanoff stickers here today. [cheers and applause] i'm just proud that we didn't actually have to cane anyone into wearing them. but whatever sticker you're wearing today, let's make sure that we are all wearing the same sticker on august 11 and unite behind the nominee. [cheers and applause] >> that is my pledge to you. i respect my opponent. i will support him if he wins

our party nomination and i will ask you to do exactly the same. [cheers and applause] >> but with all due respect, let me also say this. this senate seat doesn't belong to him anymore than it belongs to me. it belongs to the people of colorado. it belongs to you. [cheers and applause] >> and if you give me this nomination, i promise you this, i will never forget where i come from or who i'm fighting for. too many politicians become so easily seduced by the lobbyists who line their pockets and whisper in their ears that they can't remember why they sought office in the first place, that is a mistake i will not make. my campaign and my career are

rooted in the people of colorado. that's why i fought for kids in the san luis valley and the arkansas valley and the eastern plains so they could go to schools where the roofs were caving in and the floorboards weren't too rotten to hold up a desk. that'sy fought for people who suffered from mental illness or drug abuse so that their diseases didn't condemn them to the shadows of an underpass or a prison cell or an early grave. and that is why i will always fight for our veterans and their families so that they receive the respect and support they have earned. [cheers and applause] >> i know a little something about fighting when the odds are against you and i know how to win.

we took the house when nobody thought we could and we kept it, twice, when the pundits said it was a fluke. we took on tabor in a feverous session and passed an economic recovery plan called referendum c so the doors of colleges could stay open for students of modest means in this state. [cheers and applause] >> we took on the insurance industry and cracked down on companies that refused to honor their customers' claims. we took on the bush administration and stood up to toxic polluters who poisoned our air and our water. [cheers and applause] >> we took on the far right and stood up for equality so that the citizens of this land would be judged, not by the color of their skin or the love of their life, but by the content of their character. [cheers and applause]

>> i am very proud of the leadership that i brought to this state house. i am proud to have been recognizeds the best legislative leader in the united states of america, and i am especially grateful for the progress that you made possible. thousands of coloradans who will never learn your name or mine are better off today because of the work we did. that should make you very proud as well. but the challenges that we face now are too broad and too deep for a state to solve on its own. if we learned anything over the last year and a half, it is this -- it is not enough to put a president of real talent and vision and leadership in the white house if the same qualities are not matched at

the other end of pennsylvania avenue. [cheers and applause] >> we need leaders, we desperately need leaders who will bring the courage of our convictions to capitol hill and that is why i am running for the united states senate. [cheers and applause] >> this is the best chance that we have ever had to make a difference in the lives of ordinary americans and i will not allow that opportunity to be squandered as it has been, sabotaged, not just by republicans who stand against us, but by democrats who sell us out. [cheers and applause]

>> on tuesday night, the voters in arkansas and pennsylvania sent a loud and clear message to the u.s. senate and we should, too. the message to our own party is this -- stiffen your spine or step out of the way. [cheers and applause] >> i am not a perfect messenger but in the democratic party i led and the democratic party i still believe in, we don't cut deals with drugmakers to protect their profits. we put patients first. we don't reward companies for shipping our jobs overseas or

exploiting their workers. we defend the right to organize and invest. [cheers and applause] >> and we invest in education and job training here at home. we don't give wall street c.e.o.s bonuses when their banks become too big to fail and then give them a card that says get out of jail, we'll pay the bill. we punish financial predators and we protect families from for closure and we don't demonize our neighbors and we reform our immigration system. we respect the rule of law, and we honor our heritage and our humanity. [cheers and applause] >> i love you, too. [laughter] >> we don't let drillers off the hook when they desecrate

our environment. we force them to pay for the damage they cause and make sure it never ever happens again. [cheers and applause] >> and we will revolutionize our american policy while we're at so we don't spoil our oceans or spill oor blood just to power our planet. i want to just pause on this point because while we gather here this morning, an oil slick bigger than maryland and delaware combined is spreading through the gulf of mexico. the explosion on deep water horizon will rank as the worst economic and ecological disaster in our history and yet the company responsible for

billions of dollars in losses to the coastal communities faces no more than $75 million that's a single day's profit for british petroleum and that is outrageous. [cheers and applause] >> it is the result in part of an even bigger slick of oil money that our own party has done little or nothing to clean up. the same slug of corporate cash washed away our hopes for a public option, drowned the discussion of a single-payer health plan and watered down the reforms we need, we still need on wall street. and too many politicians complicit in their silence surrendered without a fight. that is why your decision today

is so important. we're here, not just to select a senator. we're here to decide who we are, what kind of party, and what kind of country we want to be. you choose. we can settle for the status quo where we sell senate seats to the highest bidder and turn congress into an wholey you be sid air of the industries it's supposed to be regulating, or we can say no. [cheers and applause] >> we can reject the politics of business as usual, the pay to play culture that corrupts our congress and corrodes our country. part of changing that culture, a member of the senate once said, is recognizing that special interests, the insurance companies, the banks, the drug companies, the h...o.s

have come to dictate our agenda, and the only way you break out of that, this senator said, is to stop taking money from those groups so that ordinary people's voices are heard. [cheers and applause] >> i believe senator obama was right. and i am the only candidate in this race and one of the very few in america who refuses to accept contributions from special interest groups. [cheers and applause] >> when we win this election, i will owe my seat, not to washington or to wall street, i will owe this seat to you.

now, a lot of the power brokers and party bosses say you need special interest money to win, but i say if you take that money, you'll lose and more importantly, the people lose. millions of people are already losing, not just their jobs or their homes or their savings. they're losing their faith in our political leaders and in our principals, and it is no wonder when so many of the most powerful corporations on earth spend millions of dollars to bank roll congress and block reform, and when the supreme court of the united states gives those corporations even more power by transforming them into people. and worst of all, when our own

party puts democracy up for sale. washington will never change on its own. but when a grassroots campaign like ours wins a race -- when we win a race like this without a dime of corporate cash, our victory will send a shock wave to a town that needs one. [cheers and applause] >> and when we win, some other candidates somewhere else in america, maybe someone who hasn't even thought for running for office yet will take the same approach. and when he wins or she wins, another candidate will follow suit and then another and then another. you and i can chart the course, not just of this campaign, but

of this country. join this cause and we can reshape politics and restore public trust. we can turn america itself into what it once was and what it can be again, a source, not of cowardice or come play sensey or december -- complacesy. those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are already doing it. so if you stand with me now, i will lead this ticket, stand with me now and we will hold this seat. stand with me now and i will always, always stand with you. thank you very much.

[cheers and applause]

♪ ♪ >> thank you, thank you. thank you for nominating me. i accept your nomination for the united states senate. thank you to all of the delegates and alter that's. thanks to the officers and candidates and to our great chair, pat block.

and thanks to all of you who put your blood, sweat, and tears into making the great democratic party here in colorado. and i want to take another moment to thank susan and our three little girls who are here today. i am very grateful for the chance to speak with you today just as i have been grateful to the people of our state for letting me into their living rooms and town halls and church basements to learn from them. it is their voices. it is your voices that i hear in washington. the 20,000 miles i have traveled throughout colorado visiting each of our 64 counties have reaffirmed for me even in this trying time when both our economy and our politics seem so broken that

fundamentally and no matter who we are or where we come from, we all share the same basic aspirations for our state, our country, and our kids. [cheers and applause] >> today i want to share some of mine. my mother was part of a large family in warsaw, poland, when the nazis swept across europe. most of our family didn't make it through the war. my mother and her parents survived the holeo cast and miraculously made their way to the america. my mom was the only one that spoke english. she was just 12, just a little older than our oldest daughter caroline is right now. mom helped everyone find a place to live and figured out where she was supposed to go to school. my mom and her parents were

able to rebuild their lives here because america welcomed them. it greeted them, not with prejudice, but with opportunity, and they worked hard. [cheers and applause] >> they worked very hard to be worthy of that gift. in america, my family discovered a place where no one had to be a prisoner of history and where everyone could imagine and work toward a brighter future. >> that's why when susan and i were married, we chose colorado to be our home to raise our family. because it seemed to us to be the most hopeful place in the most hopeful country in the world. [cheers and applause]

