attorney general, he won by acli acli acli aclimb -- aclimmation. linda mcmahon had a first ballot victory for an endorsement. and in nomination simmons will enforce the primary on august 10 for the . . forsz force his way up to the primary ballot. -- 15% of the delegates. housecoat how it his campaign fairing and light -- h how

it is his campaign fairings? gues there is trouble. he is a very pur guy. he has been in the public spotlight for two cades. he had been very popular. he never really had too much political trouble, until "the new york times" struck this bomb. it had to do with a two dozen a statement th heade -- the 2008 statement that he made at a gathering of honoring the veterans. when i served in vietnam -- he said later, they said it w part of a pattern. he said that it is t a pattern. there were other instancesince that first story where he had

been quoted in the newspaper, giving statements that could be interpreted that he was claiming he was in vietnam during the war. at one point, he said, when i wore a uniform in vietnam -- again, he said it was misspeaking and there were many other times that he made it clear at he has not been in the vietnam. host: how is thatesonating? what does it mean for him going forward? guest: mcmahon has acknowledged providingart of the information to "the new york times." their capital link -- capitalizing on it. everybody in the republican party has criticized him. in the democratic party, people are concerned. we took to the podium last

night, they played the tom petty song, "i won't back down." the last week showed -- emphasized what my wife has been telling me for 30 years. i am not perfect, that i make mistakes. the national democratic party and the people of connecticut had thought was a pretty safe seats for the democrats and it is now very close. it is in a dead heat beten the blue and fall and mcmahon. host: as far as money is concerned, talk about the condition of each of those campaigns. guest: linda mcmahon is a very wealthy rson. she has already spent $60 million to get to the point

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

what is in herppeal? guest: she has been pretty frank about it. she has cast herself as an outsider in a year when relative outsiders are winning races. she ignored alleged early in the campaign that she had not even voted in the 2006 general election. e said last night, when she accepted the endorsement of the convention, reenergize in the republican party. it is an outsider appeal. host: is e poing suggesting -- what ithe breakdown as far as to has the advantage? guest: it is rougy even.

iannot quote you the numbers ght now, but last week, after thstory had and the controversy had a couple of days to devel, this was an even race. at this point. host: when will the runoff take place on the republican side? guest: it will be a three-way race. if wt has happened is any guide, he did not get 15% of the convention delegates, but he is a very intelligent guy. he comes over veryell on television. a very articulate guy. it will mainly be between rob sions and linda

>> convention, blue man ball supporters showed a video of their support for the candidate -- bloom and fall -- richard blumenthal's supporters of this video. >> it was devastating. we did not know where to turn what to do. >> everyone i know has a story about richard blumenthal and how we help their mother or their best friend. -- how he helped their mother or their best friend. >> my husband and i were woken up to noise. we went downstairs to find our house on fire. you're left with nothing, and very emotionally distraught. we had to call the company and clean the waste out of the

basement. we were stunned when we receive the bill. we were devastated. that money was coming out of what we were culpable for to replace the home. i called richard blumenthal and he contacted the commissioner of insurance. within 72 hours we had money to start rebuilding our home. >> it started with him feeling tired. >> when they told me at had leukemia, they told me had only 30 days to live. >> they assume because we had chemotherapy and radiation, he would be set in the hospital. his insurance carrier wanted to send us to washington state or to texas. my sister said, if you call richard blumenthal, his office could probably help you with the spirit i said, i will probably get a machine. when i called, someone into the phone. that spoke volumes to me. he brought be insurance company to help us to commend and this

was the best decision for his health. we're living proof that he was there and he made a difference in our lives. >> my grandfather started his company in 1923. it has been in new haven county the whole time. >> almost 1 years ago, general motors made an announcement that they were going to be reducing their dealer network. we research -- we received notice that our agreement would not be renewed. richard blumenthal talked to them on our behalf. he held a rally. he did whatever he could for us did. -- she is a fighter. >> we're able to save our jobs. it's not have to place anyone on unemployment. -- we did not have to place anyone on unemployment.%+ >> the announce that it would close the plant. we would all be out of a job. -- t h y -- they announced

that they would close the plant. we would have all been out of jobs. >> he was with us all of the way. >> if he was not involved, i would be unemployed. >> he blew up like a balloon. he practically died in my arms. we took into the emergency. he had an allergy. it was going to cost us $1,200 a month. the insurance company did not want to pay. i called the attorney-general. richard blumenthal made me feel like this was the most important thing on his plate. he staated to change a lot, so that nobody else would have to suffer this. he is 10 years old today.

