and why they need to be respected. one current u.s. senator who i won't name and whose accent i'm about to butcher said to me, he's actually out there talking about the commerce clause. well, i expect we will be hearing more about that very soon. [laughter] [applause] mike lee served as the president of our byu law school chapter. this may explain his campaign speeches, but it would not be fair for us to take all of t credit. he did clerk for his father who was a brilliant lawr who served as solicitor general of the united states under

president ronald reagan. please join me in giving u.s. senator mike leea hearty welcome. [applause] >> i was almost 38 or 39 before i realized that most families did not discuss the constitution over potatoes. to me the united states constitution and many aspects o u.s. history were something of a second religion in our home. we discussed these things constantly. i remember initial

conversations with my dad about rowe versus wade when i was about ten years old. he explained the basic facts of the case, the basic elements of the holding. and, as he finished explaining it to me, my response to him was separate and apart from the insult that this presents to the dignity of human kind, it overlooks the fact that there's absolutely nothing in the constitution that makes this a federal issue. i was reatsdzly bodsrd by this issue -- bothered by this issue. i don't think he realized that i was weird either. i decided to get into this race and to run for political office because i've come to believe that our federal government is too big and too expensive. i doubt there are many in this audience that will disagree with me on that point. but just in case, just in case there might be a few of you out there, i remind you of the fact that we have a federal

government that has accumulated almost $14 trillion in debt. within a years time we will have reached a $15 trillion debt. that's a lot of money. there are people in the united states of america today, people right here in the district of columbia and across the northeastern eastern seaboard certainly people in utah who do not make $15 trillion in an entire year. true. sad but true. you divide $15 trillion by 300 million americans, and it works out to about $50,000 a head. a lot of people don't make that much money in a year. you divide it by the number of taxpayers we have in this country and it's well over $15,000 per taxpayer. now, that's a problem. the debt that we're acquiring is unsustainable. and of course it gets even worse when you stop to consider that we have unfunded entitlement liability that is ve been estimated from

anywhere from $70 trillion to $100 trillion. we don't know. but the part that we do no is sufficiently disturbing us to cause us to realize we have a problem and it's a problem that hearkance back to an earlier time in our nation's history. an earlier time a couple centuries ago when americans started expressing concern about a distant powerful national government. not based in washington, d.c. because it didn't exist then. this was then part of maryland. but a government based in london. and that distant powerful national government taxed us too much and regulated us too heavily. it didn't respect that american principle of local self-rule. you know, the idea that people govern themselves better than government does. and, where government is necessary, most government decisions are generally made

better at the local level than the national level. and this national level was so far from the people that it was slow to respond to their needs, even when it did respond. so the people came to an understanding that feels somewhat familiar to us. that national governance by their very nature do have a certain tendency toward tyranny. they have a tendency to become tyrants ultimately unless their power is carefully checked. and that remains true, this tendency toward tyranny that national governments have regardless whether it's headed by a king on the one hand or by an elected president, or even by an elected president who thinks he is a king. and lest reresprict that power and put careful boundries around it, tyranny will ensue. it's an inevitability.

it is the nature and disposition of mankind that this will happen. and so we as a country decided that we would reject this kind of national government. and after we became our own country, we put together our founding era document. and we decided to come up with a list, a list of powers that we knew we had to have in our national government. we put forward that list in article 1, section 8 with very, very few exceptions every power that the federal government has is found in article 1, section 8. this all-important but all too frequently overlooked portion of our constitution. so we decided to give congress the power to regulate things like interstate and foreign commerce to take care of our national defense issues, to develop laws governing immigration, what they called naturalization back then, to establish a uniform system of weights and measures, to declare war, to regulate

federal public lands in certain circumstances subject to certain limitations. and there are a few others, the power to grant letters of mark and reprisele. we don't talk about that one as often as we should, although we do in my house. my children james, john, and eliza, have come to regard that with great efecks. but in case you missed that one in your last family discussion, a letter of mark and reprisele is basically a hall pass issued by congress in the name of the united states that entitles the holder to engage in state sponsored powers on the high seas. i'm going to get a letter of mark and reprisele. i'm going to be a pirate, and you can all join me.