>> as alof you know, i didn't set out to make a career in politics. in fact, i bring a lifetime of experience outside of politics to this job. but like you, i'm concerned about colorado's future and i wear that the same old politicians are using the same old approachs to what are very new problems. so when a funny former bartender names john hicken looper came along to get denver moving again, i signed up to shape a city. then i got a chance to do work that changed my life. i worked alongside principals, teachers, children and parents in the denver public schools as we fought to honor the american

promise that the zip code you were born into should not define where you end up. and it was there, it was there that i learned just how hard change really is and how hard it is to make real change, but how essential it really is. and that's the true lesson, the true lesson of public service is about solving the hardest problems, not the easy ones, about making sure we leave more and not less to our kids and our grandkids. [cheers and applause] >> that's what i've done the past year in the senate. i have worked hard to stand up for what's right for colorado. the fight has not always been easy, but with your help, we

have started to clean up the mess left by the last administration. we took on credit card companies to reign in the sharks that predators by passing real credit card and mortgage reform. we took on insurance companies and their lobbyists and passed health care reform that will bring down costs, increase coverage, and reduce our debt. we stood up to the big bank holding companies and passed the toughest reform of wall street since the great depression. [cheers and applause] >> and although our opponents are tangled up in their own talking points, the truth is that 90% of colorado families got a tax cut. that's right, a tax cut thanks to this president and this

congress. but we aren't done yet. we need to fix the way washington works, and that is why i have proposed the toughest reforms of anyone in the senate to freeze congressional pay until there is real economic growth. we just passed that, by the way. >> to ban members of congress from ever becoming lobbyists and overturn the terrible supreme court decision that would allow corporations, even foreign corporations to run television ads in our elections. [cheers and applause] >> these things are important, not because of washington, but becauss families all over this state are still suffering through the worst recession

since the great depression. they worry about making their mortgage, holding on to their jobs, paying for their kids' college education, and together they worry as i worry that we are at risk of being the first generation of americans, the first to leave less opportunity to our kids and our grandkids. we cannot let that happen and still claim that we had a role in perfecting our union, that we honored our parents' legacy and gave our kids and our grandkids the chance to fulfill that legacy as well. we will not let that happen. [cheers and applause] >> we democrats may

occasionally have our disagreement. we may have our disagreements, but we are united by our core values and our shared hope for america and we know who our real opponents are. they're the folks who say that social security is a ponzi scheme and want to privatize it. they seem just fine with insurance companies that discriminate against you if you have a preexisting condition. they want to eliminate the department of education. they're the ones who want to cut taxes for the highest earners, borrow the money from the chinese to pay for it, and stick everyone else's kids with the bill. they want to take us backward when we know we need to move colorado and our country forward.

and you know what i think? you know what i think? that's what a lot of republican and unafillated voters in this state want to do as well, move colorado and our country forward. colorado is a wonderful place as everybody knows, blessed with great people, people like you, people like the people behind me on this stage, people who are working hard today and couldn't be here with remarkable optimism and an independent spirit. if we're going to get away from the same old political games that have failed us time and time before, we have to summon the strength to listen to what people are eally saying and help them leave the talking heads and politicians -- lead

the talking heads and politicians rather than the other way around. [cheers and applause] >> the people of colorado, the people of colorado are ready to do that. are you ready to do that? [cheers and applause] >> are you ready to lead? [cheers and applause] >> are you ready to reject the toxic and divisive politics of the moment and together build for the future? are you ready? that's what i thought. together, together we can build a future where our kids and our grandkids thrive. we can turn this economy around and put our country back to work. we can lead the world with colorado's commitment to the new energy economy. we can pass common sense

immigration reform. we can bring our troops home from iraq and afghanistan to their families, and make sure they have the care and respect they deserve. we can start making responsible decisions and stop passing a huge debt on to the next generation of americans. and together, together with your help, we will win this senate seat, elect john hicken looper to be our next governor, elect terry kennedy and if we work together, we will honor, we will honor the promise to our chin. thank you so much for being here! [cheers and applause] .

♪ ♪ >> next, president obama delivers the commencement address at west point. then, legal analysts discuss the

constitutionality of the arizona immigration law. after that, marked by the connecticut democratic candidate for senate richard blumenthal. >> tomorrow 1 "washington journal," alex isenstadt discusses the upcoming elections. donald kerwin looks at u.s. immigration policy with a focus on privacy issues. victor cha offers his views on how the u.s. should respond to north korea's attack on a south korean warship. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> in some ways, every class gives you a sense of what the country is thinking at that moment. >> terence samuel looks behind

the institution of the u.s. senate. "the upper house with >> sunday on "q&a." >> now, the u.s. military academy commencement ceremony, where president obama delivers a graduation address. this is about 35 minutes. >> thank you very much. it is great to be back at the military academy. we commissioned the newest officers from the united states army. thank you, general, for your introduction on a day that holds a special meaning for you and the dean. both of you first came to west point in the class of 1971 and went on to inspire soldiers under your command. you have led this academy to

well-deserved recognition.+ best college in america. [applause] we're both looking forward to what you will do in the army. general, judy, we thank you for 39 years of remarkable service to the army and to america. [applause] general rap, to academy staff and faculty, most of whom are veterans, thank you for your service. -- service, and to inspiring

these cadets to be the leaders of character they are today. [applause] let me also acknowledge the presence of general shinseki, the members of congress who are with us today, including two former soldiers this academy knows well, senator jack reed [applause]ssman patrick murphy.- to all of the families here, especially the moms and dads, today is a tribute to you as well. your decision to come to west point was made by your sons and daughters, but it is you who instilled in them a spirit of service that has led them to this place in a time of war. on behalf of the american

people, thank you for your example. thank you for your patriotism. [applause] to the united states cadets, and most of all, the class of 2010, it is a singular honor to serve as your commander in chief. as your superintended indicated, under our system, my power as president is wisely limited, but there are some areas where my power is absolute. as your commander in chief, i hereby of solve all cadets who conduct offenses. [cheers and applause]

i will lead the definition of "min -- i will leave the definition of "minor" to those who know better. today is your day, a day to celebrate all that you have achieved. we look forward to the important service that lies ahead. you have push yourself through the agony of deep barracks, the weeks of training and mud, and i am told, more inspections and rills than perhaps any class before you. along the way, i am sure you faced a few moments when you ask yourself, what am i doing here? i have those moments, sometimes. [laughter]

you have trained for the complexities of today's missions, knowing that success will be measured not merely by performance on the battlefield, but also by your understanding of the cultures, traditions, and languages in the places to serve. you have reached out across borders with more international experience than any class in academy history. you've not only forged new friendships, you have welcomed in cadets from nearly a dozen countries. you have challenged yourselves intellectually in the sciences and humanities, and history and technology. you have achieved a standard of academic excellence that is, without question, tying the record for the most post- graduate scholarships of any class in west point history. [applause]

this includes your number one overall cadet and your valedictorian, liz and alex. this is the first time in the academy history where your top awards have been burned bb female candidates. earned byeen b female candidates. [applause] this underscores the fact that we have taken our troops from baghdad to basra. our women play an indispensable role in our national defense. they have proven themselves to be room models for our daughters and our sons, as students, as soldiers, and as leaders to the u.s. armed forces. the faces in the stadium show a simple truth. america's army represent the full breadth of america's