he watches richard blumenthal on tv and says, 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. i'm going to encourage everybody to vote for him. >> i truly believe that richard blumenthal is someone who has proven his willingness to listen to people. that is who we need to fight for us. >> i am a registered independent. >> i am a registered republican. >> i pride myself on the fact that i look at the candidates and vote based on who was the best candidate. i know that he will do what is right for our state and that is what i will be voting for him for senate. >> now, remarks by connecticut attorney general richard blumenthal following his election as the party's candidate for u.s. senate. he will 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] >> ♪ hey, baby there ain't no easy way out ♪ thank you! [cheers anapplause] >> 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 the 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 ha together. i thank you. [cheers and applause]

>> we're in a fight this year, a tough fight. i wt to make clear to every one of you, every one in this hall and everyone beyond, i will nev be intimidated. i will ner back down. i will never stop fighting for the people of connecticut. [cheers and applause] >> and i will never be outworked. [cers 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 cray, 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 economand 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 sved, 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 ergy 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 stanng up for them. what they see is a wasteland, a gigantic mess. my fir 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 jusplain 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 aays 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 defi this election. we know what our opponents would prefer. already we have seen them try to make this re about attacks on my character and service. i'm proudf my service. i'm proud of the work that i have done for veterans and my ght 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 result. i want to geresults 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 wastand it's made a difference in people's lives.

this campaign will oer 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 repealhe 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 heal 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 washingt 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, nebrka, where my grandfather raised corn and cattle. of all of the gifts they gave me, none has meant more than their belief that i suld give back to the cup that gave them both a chance and h 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, sometimesgainst 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 ation. [cheers and applause]

>> i'll go to washington and stanup 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] i won't back down no, i'll stand by ground

won't be turned around worldll keep this from dragging me down gonna stand my ground and i won't back down hey, baby there ain't no easy way out hey, ah i will stand my ground and i won't back down well, i know what's right i got just one life keeps onld that pushing me around but i'll stand my ground and i won't back down hey, baby

there ain't no easy way out i won't back down hey, i will stand my ground and i won't back down [guitar playing] hey, baby there ain't no easy way out hey, i-i won't back down hey, baby

oute ain't no easy way hey, i will stand my ground and i wno'on't back down ♪, i won't back down [cheers and applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] well, i won't back down no, i won't back down you can stand me up at the gates of hell but i won't back down no, i'll stand my ground ♪ >> michael bennet will face

andrew romanoff at the primary. bennet finished with about 39% of the votes. he is seeking a full u.s. senate term after sensing since -- after serving since january, to a dozen 9, -- 2009, after serving as a replacement for kenneth salazar who became the department of interior secretary. we now go to andrew romanov - andrew romanoff. here, baby ♪ >> thank you, colorado democrats, thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you your much for that warm welcome.

i want to begin where i begin -- by thanking my mother who is here today. everything i am or hope to be i owe to her , more than anyone in the world. i'm fortunate to have the love and support of my uncle and aunt and cousins./ thank you very much. i wish that my grandparents could be with me today. my grandmother was my secret weapon. she came to the state conventions 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.

she wore name tags that said, "andrew's nana." she used hurricane opal people toward her with one hand -- she used her cane to pupll people toward her -- pull people toward her and used the other to put stickers on her. i am proud that we didn't have to cane anyone into wearing thme. -- them. whatever you are wearing today, let's make sure we unite behind the nominees. [applause] and applause] >> that is my pledge to you. i respect my opponent. i will support him if he wins our party nomination and i wl ask you to do exactly the same.

[cheers and applause] >> but with all due respect, let me alsoay this. this sate 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 ty 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 root 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 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 thout 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 applau] >> we took on the far right and stooup 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 vy proud of the leadership that i brought this state house. i am proud to have been recognizeds the best gislative leader in the unit 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 n. if we learned anything ovethe 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 whiteouse if the same qualities are not match at the other end of pennsylvania avenue. heers 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 livesf ordinary americans and i will not allow that opportunity to be squandered as it h been, sabotaged, not justy 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 car message to the u.s. senate and we should, too. the message to our own party is this -- stien 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 wke. 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 pish 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 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 for them to pay for the

damage they cau 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 pau 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 $75illion that's a single day's profit for british petroleum and that is outrageous. [cheers and applause] >> it is the rult 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 whoe are, what kind of party, and what kind of country we want to be. you choose. we c settle for the statu 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 plause] >> 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 recognizinghat 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 sto 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 sayou need

special interest money to win, but i say if you take tha money, you'll lse and more importantly, the people lose. millions of people are already losingnot 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 f 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, mayb someoneho ha'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 ather and then another. y and i can chart the course, not just of this campaign, but of thi country. join this cause and we can

reshape politics and resre public trust. we can turn america itself into what it once was and what it can be again, a source,ot 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]