my point in all of this is to underscore the fact that within that document, within this charter for our national government there is no power to do all things that congress deems expeedynt. there is no power to make life fairor, more equitable, more enjoyable for americans generally. there are instead limited enumerated powers which james madison, whose name this society reveers as do i, described the powers of the federal government as few and defined. where as the powers of the states, those reserved to the states, those lingering aspects of sovereignty can be presumed to exist in the states unless they're not in here. that part was already implicitly clear in the main text of the constitution and made abundantly clear without

any ambiguity in the tenth amendment. and yet we are where we are. and yet, since the new deal era, every single year the combined expenditures of the 50 state governments has been significantly less than the expenditures of the federal government. it was never true before the new deal era. it has always been true ever since the new deal era. i trace this back most of it to the changes that occurred in our juris prudence, our commerce clause jured prudence in the late early 30s and -- late 30s and early 40's. culminating with wickrd v. fillburn, the court has been following that now infamous standard of congress may regulate any and every activity that, when measured in the aggregate, when replicated across every state can be said

to substantially affect interstate commerce. well, we as lawyers know that that is just legalees for a very simple concept. congress may regulate any aspect of human existence. and yet, there is not a single point upon which we can be more certain that the founding fathers all agreed that they were not creating a federal government with general police powers. they are not creating an all purpose national government. not one of those men would have signed their name to this document and not one of those states would have ratified the document had they believed that what they were creating, what they were ratifying was anything than a limited purpose national government. [applause] now, i have been told since

high school that i need to bury the hatchet when it comes to wicker v. fillburn. my high school history teacher was fantastic used to say, mr. lee, just get over it. the federal government's big. we all benefit from it to one degree or another. that ship has sailed. leave it alone. i don't want to. i don't think i can. [applause] you see, because the things that were true in 1787 remain true in 2010. in fact, i dare say what happens now, what we're experiencing today is the best evidence that those guys were right. we wouldn't be in a position where we would a b facing a $15 trillion debt with $150100 in

unfunded entitlement. if they stuck to the program, if they focused on those things that they were supposed to be doing. i mean, look, there's only so much you can spend granting letters of mark and reprisal. right? the solution, i believe, lies not in attempts within the federal judiciary to roll back wicker v. fill burp. don't get me wrong, i would love it if that happened and i applaud those states who have attacked the health care plan in the courts on the basis that even underer wicker v. filburn, this crosses the line. when it comes to congress telling the american people that they have to buy a specific product that they may not want, that congress in its infinite wisdom can tell them what kind of insurance they

have to buy under penalty of federal law. i applaud those efforts. i don't believe that they can return us to constitutionally limited government fast enough to get us out of the mess that we are now facing. i believe and hope and expect that, in time, we will have a supreme court in which a majority of the justices will decide that the standard adopted in wicker v. filburn obliterates the doctrine and renders dead letter the tenth amendment. until that time, what do we do? that's where i believe we can do something that won't have to take years or even decades to complete. you see, because we have as it turns out not just one branch in our federal government. we've got three. and only one of them is controlled by people with lifetime employment. the other ones, you can vote for.

the problem has been over the last 75 years, as members of congress in both houses of both political parties have seen that the supreme court's answer is always yes. really, with only two exceptions. united states versus lopez in 1995 being one, and united states versus morrison in 2000 being the other. with only those two exceptions, every single time the question has been raised in that court, does this exceed congress' commerce power, the answer has always been no. the answer has always been yes to congress. you can do this, and nothing the courts will do will interfere with your ability to do that. so members of congress have stopped asking the question because the answer is always yes. they stopped asking whether they could, and then they stopped asking whether they should. forgetting of course under article 6 each member of congress is required to take an oath to uphold the constitution. in my mind, that means more than doing that which you can get away with in court.

but we drove over here in a taxi cab just a few minutes ago from my temporary space up on capitol hill. i don't know whether the cab driver exceeded the lawful speed limit at some point. he may have, he may not. i wasn't watching. but the fact that we didn't get a ticket on the way over doesn't mean that he was complying with the law. it just means he didn't get caught. so too with congress. especially when you consider things like the nonjess tishable political question doctrine, when you consider the fact that in many circumstances very few people, if anyone, can be said to have standing to challenge certain actions taken by the federal government, certain federal spending programs. especially when you consider that a lot of suits never get brought because of the perception of few tilt. it's not fair to say that just because the courts scarcely rarely interfere with congress' exercise of authority that