experience. you come from every corner of our country, from privilege and from poverty, from cities and small towns. you were here all of the great religions that enriched the life of our people. you include the best ever feared race and ethnicity that with fundament -- fundamental to our nation. there is one thing that sets you apart. here in these quiet hills, you have come together to prepare for the most difficult test of our time. you signed up knowing your service would send you into harm's way. you did so long after the birth of drums of war were sounding. in you we see the commitment of our country. the timeless virtues have served our nation well. we see your sense of duty, including those who cover earned

their right-shoulder patch, like the soldiers who suffered a grenade wound in iraq. your first captain of the corps of cadets, tyler gordon. we see your sense of honor in your respect for traditions, knowing that you joined a long line that stretches through the centuries, and in your reverence for each other. when the course stand in silence every time a former ku that makes the ultimate sacrifice for our nation -- the corps stands in silence every time a former member makes the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. we see your love of country, the

devotion to america captured in the model you chose as a class -- in the model you chose as a class,,"loyal until the end." duty, honor, love of country, everything you have learned here, everything you have prepared for, has led you to today. when you take that oath, when that person pins those gold bars on your shoulder, when you become commissioned officers in .he u.s. army this is the ninth consecutive commencement that has taken place with our nation at war. this time of war began in afghanistan, a place that may seem as far away from this peaceful bend in the hudson

river as anywhere on earth. the war began only because our own cities and civilians were attacked by violent extremists who plotted from a distant place. it continues only because that ploting persists to this day. for many years, our focus was on iraq. our troops faced a set of challenges there that were as daunting as they were complex. a lesser army might have seen its spear broken, but our military is more resilient. our troops adapted, persisted, parttered with iraqi counterparts, and through their creativity and courage, we are poised to end or combat mission in iraq this summer. [applause]

even as we transition to iraqi leadership and bring troops home, our commitment to the iraqi ppople and yours. we will assist iraqi security forces, who are already available -- responsible for secured in most of the country. this will not be a simple task, but this is what success looks like. an iraq that provides no haven to terrorists, a democratic iraq with -- that is stable and self-reliant. as we end the war in iraq, we are pressing forward in afghanistan. six months ago, i came here to announce a new strategy for afghanistan and pakistan. i stand here humbled by the knowledge that many of you will soon be serving in harm's way. i assure you, you will go with

the full support of a proud and grateful nation. we face a tough fight in afghanistan. and the insurgency that is confronted with a direct challenge will turn to new paths. the taliban has assassinated and participated in indiscriminate killing. any country that has known decades of war will be tested in finding political solutions to its problems and providing government's that can serve the needs of its people. this war has changed over the last nine years. it is as important as it was after 9/11. we must break the momentum of an insurgency and train afghan security forces. we have support of the election of a sovereign government. we must strengthen its capacity.

it has brought hope to the afghan people. we must see the country does not fall prey to our common enemies. there will be difficult days ahead. we will adapt, we will persist, and i have no doubt that together, with our afghan and international partners, we will succeed in afghanistan. [applause] even as we fight the wars in front of us, we also have to see the horizon beyond these wars. unlike a terrorist, whose goal is to destroy, our future will be defined by what we build.

we have to see that arise in. to get there, we must pursue a strategy of national renewal and global leadership. we have to build the sources of america's strength and influence, and shape the world that is more peaceful and prosperous. time and again, americans have risen to meet and to shape moments of change. this is one of those moments. it is an era of economic transformation and individual empowerment. it is of ancient hatreds and new dangers, emerging powers and new global challenges. we are going to need all of you to help meet these challenges. you have answered the call. you and all aware americans to -- america's uniform are the cornerstone of our national

defense, an anchor of global security. through a time when too many of our institutions have acted irresponsibly, the military has set a standard of service and sacrifice that is as great as any in this nation's history. [applause] now, the rest of us, the rest of us must do our part. to do so, we must first recognize that our strength and influence abroad begins with steps we take at home. we must educate our children to compete in an age where knowledge is capital and the marketplace is global. we must develop clean energy that can power a new industries and preserve our planet. we have to pursue science and

research that unlocks wonders as unforeseen to us today as the microchip and the surface of the moon were a century ago. american innovation must be the foundation of american power. at no time in human history as a nation of diminished economic vitality maintained its political challenges. that means the civilians among us, the parents, the community leaders, elected officials, business leaders, we have a role to play. we cannot simply leave it to those in uniform to defend this country. we have to make sure that america is building on its strengths. [applause] as we build these economic sources of our strength, the second thing we must do is

interpret the capabilities that can advance our interests and common interests of human beings around the world. america's armed forces are adapting to changing times, but your efforts have to be complemented. we will need the renewed engagement of our diplomats from grand capitals to dangerous outposts. we need experts who can support afghan agriculture and help africans build pastures to feed themselves. we need intelligence agencies that work seamlessly with counterparts to one rebel plot that run from pakistan to our cities. we need law-enforcement that can strengthen judicial systems abroad and protect us here at home. we need first responders who can act swiftly in the event of earthquakes and storms, disease. the burdens of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone.

it also cannot fall on america's shoulders alone. our adversaries would like to see america sap its strength by overextending more power. in the past, we have had the foresight to avoid acting alone. we were part of the most powerful wartime coalition in human history through world war ii. we stitched together a community of free nations and institutions to ultimately prevail during the cold war. yes, we are clear about the shortfalls of our international system, but america has not succeeded by stepping out of cooperation. we have succeeded by spearing those currents in the direction of liberty and justice. it is a nation thriving by meeting responsibilities. we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation.

we will be steadfast in strengthening goes all the alliances that have served us so well, including those who will serve by your side in afghanistan and around the globe. as influence extends to more countries, we also have to build new partnerships and shapes stronger international standards and institutions. this engagement is not an end in itself. the international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times, countering violent extremism and insurgency, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, and securing nuclear materials, combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth, helping countries feed themselves and care for theii sick, preventing conflict and healing wounds. if we are successful in these tasks, that will lessen conflicts around the world. it will be supportive of our

efforts by alan military to secure our country -- by our military to secure our country. more than anything else, though, our success will be claimed by who we are as a country. it is more important than ever, given the nature of the challenges we face. our campaign to disrupt and the ft al qaeda is part of the international effort that is necessary and just. this is a different kind of war. there will be no simple moment of surrender that marks the end of the journey. no armistice, no banner headline. we have had more success in eliminating al qaeda leaders in recent months than recent years. there will continue to recruit, plot, and exploit. we see that in bonds that go off in kabul.

we sit in attempt to blow up an airliner over detroit, or a vehicle in times square. even as these failed attack showed that pressure on networks like al qaeda are forcing them to rely on a terrace with less time and space to train, we see the potential duration of this struggle in al qaeda's distortion of this line -- of islam, their disrespect for human life. the threat will not go away soon. let's be clear. al qaeda and its affiliates are small men on the wrong side of history. they leave no nation. they leave no religion. -- they lead no nation. they lead no religion.

we cannot succumb to division because others try to drive us apart. we are the united states of america. [applause] we are the united states of america, and we have repaired our union, and outlasted communism, and we have gone through turmoil. we have gone through civil war. we have come out stronger. we will do so once more. [applause] i know this to be true because i see the strength and resilience of the american people.