>> andrew! andrew! andrew! playing]g apology't about no by the hopeless and the hungry this road was paved by the winds of change how will you raise your hand when they call your name followen't born to

come on and get up off your knees hold on to what you believe we weren't born ♪ >> thank you! ♪ thank you! thank you, thank you, thank you! >> thank you for nominating me. i accept your nomination for the senate. e delegates and alter that's. thanks to the officers and candidates and to our great chair, pat bck. 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 i thi 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 h parents survived the holeo cast and miraculously made their way to the america. my mom was the only one tt 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 d 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, notith 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. fact, i bring a lifetime of exrience 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 oblems. 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 mlife. 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 i and that's the true lesson, the true lesson of public service is about solving the hdest problems, not the easy ones, abt making sure we leave more and not less to our kids and our grandkids. [cheers and applause] >> that's what i've done t 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 passinreal credit card and mortga reform. w 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 theay 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 econic gwth. we just passed that, by the way. >> to ban members of congress from ever becoming lobbyists and verturn 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 overhis state are still suffering through the worst recession since the great depression. theyor about making their

mortgage, holding on to their jobs, paying for their kids' college education, and together th worry as i worry that we are at risk of being the first generation of americans, the first to leave lesspportuty to our kids and our grandkids. we cannot let tt happen and still claimhat 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 valuesnd 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 ainst you iyou 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 th 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 fward. and you know what i think? you know what i think? that's what a lot of republica

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 pple behinde 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 havfailed us time and time before, we have to summon the strength to listen to what people are eally sayi and help them leave the talking heads and politicians -- lead thtalki heads and politicians rather than the other way around. [cheers and applause]

>> the people of coloro, the people of colorado are ready to do that. are you ready to do that? [cheers and applse] >> 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 colorads commient to the new energy economy. we can pass common sense immigratn 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 amerins. and together, together with your help, we will win this senate seat, elect john hicken looper to be our next governor, elect terry nnedy and if we work together, we will honor, we will honor the promise to our chin. thank you so muchor being here! [cheers and applause] .

♪

♪ ..

>> supreme court justice sonia sotomayor on the confirmation process. >> questions even over three days are not going to tell you much about a perspective judge. you have to look at their life work. that will be a clearer reflection of whom they are and how they think and what they will do. >> with the new supreme court nominee heading into the confirmation process, learn more about the highest court in

c-span's latest book "the supreme court" candid conversations with all judges active and retired, available now in hard cover and also as an e book. >> now to the u.s. military academy commencement ceremony where president obama delivers the graduation address. this is about 35 minutes. >>hank. it is great to be back at the military academy. we comssioned 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 wt

point in the class of 1971 and went on to inspire soldiers under ur 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] geral 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 [applae]ressman patrick murphy.- to all of the famies 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 stilled in them a spirit of

seice that has led them to this place in a time of war. on behalf othe 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 r system, my power as president is wisely limited, but there are some areas where my power is absolut as your commander in chief, i hereby of solve all cadets who conduct offenses.

[cheers and applause] i will lead theefinition of "min -- i will leave the definition of "minor" to those who know better. today 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 batefield, but also by your underanding of the cultures, traditions, and languages in t places to serve. you have reached out across borders with more international experienceha any class in academy history. you've not only forged new friendships, you have welcomed in cadets from nearly a dozen countries. you havchallenged yourselves intellectually in the sciences and humanities, and history and technology. you ve achieved a standd of academic excellence that is, without question, tying the record for the most pt- graduate scholarships of any class in west point history.