congress and members of congress are complying with their oath to uphold the constitution. what i'm saying is that members of congress need to be he would accountable and need to hold themselves accountable to their oath regardless of what the courts might be willing to enforce. that that needs to become part of the american political discourse. that question whether each member of congress or each candidate pursuing an office in congress will independently police and independently limit the exercise of congressional authority out of respect, out of devotion to the principles of the american revolution, principles that were embodied in our founding era document, principles that have been utterly ignored, i believe, from the last 75 years from within the political branches of government. we must expect and demand more from our leaders. but it will not happen until we as voters start the discussion,

until we commence what i call the constitutional debate. now, when i first decided to get into this race to run for the united states senate, i wondered as a lawyer, am i speaking out on this to the point that i can't see the inability or ability, perhaps, of the voting nonlawyer public to grasp the importance of this? and so in a few initial speeches before i even became a candidate, in audiences throughout my state, i ran the basic history by them. i explained to them basically the origins of the commerce clause and how its interpretation had evolved over time. people got it. they understand it. i continued with those discussions after i got into the race, and sometimes my campaign staff have to get after me. they put down some pretty harsh rules.

they told me that, in most circumstances, i can cite only one case in one speech. and i can refer only one time to a specific identified clause in article 1, section 8. so i found all kinds of ways of getting around that. but the point is, people listened. and people without any league education can and do grasp these things, and they grasp i will well. this is something that the american voting public can and should and must, and, i believe, will understand, because it may well be the only way that we can get out of the current mess that we face. for the principled reason that a renewed emphasis on federalism, not just within the courts, not just within government, but among the voting public at large may well be the only nonpartisan, nonthreatening way that we can address some of the problems that we face for the simple

reason that, at its core, it is neither republican nor democratic, it is neither conservative nor liberal. it's just quintessentially american. the idea of local self-rule is an american idea. and it's one that allows to to remain agnostic on many of the most fundamental and sometimes contentious questions that we face in government. questions including such things as, what if any is the proper role of government in the provision of health care? there are people on both sides of the political spectrum, both extremes of the political spectrum who i believe could find areas of common agreement with what i'm saying. for example, there are people to the left of me politically who would say that the only way out of our current health care crisis is to establish a single payor, government run,

government funded health care system. i want to be clear. i'm not one of those people in case there was any mistake. there are those who feel that way. and many of them are just as add mantly hostile toward obama care as i am. then there are other people who say government should never, ever get involved in the provision of health care to the citizenry. that ought to be up to private institutions, elements of civil society, to families, churches, and so forth. regardless of where you are in that spectrum or whether you're somewhere in the middle, i think it's much easier to get people to the point of asking the additional question, not just whether government should get involved, but at which level? should it btb at a national level or should bit at the state level? i think we can make a compelling argument even directed towards our

ideological left that would say it ought to be at the state level. let's suppose, for example, that you were one of those people who want a government funded, run single payer system. you can do it far faster with far more consistently, making it far more true as to what you envision of the ideal of the federal government provider or of a government providing this. if it's not the federal government but a state there are a number of people, for example, within the vermont state legislature that would like to create such a system. the system that would be far easier if the federal government just stayed out of this business altogether. or, at least avoided any further intrusions into the realm of what is within what states control. because of course it's already the unique prerogative of the states to license physicians, to license other health care profigsals including nurses, to

license hospitals and clinics, to regulate the issueance of health insurance policies within the state. and, to establish a system of tort laws governing medical mall practice lawsuits. states can far more effectively, i believe, manage all of this risk and all of these questions if the state itself is in charge of regulating health care and to the extent government is to be involved in the provision of health care, to make those decisions rather than having those decisions made at the national level. there are other practical conversations to be taken into account as well. for instance, the fact that due to geographic demographic and other particularized circumstances that vary dramatically from one state to another, one state might be able to do far more for its people based on the money that it is able to bring in than another state might be able to. in utah, for example, the average health care cost per person per year is about