new yorkers just go about their lives. i don't blame them. [applause] extremists want a war between america and as long, but muslims are part of our national life, including those who serve in our united states army. adversaries want to divide us, but we are united by our support for you, soldiers to send a clear message that this country is both a land of the free and the home of the brave. [applause] in an age of instant access to information, a lot of cynicism and news, it is easy to lose

perspective, in a flood of pictures, in a swirl of political debate. power and influence can seemed to ebb and flow. wars and grand plans can be deemed one more loss -- won or lost day-to-day, hour to hour. we have experienced the immediacy of the image of the suffering child, or the boasts of a dictator, it is easy to give in to the belief that human progress has stalled, that events are beyond our control, that change is not possible. but, this nation was founded upon a different notion. we believe that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,

and that truth has bound us together, a nation populated by people from around the globe, enduring hardship and achieving greatness as one people, and that belief is as true today as it was 200 years ago. it is a belief that has been claimed by people of every race and religion in every region of the world. can anybody doubt that this belief will be any less true, and a less powerful, two years, two decades, or even two centuries from now? if fundamental part of our strategy for our security has to be america's support for those rights that form the creed of our founders. we will promote these values above all by living and, through

our fidelity to the rule of law and our constitution, even when it is hard, even when we're being attacked, even when we are in the midst of war. we will commit ourselves to forever pursuing a more perfect union. together with our friends and allies, america will always seek a world that extends these rights so that when an individual is being silenced, we aim to be their voice. what ideas are suppressed, we provide space for open debate. were democratic institutions to a cold, we had a wind at their back. -- institutions grow, we are the wind at their back. we are a source of opportunity. that is who we are. that is what we do. we do so with no illusions. we understand change does not

come quick. we understand that neither american nor any nation can dictate every outcome beyond its borders. we know that a world of mortal men and women will never be rid of oppression or evil. what we can do, what we must do is work and reach and fight for the world that we seek. all of us, those in uniform, and those who are not. in preparing for today, i turned to the words of oliver wendell holmes. reflecting on his of a work spirit, he said, "to fight out a war, you must believe in something and want something with all your might, so much you

do to carry anything else to an end is worth reaching." he went on, "more than that, you must be willing to commit yourself to a course, perhaps a long and hard one, without being able to foresee exactly where you will come out." america does not fight for the sake of fighting. we abhor war. as one who is never experienced the field of battle, and i say that with humility, knowing the soldier above all others praise for peace, we fight because we must. we fight to keep our families and communities safe. we fight for the security of our allies and partners. america believes that we will be safer when our friends are safer. we will be stronger when the world is more just. cadets, a long and hard road

awaits you. you go abroad because your services fundamental to our security back home. you go abroad as representatives of the values that this country was founded upon. when you inevitably face setbacks, when the fighting is fierce, or a village elder is fearful, if the end seems uncertain, think back to west point, here, in this peaceful part of the world. you have drilled and you have studied. you have come of age in the footsteps of great men and women, americans who faced times of trial, and even in victory could not have foreseen the america they helped to build, the world they helped to shape. george washington was able to free a band of patriots from an

empire, but he could not have foreseen his country growing to include 50 states connecting to quotients. grant was able to save the union, but he could not have foreseen how much his country would extend full rights and opportunities to citizens of every color. eisenhower was able to see germany surrendered, and a former enemy grow into an ally, but he could not have foreseen the berlin wall coming down without a shot being fired. today, it is your generation that has borne a heavy burden. soldiers, graduates of this academy, like john major and greg ambrosia, who have protected their units, carried out their mission, earned the commendation of thissarmy and this nation, from the birth of our existence, america has had faith in the future, a belief that where we're going is better

than where we have been. even when the path ahead is on certain. to fulfill that promise, generations have built upon the foundation of our forefathers, finding opportunity, fighting injustice, forging a more perfect union. our achievements would not be possible without the long gray line that has sacrificed for duty, for honor, for country. [applause] years from now, when you return here, when the shadows have grown longer, i have no doubt that you will have added your name to the book of history.

i have no doubt that we will have prevailed in the struggles of our times. i have no doubt that your legacy will be an america that has emerged stronger, and a world that is more just, because we are americans, and our destiny is never written for us. it is written by us. we are ready to lead once more. thank you. may god bless you, and may god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> thank you for coming to west point. on behalf of the class of 2010, thank you for your leadership

and your remarks. loyal to the end. [applause] >> commandants, take charge of the graduate and class -- graduating class. >> graduating class. cover. class of 2010, dismissed. [cheers and applause] ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

>> next, legal analyst discuss the constitutionality of the arizona immigration law. after that, remarks by the connecticut democratic candidate for senate, richard blumenthal. we will hear from both candidates in colorado's democratic senate primary. >> when voters say, what are you going to do about the economy, all they have to offer is the same old economic policies that createe the mess to begin with. but the head of the democratic congressional campaign committee, chris van hollen, on voter sentiments on the upcoming elections, sunday on "newsmakers." >> supreme court justice nominee elena kagan will testify before the senate committee.

you can hear comments on line at the c-span video library. every program since 1987. it is washington your way. >> in april, arizona's governor signed a law aimed at identifying and prosecuting illegal immigrants. president obama has for the spot -- criticized the law and has asked the justice department to review its legality. the law as discussed at this event, hosted by the independent women's forum and georgetown university law center. you will hear from legal analysts both in favor and opposed to tte new law. this is an hour and five minutes. >> we thank all of you for joining us. i would like to thank the panelists for joining us. joining us for panel two, which is a discussion -- could we have quiet, please? thank you.

joining us from panel two for a discussion of whether or not arizona's immigration law is constitutional is viet dinh, a professor here at georgetown law school, miguel estrada, roger pardo-maurer, or in baird -- orrin baird, and patricia millette. quick programming note, you will see in your programs that in panel 3, we were going to have jesse jackson on. rep jackson is on his way over. we will interrupt this panel when he arrives to hear his comments on politics and immigration, and then you will go back to the question of whether or not the immigration law unconstitutional. panelists, here is where we are today, on monday, april 17 --

i'm sorry, may 17. a lawsuit was filed by a group -- a lot of different organizations, the american civil liberties union, the mexican american legal defense fund, the aclu, the naacp, along with numerous other civil rights organizations, they have filed a lawsuit that challenges arizona's law -- you have got it. i have got it. the challenge it as being unconstitutional on several grounds. it charges the new errors on immigration law unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of supremacy clause of the u.s. constitution. this lawsuit alleges that arizona's new immigration law invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the

human protection guarantee and prohibition against seizures under the 14th and fourth amendment, and that the immigration law infringes on free-speech rights of day laborers and others in arizona. so, given what we know about the lawsuit, and i do not want to get too much into constitutional law, but you heard what we talked about in panel 1. what is happening on the ground? i know you want to spur to all of that information out. -- to spurt all of that inflammation out. we do not want to put anybody to sleep. roger, if i could start with you, just instinct based on what you have heard in panel one, what we know the law says, but reaction? if a challenge were to make its way to the supreme court, do we

believe the court would find it to be constitutional or unconstitutional? >> is that on? can you hear me ok? a disclaimer, i am not a lawyer. i served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for the western hemisphere from 2001 until 2006, when we faced these issues, including whether we should send a national guard to the border. since we're in the temple of learning, i will say that those who invoke the strict construction of the law, and those who use it to shut off the debate -- my instinct is this will not work because, as the sheriff said, the law and officers live among the population. this is not just about legality. it is about legitimacy and bassc questions of governmentability.