pplause] this includes your numbeone 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 nional 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 enched the life of our pple. you include the best ever feed race and ethnicity that with fundamt -- 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'way. you did so long after the birth of drums of war were sounding. in y 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 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 prared for, has leyou 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 ace 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 becau 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 assisiraqi security forces, who are already available -- responsible for secured in most of the country. this will n be a simple task, but this is what success looks like. an iraq that provides no haven to terrorists, a democratic iraq wh -- 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 and 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 tou 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 ofar will be tested in finding political solutions to its problems and providing governme's that can serve the needs of its people. thisar 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 ection of a sovereign government. we must strengthen its capacity. it has brought hop 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 wil 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 defed by what we build. we have to see that arisen. 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 anto 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, emergingowers and new global cllenges. 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' 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 capitalnd the marketplace is global. we must developlean 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 erican power. at no time in human history as a nation of diminished economic vitality maintained its political challens. 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 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 beis around the world. america's armed forces are adapting to changing times, but your efforts have to be complemented. we will need the rewed 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 whoan act swtly 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. r adversaries would like to see arica sap its strength by overextending more power. in the past, we have had the foresight to oid acting alone. we were part of the most powerful wartime coalition in human history through world war . wetitched 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 servey 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 violentxtremism 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. itill be supportivef our efforts by alan military to secure our country -- by our military to secure our country. more than anything else, thgh, our succs 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. th 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 attk 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. th 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 olasted 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 americand as long, but musli are part of our national life, including those who serve in our united states army. adversaries want to divide us, but we arenited 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 belie 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 tha 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 o friends and allies, america will always seek a world that extendthese 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, were 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 illusns. 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 meand 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 mt believe in

something and want something with all your might, so much you do to carry athing else to an end is worth reaching." he went on, "more than that, you must be willing to commit yourself to course, perhaps a long and hard onewithout being able to foresee exactly where you will come out." america does n 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 comnities 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 foundeupon. 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 theorld. u have drilled and you have studied. you have come of age in the footsteps of great men and women, americans who faced times 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 h 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 generaon that has borne a heavy burden. soldiers, graduates of thi 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

r 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 youeturn 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 i the struggles of our times. i have no doubt that your legacy will be anmerica that has emerged stronger, and a world that is more just, because we are americans, and our destiny is never written f 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 stitute] [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. then jason kennedy talks about a litmus test for supreme court candidates. then a talk with secretary of state hillary clinton. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" alex isenstadt discussing politic and the midterm elections. donald kerr win looks at u.s. immigration policy with a focus on enforcement and privacy issue.

and victor cha offers has 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. >> it gives you a sense of what the country is thinking that moment. >> b.c. journalist terens samuel looks behind the institution of the u.s. senate, the upper house. sunday on c-span's "q&a." >> in april arizona's governor signed a law aimed at identifying and prosecuting illegal immigrants. president obama has criticized the law and has asked the justice department to review its legality. arizona's law discuss a this event shoast hosted by the independent women's forum and university of georgetown university. we'll hear those in favor and opposed to the law.

this is 1:05. >> 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. joing us from panel two for a discussion of whether or not arizona's immigration law is constitutional is viet dinh, a professor here ageorgetown 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 y over. we will interrupt this panel when he arriv 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. 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 a others in arizona. so, given what we know about the lawsuit, and i dnot 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 unconstitution? >> is that on? can you hear mek? a disclaimer, i am not a lawyer. i served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for the western hemisphere from 2001 until 2006, when weaced 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 thaw, and those who use it to shut off the debate -- my instinct is this willot work because, as the sheriff said, the law and officers live among the popution. 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 fled state? >> arizona is a state under extre duress. a few years ago, 1 million people used arizona as the gateway to come to this country illegally. they see themselves 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 nority 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 fm this law, it will not work. as for mexico, i believee 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 probablyet worse. i will stop right there. i think this is the way we need to fme 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 lega limits of what a state can do in a federal system. my best guess is that sever of the provisions, particularly those that deal with duplicatingnd expanding the criminal federal immigration provisions will be struck down as pre-emptive. even assuming argument for the sa 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 a 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 o the burdens on arizona will be to show that they are legislating ia harmonious way with federal immigratiopolicy. 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 polic 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 fing 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. >>or the non-lawyers in the om, 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 wayhat is either in conflict with or even consistent with,ut 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 immigratio matters in violation of supremacy clause of the u.s. constitution, what the allegation is saying is that the forcement 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 viet dinh first. an editorial declares a fight is brewing over iraq is known as new law the turns of the ste'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 suscion exists that the person as an alien and unlawfully present in the united states." how do you define "reasonable suspicion"? >> creek questio -- great question. a fight is breng. this is an important question. 95% of the discussion is not right. it is not on the face of this law. they are iues that will be presented, if, hypothetically, the fbi decides to enforce the immigrion law. it is the same issue under the fourth amendment. is there a racia 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 eorcement. 90 percent of the controversy let's put aside. if there is enforcement, we will have t facts on the course of action we have, the actual ability to make a fine distinctions, which the court of the amang for the last century or so. the one issue that is proper -- and presented by this law is preemption. its 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 federalaw. you cannot be in conflict in the sense that sanctuary statutes have been established. >> they are not iconflict >> they're in conflict in a different way. the state passes a centrist and shoot. that is in conflict with the federalaw 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 aonflict. unless i am mistaken, the federal government has not said, we will not enforce federal immiation law. it has said, we ll get around to it. we have resource issues. the state says, coopete 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 aexecutive ordethat says i am hereby dering 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%r 10%. until there are those kinds of statements of law or policy, it is hard for me to see a conflict. >> thank you. patria, 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 audien 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 reity 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. .