$3,800. here, in the district of columbia, it's over $8,000. and there are similar disparities that occur all over the country. if we leave these decisions at the state level, i believe they can be dealt with far more effectively, far more efficiently, in a manner that is far more respectful to things like life, liberty, and property that we as americans tend to cling to because we like them. and that's the whole reason why we're here today and we're not speaking with a british accent and we don't wear wigs when we go into court. [applause] not that there's anything wrong with that. in fact, i used to ask justice alito whether we shouldn't bring bag the wig to the court just to add to the decorum of the whole thing. he did not bite off on that at all. he was not enthusiastic. my hope, my motivation for

getting into this race has everything to do with restoring this debate to the political branches of government. andics for my part, i pledge to my constituents at home, and i repeat that pledge today, i will not vote for a single piece of legislation that i can't reconcile with the text and the original understanding of the u.s. constitution. stated differently -- applause thank you. if i can't imagine myself explaining to james madison with a straight face why what i was doing was consistent with the text and history of the constitution as it's been amended, all 27 times, i'll vote no. i'll do it every single time regardless of what the president says i can get away with. because, of course there is a big difference between doing something that's consistent

with the text and history of the constitution on the one hand, and on the other hand doing whatever you can get away with in court. there is a big, big difference and it's a difference that i will honor. it's a difference that will guide me and will guide my every vote as a u.s. senator. my hope is that by making this part of the american political discourse as it once was and as i believe it was for the first 150 years of our operation under the u.s. constitution, we will as a people be able to come to some consensus as to what powers might belong more properly at the state level. this doesn't mean less government overall necessarily. this doesn't mean that we can't provide certain services to provide a social safetynet to people. but it may mean that we refocus our attention away from the federal government in some instances and toward the states that we'll be pushing some

power outside the federal government where it will be sed by the states. we need people willing to push that power out of washington and we need people on the other end within the state legislatures ready to pull it back within the states. they can do it. i believe they will do it. and i believe that if we are to succeed as americans, if we're to get out of the awful debt crisis in which we now find ourselves, we must do it. and ininvite all within the sound of my voice to join me in this cause to bring that great dedee bait. may god bless the sovereign united states of america. thank you very much. [applause]

6 >> we have time for very quick questions and they need to be short questions so we have time for an answer. in the back right there at the mike. >> congratulations on your election, senator elect lee. my name is steve sanders from tulane law school. there's a debate about the proper role of senators in the confirmation process of the federal judiciary, whether senators should just sort of make sure that judges are sort of competent and not cronies or whether they should scrutinize their belief and filibuster them if they don't hold up. i was wondering what your thoughts are. >> we're not just there to check a box. we're not there to look for obvious pathologies and say has this nominee ever been convicted of a federal felony offense? ok. the answer is no. that's a box checked. did this person pass the bar exam?

i think we're there to do more than that. in my case, that will include a thorough examination into whether or not or to what extent each nominee understands his or her commitment to the constitution to the laws of the united states. i'll be looking into a commitment to the whole idea of textualism. this old-fashioned notion that our laws consist of words and our words have meaning, meaning that if ignored that if bastrdized will lead to anarchy. and that's what will guide me. >> senator elect, who do you perceive in the senate will be an ally of your pledge to examine every piece of legislation based on this constitutional litmus test? >> well, we've got a few there already who feel this way, including -- and i want to be very careful here that i don't

run afoul of the express problem. so this is a ceg reference only. [applause] >> it worked well on the campaign trail i'm sure. >> yes, it did. that was the other promise we had, no latin. but i said look, i can geek out all i want on this one. these are my people. [applause] so my c.e.g. references would include jim demint from south carolina and tom o coburn from oklahoma, among others. and among the incoming freshmen class they would include again, among others, rand paul from kentucky. rand andry going to be great friends. i look forward to working with him. marco rubio from florida, pat toomey from pennsylvania, rob portman from ohio.

kelly aot from new hampshire. and there are others as well. so this is not something that's unique to any one senator. unfortunately, it has been too rare. fortunately, it will be rare no more. [applause] >> thank you very much, senator lee. we look forward to having you here in washington and at many of these gatherings as well as others. thank you very much. we're going to move right into our next address. so if we could have congressman pence and david mcen tosh please come to the platform. >> thank you.

it is great to be back again. thank you. great to be back again. i have a very brief purpose right now, and that's to introduce our next speaker. he is a dear friend of mine, a dear friend from before i ran for congress. he is my congressman from the sixth district of indiana, has been on the judiciary committee and knowledgeable of those issues. most recently as the number three in the republican leadership. and somebody that many, many people say is going to be a leader not only in our party but in our country. and he has given an interesting talk that i have asked him to share with us today on his view of the presidency and the constitutional parameters for that office. so without further adieu, let me give you mike pence. [applause]