>> are you talking about extreme distress in arizona, or mexico, which it -- which people are calling a failed state? >> arizona is a state under extreme duress. a few years ago, 1 million people used arizona as the gateway to come to this country illegally. they see themselves as a state that is literally being invaded. for the lawsuit here, i would recommend a book by a person who had to study these issues, karl schmidt. "legality and legitimacy." he goes into this question. how can a narrow majority impose its will and tyrannizing minority in a state within a federal system? a lot of these questions are in this book. arizona is a matter of governmentability. it will -- governability.

if 1/3 of the population emotionally secedes from this law, it will not work. as for mexico, i believe we have bigger problems, norway. cnn in mexico released a poll that 40% of mexicans believe mexico is a failed state. mexico has a host of other problems that will make the drug cartels look like easy pickings, because we know how to deal with drug cartels as a threat to the state. i have an article today about that. it will probably get worse. it will probably get worse. i will stop right there. i think this is the way we need to frame this. it is not about the narrow letter of the law. everyone knows the quotation from took bill that says the best laws are meaningless if they are not enforced in the hearts of the citizens. >> thank you.

with us on thes panel as well. you have heard the allegations that have been made by the aclu and others in their lawsuit. what is your argument? do you believe the law is constitutional or unconstitutional? >> what we can agree on is the reason we are all sitting here today. it is indisputably raised constitutional questions that will have to be answered by the court. in that vein, it is, at a minimum, pushed right up to the legal limits of what a state can do in a federal system. my best guess is that several of the provisions, particularly those that deal with duplicating and expanding the criminal federal immigration

provisions will be struck down as pre-emptive. even assuming argument for the sake of debate that it is not, that they are not preempted, that the courts do not find that the state efforts to regulate this area have been facially pre-empted, once we get into an implementation phase, i do not see how there is any way that there will not be immediate and broad challenges based on the first, fourth, fifth, and 14th amendments to the way this legislation is going to be implemented. what i find -- the one thing i would -- the 1 point i want to raise is that one of the burdens on arizona will be to show that they are legislating in a harmonious way with federal immigration policy. the fact as they are defining their own immigration policy.

it is in the preface. you read the preface in the year earlier panel. what they are trying to do is attrition -- enforcement through attrition strategy. it is arizona policy. i think it is raised and highlight of that tensions -- i think it has raised and highlighted tensions. the fact that the government is considering filing a lawsuit against the arizona law because they believe it is pre-empted, i think it highlights the fact that it is not harmonious. there is not a level of concurrence that its authors have argued exists. >> for the non-lawyers in the room, could you briefly explain what you mean by pre-emption? >> the cause of the constitution basically makes federal law supreme.

there's a long line of case law dating back to the beginning of our country. there are cases dealing with what we call preemption of state and local regulation. that is that the federal government has acted in a way that pre-empts the state from acting in a way that is either in conflict with or even consistent with, but is nonetheless impermissible for them to act, because the federal government has occupied the whole field of regulation in that area. >> if you were to give us a quick synopsis, when they say in their allegations that the errors on immigration law unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of supremacy clause of the u.s. constitution, what the allegation is saying is that the enforcement of federal immigration law means they have

passed a law that is not within their authority. >> precisely. >> thank you. to the panel, i will go to viet dinh first. an editorial declares a fight is brewing over iraq is known as new law the turns of the state's latinos, even legal immigrants, pnd to criminal suspects. this is not a local fight. there's talk in texas of passing a version of the arizona statute. we talked about what some people feel are he most troubling aspects of the new law, which is "for any arrests made by law enforcement official where a reasonable suspicion exists that the person as an alien and unlawfully present in the united states." how do you define "reasonable

suspicion"? >> creek question. -- great question. a fight is brewing. this is an important question. 95% of the discussion is not right. it is not on the face of this law. they are issues that will be presented, if, hypothetically, the fbi decides to enforce the immigration law. it is the same issue under the fourth amendment. is there a racial disparity that would constitute racial profiling? to put it in the context of this law, it seems to me these are constitutional issues of weighty concern, but it is not about the flaw. it is about whenever we do interior enforcement. 90 percent of the controversy let's put aside.

if there is enforcement, we will have the facts on the course of action we have, the actual ability to make a fine distinctions, which the court of the amazing for the last century or so. the one issue that is proper -- and presented by this law is preemption. it is a constitutional issue. you act in an unconstitutional way if the law creates conflict with a surprise to clause. in many ways, it is not the constitutionality issue. when a state law conflicts with federal law, we choose the federal law. there were read bunch of lots, and once in awhile, the supreme court says that it conflicts with a federal regime. nobody says the state law is

unconstitutional. it says it is pre-empted and conflicts with the federal law. i think that is where we are in the conversation. the question is, is the arizona law in conflict with federal law? you put the very fine point on it. it is about enforcement of the federal law. leaving aside some provisions, the very novel and interesting question on constitutional law is, can a state pose a conflict with federal enforcement policy? not federal substantive regulation. the question is, the way the law is crafted, we are now enforcing federal law. you cannot be in conflict in the

sense that sanctuary statutes have been established. >> they are not in conflict. >> they're in conflict in a different way. the state passes a centrist and shoot. that is in conflict with the federal law that says illegality. the state law does not create that conflict. it says the federal agencies are not important to federal law, so we will enforce it. where is the conflict? the argument has to be that the federal government possesses exclusive authority to decide how much enforcement of federal law it wishes. that is very fine and very technical and very uninteresting, but i think it is important. once you think of it that way, it is harder to see a conflict. unless i am mistaken, the federal government has not said,

we will not enforce federal immigration law. it has said, we will get around to it. we have resource issues. the state says, cooperate with federalism. we have 200,000 votes on the ground. you only have 3000 fbi agents. the question is, coming on to the field of enforcement, does that create a conflict? does the policy say that they will only enforce this level and no more? there's no question that if the president issued an executive order that says i am hereby ordering immigration enforcement only 25%, that would create conflict. it might preempt a lot of this sort. or, the president signed an agreement with president calderon saying that we will only in force at 25% or 10%.

until there are those kinds of statements of law or policy, it is hard for me to see a conflict. >> thank you. patricia, other civil rights groups have filed and are challenging the law. they say the law invites the racial profiling of people of color. could you describe for the audience and for the panel members how one could be led to believe that the new law invites the possibility of racial profiling? as an addendum to that, is that something you can deal with under our u.s. constitution before it happens? is it something we have to wait until someone alleges they have been the victims of racial pro -- racial profiling nd have been treated differently on the

basis of their color or national origin before you deal with that issue? >> the remarkable things. one, -- there are a couple of things. one, there is the reality that i believe if i were to drive into arizona and did not have my license, no one would reasonably expect that i had violated the immigration law. .

>> that the mere existence of reasonable suspicion of violation of racial law. because the federal government does that. and that the federal government does that with a national perspective and not a state-localized perspective. and as a natural matter that they care about all immigrations but the reality is that these things will be hard to prove in

advance. i want to throw out another idea if i can. of these constitutional questions. and there is talk if there is really a conflict. because the president and the laws are the law. and i think, i could be right or i could be wrong. i throw out the thought, that it's not just pthat's its the constitution. that we have the executive branch, the president. and no greater liberal than justice has suggested there is an article ii problem of signing the enforcement of federal law in the states.

i think this will raise serious questions for federalism or for the amendment, whatever you want to call it. it says it on the face the law, that the executive branch is not enforcing the law, we are going do it for you. the frustration that caused that is quite understandable. and other people say that you are just a lawyer and you are try to draw these assumptions. i understand that, and the constitution is to endure one problem at time. now how powerful. and the second question is when the states do this, are they letting the federal government off the hook? is the reason we assign this to the executive branch. there are some things that are

quinsequentially national, and when we assign that to the federal government, are we outsourcing the problem. is the right solution to force the executive brafrngs to force the federal government who is supposed to be in change of borders and foreign policy, do what needs to be done. >> miguel, if you argued this case in the supreme court. and we are arguing that it's constitutional. that it passing constitutional muster, what would that argument be? not the whole argument. >> which claim? >> pre-emption clause and the fear that this law is inviting

the racial profiling of people of color. >> people have to understand the difference between an official challenge and nonofficial challenge. you almost never get to go to the court at the get-go. you often can with record of circumstances. and in order to demonstrate that a law is invalid on its face. you have to make a demonstration, that there are no facts that this law applies. which is almost impossible for this test in the supreme court. i can think of examples of this to be applied. >> can you give an example? >> sure you can apply to aliens

that are unlawfully in this country. patricia was right to say that this federal law and the intent to aid federal law. it's a conflict with what we must assume is an important policy of the government. which is we will not enforce a law. for a court to take that conflict, i think you need some expression from the executive branch for the proposition that we have intentionally chosen not to enforce the immigration laws. which good luck getting anyone in the white house to say. >> in any white house. >> absolutely. the supremacy clause argument and that you can find a particular clause to have a particular conflict. some actual conflict, i don't

think you can reasonably argue that the entire field is preempted with the state law that purports to do nothing guaugment what the federal law is deemed illegal. now what the fourth amendment claimed and the due process claim could be more challenging. i think as a question of facial challenge, i still think that the facial challenge on a fourth amendment ground would fail. the whole racial profiling really turns whether it's permisible in at least some circumstances to use the appearance of a person as one of the factors that could lead you think that the person is in the country unlawfully.