the fourth amendment does not address those equal protection clause. as you alluded to, there's some real equal protection claims are very hard to bring certainly in advance because we assume that officers will do their best to comply with the constitution and you tend to have to have a record. and it's hard to say for the reasons that have already been alluded to that the mere existence of reasonable suspicion based on federal immigration law is itself of racial profiling because the federal government does that. now to be sure the federal government does that with a

state national directive. so it is fair to believe it is a national matter. so they actually care the same about irish illegal immigration, asian illegal immigration as hispanic illegal immigration. but the reality is that these things will be hard to prove in advance. i do want to throw out one idea if i can as far as constitutional questions. you know, there's been talk about whether there's been really a conflict because the president's enforcing the law. the laws are the laws. i actually think and i could be right. i could be wrong. i just throw it out for thought. ha the problem is here not just preemption but it's article two of the constitution. it is federalism. and that is that our constitution quite clearly assigns the enforcement of federal law to the executive branch, the president.

and no greater liberal injustice -- justice scalia has suggested that there is an article two problem the signing of enforcement of the federal law to sheriff's in 50 states. g the enforcement of federal law in the states. i think this ll 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 quiteunderstandable. and other people say that you are just a lawr and you are try to draw these assumptions. i understand that, and the

constitution is to endure one problem at time. now how powerful. d the second question is when the states do this, are they letting the federalovernment 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 thato 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 rders 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 wle 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 t the court at the get-go. you often can with record of circumstances. d in order to demonstra 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 rht 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 gornment. which is we will not enforce a law. for a court to take that confct, i think you need some expression from the executive branch for the proposition that we have intentionally chosen not to enforce the immration 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 fourt

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 cou 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 bot 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 lst 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 scussing 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 becausehey 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 say

maybe o in some circumstance 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 gup 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 theecond 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 asiguel'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 you rear-viemirror, not looking in your rear-view mirror. driving too straight or rigidly. and weaving. and if you touch that white line. swting 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 wanto 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 moralesase in 1999,

it was an ordinanceimed at a gang. and the text was fairly precise. and one rea 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 sused to do several things that this law is claimed to be enable. so given that the court was split in allifferent 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 t 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 coect 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 is 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 tryo enforce them. >> i completely agree with you on that, and taking that clarification, it helps the preemption argument 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 ce 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 iturts on the preemption side. i do believe however tt given state offenses are created, mirror and reference the federal law. and how arizona wrote it is actually quite interesting. becaus 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 cduct 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. bu 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 andhe 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 crying registration. it would be ha to convict someone in this conteet, that is undocument 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 ha 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 a 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,ould exclusively be people that are in the country legally. so you end up with a paradoxal 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'sncredibly 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 races not plausie 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 thatt'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 goment is not helping us in michigan, we have a lot of people of arab descent, and we want to criminalize it t 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 he 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 tha 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 cou demonstrate it's used to sine 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 i may not be as compelling a social problem as it is in michiga >> patty. and then marshall. >> i would like to add to the extent we are talking at the border. at's an area that the sreme court has spent time and again in the plain authority of the federal government. and those are really quinsequentially national decisions. and i questioif 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 e federal level. we tried once having all the