>> i want to thank my friend, david, who i not only follow at this podium but i followed into congress, and he was a tough act to follow in 2000 when i ran for his seat in congress, and we've been huffing and puffing to keep up with david and one of the storied founders of the federalist society here in the united states. and, david, i thank you for your leadership and your friendship. [applause] my topic today is the presidency. and the constitution. and my remarks are derived from a speech that i first had the privilege to give at hillsdale college just a few short months ago. but i bring it today as a matter of first importance. as our nation embarks on the process of considering not only

this president and a presidential contest, but it is my hope that our nation will consider the presidency itself. and it's in that spirit and before this distinguished group of legal minds that i bring my remarks today. the presidency is the most visible thread that runs through the tapestry of the american government. more often than not, for good or for ill, it sets the tone for the other branches and it spurs the expectations of the people. its powers are vast and consequencetial. its requirements from the outset and by definition impossible for mortals to fulfill without humility and insistent attention to its purposes as set forth in the constitution of the united states. isn't it amazing, given the great and momentous nature of the office who seek it seldom

pause consider what they're seeking. rather, unconstrained by reflection or principle there's a mad rush toward something that once its powers are seized the new president can wield it as ainstrument from which to transform the nation and the people according to his highest aspirations. but other than in a crisis of a house divided, the presidency is neither fit nor intended to be such an instrument. when it is made that, the country su stains a wound and it cries out justly and indignantly. and what the country says, the theme of this address, what it says impelled by its long history, what it says quite naturally and rightly, what it may well have said on november 2nd, is that we, as a people, are not to be ruled and not to be commanded. [applause]

it says that the president should never forget this. that he is not risen above us but is merely one of us. chosen by ballot, dismissed after his term, tasked not to transform and work his will upon us but to bear the weight of decision and to carry out faithfully the design laid down in the constitution and impassioned by the declaration of independence. the presidency must adhere to its definition as expressed in the constitution and the conduct defined over time and tradition. while the powers of the office have enlarged along with those of the legislature and the judiciary, the framework of the government has intended to restrict abuses common to the classical empires and to the regal states of the 18th century. without proper adherence to the role contemplated in the constitution for the presidency, the checks and balances in the constitutional plan become weakened.

this has been most obvious in recent years when the three branches of government have been subject to the tuteladge of a single party. under either party it seems presidents have often forgotten that they are intended to restrain the congress at times, and that the congress is independent of their desires. and thus fused in some kind of unholy unity the political class has raged forward in an expansion of power and prerogatives mistakenly assuming that to exercise power is by default to do good. even the simplest among us knows that this is not so. power is an instrument of fatal consequence. it is confined no more readily than quick silver and it escapes good intentions as easily as air flows through mesh. therefore, those who are entrusted with it must educate themselves in self-restraint. a republic, if you can keep it,

is about limitationnd for good reason. because we are mortal and our actions are imperfect. the tragedy of presidential decision is that even with the best of choice, some, programs many, will be left behind. and some, perhaps many, may die. because of this, a true statesman lives in what churchill called a continuous stress of soul. he may give to paul but only because he robs peter. and that's why you must always be wary of a president who seems to float upon his own greatness. for all greatness is tempered by mortality, and every soul is equal. it is a tragedy indeed that new generations taking office attribute failures in governance to insufficient power and invariably seek more of it. in the jishy, this has selleden

been better expressed than justice marshall's expression, do what you think is right and let the law catch up. in the congress, it presents itself in massive legislation, acts and codes thousands of pages long and so mon trussly scomplicatena -- complicated that a human being could read through them. people that feel like they're no longebeing asked and feel like they're being told. our nation finds itself too often of late in the position of a dog. whose duty it is not to ask why because the why is too elevated for his nature. just simply obey. but america is not a dog. and does not require a, because i said so, juryiss prudence, to which it is then commanded to catch up. or legislatures who make laws

of such complexity that they are heavier than change or a president who acts like, speaks like, and is received as a king. [applause] the presidency is run off the rails. it begs a new clarity. a new discipline. a new president. the president is not our teacher, our tutor, our guide, or our ruler. he does not command us, we command him. we serve neither him nor his vision. it is not his job or his prerogative to redefine custom, law, and beliefs, to appropriate industries, to seize the country as it were by the shoulders or by the throat as if to impose by the force of theatrical charisma his justice on 300 million people.