and the issue has come up in the supreme court. there are a couple of cases from the 1970's written by that famous justice, and one of my favorite people, lewis powell. and in cases they are both from the same day, from 1975, he said that large numbers of native born citizens have to be identified with native american ancestry, even in the border area, a portion of them are aliens. that is high enough to make mexican appearance a relevant factor. but standing alone it does not call for everyone to ask if they are aliens. and this is from 1975. and whether you like it or not, the state of the law appears to

be, if you are close enough to the border you may be justified in taking the mexican or hispanic appearance of a person into account in combination with other factors to try to determine whether at least the question should be asked. we can put to the side whether we think that's good social policy. or whether we would encourage adequate policing or whatnot. there was another case, ortez, that was handed down the same day and went through what the relevant factors may be. they include the number of persons in a vehicle, and the ability to not speak english, the questions they give to the officer and the nature of the vehicle. all of these factors can be

taken into account. now this may strike some of us as a bad idea. and maybe bad law and bad policy. but i think it would be hard to frame a fourth amendment argument on those terms. now a somewhat more -- >> let me ask a question, if i am playing devil's advocate and we take it out of the realm of discussing hispanics. the case law you just told us about, it almost rings true to a time when it was constitutional in this country to discriminate because people because they are of african dissent. >> that's not true, this is 1975 and there was one in 1973 that may have bearing of an unlawful

stop. the name of the case is alameda sanchez, that is 40 miles from the border in california. the court said once you get that far from the border it may be unreasonable to look into whether this person is in in fact in the country unlawfully. what may trouble people is not so much the potential use of the ancestry or the appearance as one of many factors. which the court seems to say maybe ok in some circumstances close to the border. but the court in a 9-0 vote, held there is no such thing as a potential stop in the fourth amendment. as i pointed out in the earlier panel, it's literally impossible

for a citizen to go through the day without violating something. in a case called rand, there was a bit to get the courts to say you should inquire whether that technical violation was the true basis for the stop in the car. and they said no. if there is a law that you can be stopped because of a dog, and there is a dog, you can be stopped. and you may have a separate equal protection claim if you can come back to the court and show a track record of people that exercise the discretion that the law gives them but not an official challenge. >> to throw a factual point in, the second largest group of illegal immigrants in the united

states are the irish. and they didn't cross the border. they came through the airports. and that raises an interesting question about profiling. mexican, the numbers may probably be inaccurate but may be the second or fourth largest group. and this is mainly about mexicans, because i don't see anyone going after the irish. >> i don't know how you find them. >> go to a pub in new york. >> we were talking about the federal government applying this. but one thing that i think people need to keep in mind, and this was also about the same era as miguel's case. there is an opinion from the ninth circuit that followed the

law, and what the law meant, what else was it? and it was glancing in your rear-view mirror, not looking in your rear-view mirror. driving too straight or rigidly. and weaving. and if you touch that white line. sweating and not sweating. there is a laundry list of this. and maybe this is more of a policy argument. but i do think while we can say that the law says don't look at race. and you have to have reasonable suspicion, as a minimum as a policy matter and later as an applied constitutional challenge, we need to know what that means in reality. >> i want to put on the table, one other issue that i think is

raised in the complaint that we haven't averted to. a due process issue a. and as a challenge to it, the law in the supreme court and sufficiently ambiguous that this law may give pause to federal judges. you may look at what the court did in the morales case in 1999, it was an ordinance aimed at a gang. and the text was fairly precise. and one reads the case and gets the following that the court was less bothered by the lack of clarity in the law than my the suspicion that it could be misused to do several things that this law is claimed to be

enable. so given that the court was split in all different ways. you know the status of how the court would adjudicate this type of law under a vagrance challenge is harder. >> i would to respond to what was said, with respect to the cases that miguel cited and with respect to ethnicity. we have to bear in mind that the percentage of the population that was undocumented hispanics. and those two cases are 35 years old. and so the world has changed. the demgraphics have radically changed in the last 35 years and particularly in arizona. and i don't know if that

rationale is still that issue. a crime is rather that of status. if they rob a bank, there is a physical manifestation that leads to the finding of the crime. and status doesn't have manifestation, and you have to look at race and whether they are sweating or things that are not predictable of a person's status. that may make it difficult to enforce the law. it may be that the law is upheld, but they can't enforce it because it's so difficult to have reasonable suspicion. i want to go back to what viet

said, i disagree that this law is about enforcing the federal law. and i don't think that's the correct characterization of the law. the law was passed because arizona was dissatisfied with how the federal government was enforcing the law. this is a state law, if all they did to enforce the resources to assist the federal law. it would be an entire different law and argument. but this law takes and creates new crimes in arizona. which are very similar to the federal but not always the same. some are, are now criminal offenses. whereas most of the immigration offenses are civil offenses. so it really changes it. and i think that is where it's going to run into trouble on preemption grounds. this is not really an issue of

whether or not the state can assist the federal. this is an issue of whether the state can create its own laws similar to the federal laws and then try to enforce them. >> i completely agree with you on that, and taking that clarification, it helps the preemption argument a little bit. but it runs into hurting the argument that patty points out. what the state is doing is not simply enforcing federal law. what it's doing is enforcing its own state law. and you have the case where the supreme court clearly said that state should be able to enforce their own law. and that refinement helps the state in the argument. but it hurts on the preemption side. i do believe however that given state offenses are created, mirror and reference the federal law. and how arizona wrote it is

actually quite interesting. because it says that the violation of the failure to carry papers is basically a violation state law to violate the federal law. so it perfectly mirrors the criminal violation. and thereby gets by the status versus conduct problem. it's not a crime to be in this country illegally. it only subjects you to civil deportation. it's a crime to enter this country illegally. but it is a crime for you not to be registered as an alien and therefore carry registration papers as an alien. so the failure to carry the papers and the failure to register is what arizona pegs as

the criminal offenses. and thereby i think helps on the status conduct distinction. but you are right it raises more interesting issues. >> can i comment on that p provision of carrying registration. it would be hard to convict someone in this conteet, that is undocumented aliens of one of those crimes. because the illegal entrant would never have a document that he is to carry. and likewise an illegal entrant would have to have violation of registration laws. and since no one knows how you register in the united states.

and it's not able to prove lack of registration. and likewise the irish that overstay their visa are not required to carry expired documentation or expired visa or invalid documentation, only to carry valid documentation. the people that are exposed to these state laws that reference federal law, would exclusively be people that are in the country legally. so you end up with a paradoxical situation there. >> i want to point out to people to complex this, if you overstay your visa, that's a civil

offense and it's a serious fourth amendment question. and let's not downplay it, the 9/11 hijackers were not crossing the river. and those who know the law can tell you it's incredibly complex and probably be the part of the preemption argument. but the notion of the clear criteria for an agent to know if they overstayed a visa by looking at their race is not plausible to me. >> the point that you raised, as you remember the talk in panel one was the importance of board patrol. and the problem in arizona and

other states, and this is argued that it's not just a problem with illegal entrance from mexico. and if people can enter naborder, terrorist consist do the same thing. and if we square this with the patriot act and other things that has happened since 9/11, what is to keep people from entering illegally, and michigan could pass a law. you know what, the federal government is not helping us in michigan, we have a lot of people of arab descent, and we want to criminalize it to be in the state of michigan if you are a muslim and you don't have papers to prove. and we see this on a

state-by-state basis. and what happens in the supreme court. and miguel, since you are smiling, i will go to you first. >> well, you must have papers as a muslim, as part of the first amendment. it is i guess -- >> don't forget "the new york times" has told us it is spreading. >> yeah, and if i remember anything that the "new york times" ever wrote. anyway -- never mind on that. the ability to practice your religion without hindrance or at least much hindrance is part of the first amendment, the free exercise clause. and if the opening of the funnel to get into the papers is that we will single you out based on your religion. i don't think that many people on the supreme court, not even one that will carry on that law.