different states being responsible for foreign pocy. 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 he 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 allried to pass their own version of arizona's law. just the chaotic landscape of having azona and based on th 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 andolicies. so back to, this goes to the original questi, 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 patchwor and especially vis-a-vis foreign relations thate advocated 250 years ago. >> but my problem, that the patchwork if there is one, not about the substance of the law but the level o enforcement. if that's the case, then you have to say that the federal law or picy 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 ha, 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 sta tort that pegs to a federal standard and i can't imagine that be volatile tofederalism. 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, i 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 newmmigration 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 day laborer if i interferes with traffic. there is a second provision, if you are an alyaien, and you are here in violation of law, y n'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 undetanding a lot have been instruct down. because the soliciting of a j

is free speech. and the first one doesn'take 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 youere 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 th 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 wh the state may do with respect for employment that may be something that may be preempted by the federal immigration law. but it insuct -- instruct me that the claim is targeting the evidentiary value of free speech an the content of such. but you know yes it is the ninth ciuit. >> ok,id 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 ngress 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 w? >> 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 th mind, fool me once, fool me twice. we were told in 1986 that we

were doing a gra bargain to give amnesty for x number of people here and then have enforcement. d 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 strd who wants none of them. and there is another party, with all due respect, does not want to have sensible labor imgra immigrati migration, 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? >>ne thing that miguel said, labor unions are now in favor of reform, there was some dispute but they are onard. 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 e issue and debate it. that has not been donexcept in a small community. i think that the politicssof it ofcrazy. 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 itame upnow, 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 paneleople feel strongly on thisissue. that that's why the politicians haven't touched it. and probably won touch before the elections. and the problem is getting worse and wors everyone agrees, we don't agree on much but that the current system is like totally broken. >> et. >> we agree with that. >> thank you, marshall. >> thought i would be the

short one. i thinkhis is the birmingham for this issue. there is not the bull conner out there and not the fire hoses. it's not that extrem but ihink 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 rely what has matter in this policy debate is percepti. and yes there is support for the arizona law, because they are doing something. and the american public desperately wants, its elected officials to t. onhe other hand, latinos see

this as anssault on the 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 fin 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 chan 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 poli 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 s 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 >> the gulf of mexico oil spill was the focus of the weekly addresses. president obama announced the creation of a bipartisan 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 fishermen and others who depend on them. people across america are asking for swift 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 iat 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 theas 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 operates. that's why on friday i passed a

bill for the bp oil spill. and 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 production, 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, supreme court justice anthony kennedy talks about a litmus test for supreme court kennedy's. after that, a hearing on the start talks with secretary of state hillary clinton. it then and discussion on

electronic privacy. sunday night, remarks following the reelection to the post of british house of commons speaker. also, the new british prime minister david cameron and the acting labour party leader. then the chancellor of exchequer gives his first major speech on the british economy, talking about cutting public spending and reducing the public tax rate. that is sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> just weeks after the british elections which produced a new prime minister and coalition government, queen elisabeth ii will formally announce the new legislative agenda for the session. we will travel from buckingham palace to parliament and inside the house of lords for one of britain's most celebrated occasions, the state opening of parliament, live tuesday morning

at 5:30 eastern on c-span2. >> this week on "america and the courts," supreme court justice anthony kennedy offered his opinion on let's test for supreme court nominees, touches on overcrowded prisons, and the rule of law and the third world. this is one hour. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> thank you very much. my fellow citizens in the nation, that must strive ever to come closer to the ideas and the reality of the rule of law, thank you very much for inviting me to this interesting speakers club, which has a nationwide

reputation. it is an honor to be with you, and it is an honor, too, to know you have a joint session with members here. we look in our civic life for mediating institutions, and when i noticed your courtesy in calling candidates to be recognized, it reminded me of how important it is for us to participate in civic democracy. i noticed that you have here, and i filled mine at out before i talked, the speaker's evaluation. [laughter] it reminded me of the time i was in modesto, calif., a small town for their rotary club. they had the treasurer's report preceding me. they said we need to raise the

dues and get better speakers. [laughter] it is a pleasure to be back in florida. i was a circuit justice for the 11th circuit of florida, georgia, alabama, and it was my honor to be the circuit justice and to come often to those states and meet with members of your bar and the judges. one of the judges -- and that circuits it's in miami, occasionally montgomery, alabama, and one of my friends was appointed to that court directly frrm private practice. he was not a trial judge first. he had been on the bench have a year, six months. often, they argue the court has made a mistake in the ruling of not letting the case go forward, and this attorney was arguing that the trial judge erred. he said,d