it is neither his job nor his progress toif shift the power of decision away from the people to him and to the aclites of his choosing. it is my characterization of unprecedented presumption incorrect? i defer to the judgment of the people which they will make in their own eyes and their ears. but listen to the exact words of president obama's transition team. who said at the point of his election, quote, it is important that president elect obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one. or, more recently, from the words of the latest presidential appointment to avoid confirmation by the senate, the new head of the financial consumer bureau wrote, quote, president obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field.

take power. rule. leveling. though it is now, this has never been and should never again be the model of the presidency or the character of the american president. [applause] no one can say this too strongly. no one can say it enough until it is recommendied. we are not subjects. we are citizens. [applause] we fought a war so that we don't even have to treat kings like kings. and if i may remind you, we won that one. the powers of the presidency are extraordinary and necessarily great. and great presidents treat them sparingly. no finer, more moving, or

profound understanding of the nature of the presidency and the command of hume i willty placed upon it has ever been expressed, in my judgment, than by president cool yidge. he, like lincoln, lost a child while he was president. a son of 16. the day i became president, coolage wrote, he had just started to work in a tobacco field when one of his fellow laborers said to him, you know, if my father was president, i would not be working in a tobacco field. to which young calvin apparently replied. if my father were your father, you would. his affection for the boy was obvious. and his admiration. while in the white house, president coolage's son contracted blood poisoning from an incident on the south lawn. coolage wrote words that

resonate with any parent in the room. he wrote, wh might have happened to him under other circumstances we do not know. but if i had not been president . and then he continued. in his suffering he was asking me to make him well, and i could not. and when he went, the power and the glory of the presidency went with him. a sensibility like this, and not power, is the source of presidential dignity. and it must be restored. it depends entirely upon character, self-discipline, and an understanding of the fundamental principles that underline not only the republic but life itself. it communicates that the

president feels the gravity of his office and is willing to sacrifice himself, that his eye is not upon his own prospects, but upon the storm of history through which it is his responsibility to navigate with the specific powers accorded to him and the limitations placed upon them, not merely by man, but by god. in the capitol rotunda are heroic paintings of the sign of the decla ration, the victory at saratoga, the victory at yorktown, and something seldom seen in history. the painting that depicts a general, the leader of an armed rebellion

himself king, but having surrendered instead, he said, if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world. he did, and he was. [applause] to aspire to such a virtue and self restraint would in a sense be difficult, but in another sense, it should be easy. difficult because it would be demanding an ideal, an easy because it is just the right thing to do and the rewards are immediate and self-evident. a president to slight the constitution is like a writer -- riderho hates his horse. he will be thrown. [laughter] [applause] and the nation along with him. the president solemnly swears to

preserve, protect and defend the constitution. he does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement or reinterpreted. -- read interpret it -- reinterpret it. other than a crisis of morality, decency and division, like the civil war, if he should want to change the constitution to fit his own designs, he should do so by amendment. he adjusts the power of the office by his own willful interpretation, and with the planned debate government of -- anwe supplant the government a lot with the government of men. -- of law with the government of men. they should be on his mind all the time, a prism through which the light of all governments pass. sometimes we have moved erratically away from this. we can move back. who better than the president to restore the scope and devotion -- this hope and

devotion? at home, the president must be cautious. abroad, his character must change. were there to be a primer on how to act with other states, and none has been needed up until this point, you could be confident it would contain the following. first, you do not about to kings. -- b to kings. [applause] outside our borders, the president of the united states bows to no man. in foreign lands, you do not criticize your own country. [applause]

you do not argue the case against the united states but rather the case for it. [applause] you do not apologize to the enemies of the united states of america. [applause] now, should you be confused, let me help. a country, people or region the harbors, shelters, supports, encourages or cheers attacks upon our country are enemies of the united states of america and you do not apologize to them. [applause] closely related to this and perhaps the least ambiguous of the president's complex responsibilities is his duty as commander in chief. in this regard there is a very simple rule, and noun to some residents, regaress of party. -- unknown to some presidents,

regardless of party. if, and it is the biggest if a president can face, for it will follow him and cost lives, and death, and it is and if that requires -- if, and it is an if the requires deep thought, a lifetime of education, the knowledge of the general, the wisdom of a statesman, and the heart of an infantryman, if, after careful collaboration, -- deliberation, intense stress of soul and the deepest prayer, if then you go to war, then having gone to war, by god, you go to