it would be more interesting if you had the state of michigan passing an identical law to what we have here. whether that was challenged. and i think it would probably be subject to the same arguments as this one. it could be that on an unapplied challenge you could demonstrate it's used to single out people of arab descent, and that may give you an applied challenge. but on the surface it's the same law we have here. even though it may not be as compelling a social problem as it is in michigan. >> patty. and then marshall. >> i would like to add to the extent we are talking at the border. that's an area that the supreme court has spent time and again

in the plain authority of the federal government. and those are really quinsequentially national decisions. and i question if we would have a conflict other than the fact that each state had a border is going to have his own border policy. i think that's a substantial question under the constitution. in large part because those are foreign relation decisions as well as domestic policy decisions. the state should have input in those decisions at the federal level. we tried once having all the different states being responsible for foreign policy. and it didn't work so well. and that really belongs to the federal government. and to the extent that we understand what is going on here, and we know because the president of the mexico is here this week. this is a foreign policy problem and why we need to speak of

federalism concerns in this area. it may be, if arizona or michigan wants a fence, a law, a border, for very legitimate reasons. the question is as foreign policy what does the nation want. and sometimes in a united states, the nation wins. whether politicians are watching and making these points outloud, i don't know but that's my constitutional theory. >> marshall. >> i was going to make a similar point. imagine if all the states tried to -- i am not sure how many border states we do have. but imagine if they all tried to pass their own version of arizona's law. just the chaotic landscape of having arizona and based on the law and challenges. i think creates some serious

concerns about whether the policies of the federal government are being forwarded. but if you multiply that by 12, for example, if that's the number. then i think you could see, you know, a complete nullification of the federal government's ability to direct its immigration enforcement activities and policies. so back to, this goes to the original question, that i think there is a very serious concern about the spread of these policies. whether similar or very different. you end up with that kind of patchwork. and especially vis-a-vis foreign relations that we advocated 250 years ago. >> but my problem, that the patchwork if there is one, not

about the substance of the law but the level of enforcement. if that's the case, then you have to say that the federal law or policy is under enforcement. which is another way to say to amend the substantive law of the united states with respect to immigration. which seems to me, and i think that's why it makes a constitutional analysis a bit more difficult and complicated. than this is the federal government's patch. >> no, we don't have, there is no law in this country enforced 100%. the issue here is the federal executives proscueitorial example. if i recall after the haiti

earthquake and not to send people back, that's happening with every law in this country. and i think if any law enforcement agency in this country actually started enforcing every law, 100%, we all better stay home. >> yeah, but you misunderstood my point. yes, that's easy. there is no federal obligation to enforce the law. and our decision whether or not to enforce the law is ours. and that's a stronger point of argument two. our power is exclusive. it seems to me that may argue too much. i can easily create a state tort that pegs to a federal standard and i can't imagine that be volatile to federalism. so in many ways, and it's not immigration but now you are

arguing immigration is exclusive. which the court has never found. >> changes the balance. >> it does, it definitely enforcement.balance in terms of that i will absolutely give you. but it's hard for me to see how state enforcement of federal law, knowing the complexity, state enforcement of federal law creates a conflict to policy. it's hard for me to see that. >> you can see individual cases where that's [accena accurate. >> that's an applied challenge. >> let me add what miguel said. >> if this was attempted to be applied after the president said, we are not sending people to haiti. then you have a conflict with the enforcement of the united

states. but you can't have the federal government saying this conflicts with our policy and refuses to admit that the policy is not to enforce. which is a huge problem. >> question for all panelists. i want to hit all amendments. how, if you are representing a plaintiff in a lower court, how is this -- what is the argument that arizona's new immigration law infringes upon the free speech right of day laborers and others in the state of arizona. what does the plaintiff say? >> the argument there is really there are two provisions. one says and makes no real reference to immigration. but does say that, that it's a violation of law to basically pick up somebody as a day

laborer if it interferes with traffic. there is a second provision, if you are an alyaien, and you are here in violation of law, you can't solicit for work. that second provision is just applying to aliens, laws that have been passed in a lot of jurisdictions and to my understanding a lot have been instruct down. because the soliciting of a job is free speech. and the first one doesn't make that distinction. it's just getting into cars. but it raises another issue, there is a provision in the immigration law. there is what is called an express preemption provision in the law that says that no state

can pass a law regarding the employment of aliens. and there is one exception for licensing. and so this, if in fact this provision is aimed at the hiring of day laborers who are here illegally. it's preempted under that provision. and the second part of it about soliciting would also be preempted under that provision. >> miguel, if you were to take the opposite side in this and argues that this does not infringe upon the rights of day laborers, what would you say. >> would it please the court, in the ninth circuit, i am working

on a circuit provision. >> boy, the lawyers are laughing. >> when i read the complaint, the one that was the most strange was the attempt to frame this as a first amendment claim. it is true that you cannot penalized for speech, but that doesn't mean you can't use speech for its value. if i came to you and proposed for murder for free hire, that's not speech that will be penalized. orrin may be right in as far as it deals with the standards for what the state may do with respect for employment that may be something that may be preempted by the federal

immigration law. but it instruct -- instruct me that the claim is targeting the evidentiary value of free speech than the content of such. but you know, yes it is the ninth circuit. >> ok, did anyone have a response to miguel's statement? >> it's not disagreement but i do think, and this is probably an after the fact challenge or application. one wonders how the police will know that the person asking for a job is legal or illegal. and is there going to be a real problem here? >> that may be a vagrance problem. >> homeless may work, how do i

know the status when you hold up that sign. that's where the problem would be. >> i will end this panel with the same question that i asked panel 1. we talked about some pretty serious constitutional argument about the supremacy clause of the constitution. and whether or not arizona's new immigration law invites profiling of people with color. and whether it infringes of free speech rights of day laborers and others in the arizona. given what we discussed in this panel, my question to you is: is this the nation's birmingham? does the administration and congress need to do something about immigration now given that "the new york times" tells us this has the possibility to spread on a state-by-state basis. and given the serious question whether states are

ursurping or supplementing state law? >> if you mean by this question if this is (inaudible), not. >> is this to a point where the nation needs to do something? >> yes, we were there in 1990. part of the problem we went through in 1986, where a lot of the country is of the mind, fool me once, fool me twice. we were told in 1986 that we were doing a grant bargain to give amnesty for x number of people here and then have enforcement. and only half that happened. and i am pro-immigrant myself, for obvious reasons. but i think that heather was right in the earlier panel. we have laws and we need to

enforce them. and the problem has to do with the fact, you know, there is a real difficulty in cutting across party lines. because there is one party who has some native strand who wants none of them. and there is another party, with all due respect, does not want to have sensible labor imgra immigrati immigration, because the labor unions don't like that. if we were to have a pro-immigration policy and to all, and not have the entipolic the country be driven by geography? >> one thing that miguel said, labor unions are now in favor of

reform, there was some dispute but they are onboard. but i agree, with miguel. this is not a new problem but it gets worse every day. if i say any thing that has come out of statute, that it forced the country to look at the issue and debate it. that has not been done except in a small community. i think that the politicssof it of crazy. you have the chamber of commerce and labor unions pushing for reform. i think if everyone voted their way, there would be some republicans that voted for it, and some democrats that voted against it. but if it came up now, it would be a straight party line vote because the parties would twist people's arms. it's a very explosive issue,