war to win. [applause] you do not cast away american lives for those -- or those of the innocent noncombatant on a theory. if the politics of your election or your own party intrude on your decision for even an instant, there are no words for this. more commonplace but hardly less important a other expectations of the president in this regard. you must not stand on the provisioning of our armed forces. the error must be on the side of surplus, not scarcity. he must be the guardian of his troops, taking every ste to avoid the loss of even a single american life. the american soldier is precious as even the closest of your kin, because he is your

kin. for his sake, the president must say to the congress and to the people, i am the commander in chief. it is my sacred duty to defend the unit states of america and to give ouroldiers what they need to complete thr mission and come home safe. [applause] in fulfilling this duty, if the president waivers, he will have betrayed his office. this is not policy. it is probity. it is not an expedient artifact of the imagination. it is written on the blood soaked ground of iraq in -- and afanistan. it is in a thousand other places of our history in lessons repeated over and over again.

the presidency, a great and complex subject upon which i have only touched, has become symbolic in overreaching. there are many truths that we have been frightened ttell. if we run from them, they will catch us with our backs turned and pull us down. better that we should not flee, but rather fall -- but rather stop, and look them in the eye. did not our forbearers say to us, knowing what they knew -- i have no doubt that they would tell us to channel our passions and speak the truth is simply, and to what is right. -- and do what is right. slowly, and with resolution. to work steadily, without animus and fear.

be like a rock in the tide. to let the water tumble about us, be firm and unashamed in our love of country. i see us like those first federalist, back in 1776. danger all around, but a fresh chapter ready to begin, and corrupted, with great -- uncorrupted, and with great possibilities and inexplicably, perhaps miraculoly. the way is clearing ahead. i have never doubted the providence can appear in history like the sun emerging from behind the clouds. if only as a reward for a year and to first principles. as churchill -- as a reward for adherence to first principles. before congress in 1941,as churchl said, "he must indeed

have a blind sold the cannot see it that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below of which we have the honor to be faithful servants." a long time ago during the tortured history of rome in the fourth century a.d., the emperoronstantine was faced with an ultitum backed by what appeared to be military force impossible to resist. a failure and defeat seemed certain to everyone, but in the morning, when his answer was due, he said to his assembled troops, "last night, after i retired to rest, the shade of the great konstantin rose before my eyes, and his well- known voice and forbade me to despair of the republic."

we too have a voice is of shades -- have voices of shades who emerged from our past. we too have what lincoln in his first inaugural address called, "mystic chords of memory sttching from everywhere." . the humble, the known and the unknown. and if i hear them clearly, what they say is that although we may have strayed, we have not strayed too far to return, for we are, everyone of us, their descendants. the sinews are still there, quite lively, waiting to flex. we can still astound the world with justice, reason and strength. i know this is true.

but even if it were not, we could not, indecency, stand down, if only for our debt to history. the debt we owe to those who came before, who did great things, who suffered more than we suffer, who gave more than we give, who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for u who they did not know. for we drink from wells that we did not dig and are warmed by fires we did not build, and so we must be faithful in our minds, as they were faithful in theirs.

many great generations are gone. . see them in my mind's eye they forbid us to despair of our republic. i see them crossing the prairies in the sun and the wind. i see their faces looking out from steel mills and coal mines. emigrant sps crawl into the harbors at dawn. i see them at war, at work, in peace. i see them long departed, looking into the camera with hopeful and sad eyes. i see them embracing their children, who became us. they are our family and our

blood. we cannot desert them. in spirit, they come down to was in connection out of love. we cannot be tried. they are silent now. from the eternal silence from every patriot grave, there is yet tenneco that says -- yet an echo that says it is not too late. he faith in us. keep faith in god. do not, do not ever despair of is republic. [applause] thank you. god bless you. thank you for the opportunity to address you today. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> like all men of great gifts. when they give up power even though they give it up for principled reasons they are happened cuffed at the moment they give it up. edmond morris examines the final years of t. afpl. rfplt.r.'s li. >> this morning we will talk with jamie weinstein deputy editor of the daily caller about the republican governors. then the found are of fire dog lake blog examines tensions between the white house and progressive movement. later, sandra eskin talks