from the first panel people feel strongly on this issue. that that's why the politicians haven't touched it. and probably won't touch before the elections. and the problem is getting worse and worse. everyone agrees, we don't agree on much but that the current system is like totally broken. >> viet. >> we agree with that. >> thank you, marshall. >> i thought i would be the short one. i think this is the birmingham for this issue. there is not the bull conner out there and not the fire hoses. it's not that extreme. but i think that madio pointed out in the first panel. the way it has affected the

latino community and their perception of this. constitutional niceties we have been discussing today. what matters in so much of this and really what has matter in this policy debate is perception. and yes there is support for the arizona law, because they are doing something. and the american public desperately wants, its elected officials to act. on the other hand, latinos see this as an assault on them. for that reason i think it will call the question sooner. i totally agree with miguel, this is a problem that has been brewing for decades now. and it's not that it's unique, but i do think it's changed the

dynamics and the optics around this issue. >> ok, roger. >> i think miguel was right in saying this is essentially a political moment. and by that i mean a moment for the political parties to define themselves. i can't take the birmingham analogy, and i struggle to find something in our history that comparable. but maybe in that moment of history when the compromise of 1850 started to fall apart. what has changed is not the constitution, but the constitution of the society. in 2003, hispanics overtook blacks as the nation's minority. and that's a projectry that will not change for a while. that's what is being addressed here. that's really what is at stake here. the fact there is so much confusion in our law as well as our policy. it shows that the parties themselves don't know how to deal with it. so it's a defining moment.

>> patty. >> notice how the lawyers give longer answers. >> yes. >> like any profound policy question ina our country, we raise issues about the state and the constitution. and that's what i think this does. >> thank you. since we were here at law school, i know that the panel has to go. do you have time to take one or two questions? any questions from the students? anyone here? thank you very much to all of our panelists. >> thank you. [applause] >> representative shadock is en route to the hill for anyone who is inclined to stay.

if you have to go, we understand. on behalf of the women's court and the university of virginia, we thank you for joining us today. >> the gulf of mexico oil spill was the focus of the weekly addresses. president obama announced the creation of a biparse an committee for future issues and he is joined by senator vitter, to speak of offshore drillings and to raise the cap for oil companies liabilities for offshore spills. >> one month ago this week, bp's offshore drilling rig exploded, killing 11 people and rupturing an underwater oil pipe.

this has represented an environmental disaster. we are using the best minds and the best technology to stop the leak. we have employed 2500 personnel and 200 feet of boom to help contain it. and we are getting help from fissermen and others who depend on them. people across america are asking for swwft fix of the problem. and they want to know how it happened in the first place and how to make sure it never happens again. that's what i spend time to talk to you about. first and foremost was the break down of responsibility between bp and others and will continue to hold the relevant companies accountable, not only forthcoming and transparent

about the problem of the leak, but to shut it down and face the financial loss. even though we need to hold bp accountable, we need to hold washington accountable. the question is what lessons we can learn from this disaster to make sure it never happens again. if the laws are our books are inadequate for such an oil spill. i want to know it. i want to know what worked and what didn't work. and where there was a break down. we know that the gas companies and the agencies that regulate them have been a concern. the secretary has been taking steps to implement these problems. but we need to do more to protect the safety of our people. to safeguard the water and to

preserves the bounty of america. we have taken measures to avoid another spill. we have announced that no permits for drilling new wells will go forward until the 30-day safety and environmental review is complete. and i called upon congress to pass a bill to require critical funds and equipment for these spills. and we need took a comprehensive look at how the oil and gas industry prooperates. that's why on friday i passed a bill for the bp oil spill. aad while there are many ongoing investigations, the purpose of this mission is to discover the cause of the disaster and of the safety we need to take to

prevent a similar disaster to happening again. i have asked democratic bob graham as a co-chair. here worked for two decades as a champion to lead the effort in the state's effort. bill riley is chairman of the world wildlife fund, during the presidency of george h. w. bush, bill worked in this administration in the valdez disaster. i can't think of two people with more experience and help. in days to come i will appoint

five more. and i will direct them to report back in six months with recommendations how to prevent and mitigate the impact of any future spills that result from offshore drilling. one reason i ran for president was to put america on the path for energy dependence. i have not waivered from that commitment. to achieve that goal we have to pursue domestic sources of oil and gas. because it represents 30% of our oil productton, the gulf of mexico can play a part in our oil future. but we can only pursue this that we have assurances that this bp disaster won't happen again. >> hi, i am senator vitter from louisiana. what a month it's been since the

explosion just off louisiana coast. while the gulf oil spill most directly impacts louisiana and our immediate neighbors. people all across the country share our anxiety as the ongushing of the well continues. and they have joined together to provide relief due to this tragedy. and i speak for all louisianians for that outpouring of support. we must not lose sight that there were lost loved ones and that's the greatest tragedy and everyone in washington needs to remember. i have been all along louisiana's coast meeting with those economically by the

impacts of the spill. they don't want a hand-out but a paycheck. and many of these have been manned to help along the way. but clearly more needs to be done, from the boats and the public event in new orleans that continues to struggle working with bp on claims issues. i have learned with a deeper perspective of how people's lives along the coast has been disrupting. that's why it's frustrating to louisianians and why we are still fighting to contain the well. washington and media have events instead of putting full

attention to stop the problem. i guess it's popular in washington to believe that they can solve an ongoing crisis with statements and congressional meetings. but the time for the committee meetings is after the problem has been capped, not before. the folks closer to the scene understand that. we want all focused on the problem, stopping the gushing oil and protecting the coast lines and marshes from the well. we have talked about boom, this is just a bandaid to the larger wound of the spill. a greater solution would be for the u.s. army corp of engineers to work with our state and build up and extend our barrier

islands to make from the materials from our rivers and dealt as. with bp by the way, appropriately paying the bill. to prevent this incident from ever happening again, i have worked with other gulf coast senators for legislation that addresses two specific areas. the liability cap for the spill and greater preparedness to address any future incidents more rapidly and effective. our oil spill response and assistance response would have a new liability cap, or double the current limit, which is greater. the bill would establish greater reserve requirements for the amount of boom capable of sustaining six foot waves and cap the leaks like the one

gushing in the gulf. that would make offshore drilling, safer and more reliable. but not extinct. some in washington have tried to advocate for a legal agenda. and that cheapens the loss of lost ones to spring forward with a political agenda. that's wrong and bankrupt leadership. both republicans and democrats want to decrease our dependence on oil. and proceeding that way would make us more dependent. this wake of a terrible accident leads to this debate. we believe that alternative fuels are in the future, but they are in the future.

that's why domestic energy production is critical to free ourselves from foreign energy sources. and this provide a bridge to that more renewable cleaner future. i believe that americans understand that even in the midst of this tragedy. and i know that louisianians do. thank you. >> next, remarks by senate candidate, richard blumenthal. and then democratic senate candidates and then president obama delivers the address at west point. sunday night on c-span, jon vurcat, and then mr. osborne

gives a speech on the economy, talks about cutting spending. that's sunday night on c-span. >> just weeks after the british election that produced a new prime minister and coalition government. queen elizabeth ii will talk about this procession. we will go to the house of lords for one of the most celebrated events. live tuesday morning on c-span-2. >> connecticut attorney general, richard blumenthal was endorsed at a state party convention to run for the seat vacated by chris dodd, we will face linda mcnan in november. we talked about the race on

today's "washington journal." host: this is the hartford courant, saying that mcmahon wins. and we talk to jon lender, tell us what happened yesterday and what it means for november. and then we'll talk about the specific parties involved, mr. lender. guest: ok, both the republican and democratic parties endorsed their candidates for u.s. senate in november. the seat that is vacated by christopher dodd. the democrats actually nominated richard blumenthal, the