>> the nativity scene is one of the most powerful religious symbols in this country. >> listen to the argument on c- span radio. >> coming up, a discussion about partisanship in american politics. scholars discuss the importance of the constitution in society. later, at a panel looks at women working in the national security fields. next, a discussion of criticism and the top -- a discussion of partisanship spurted -- partisanship. from the new labels conference, this is an hour.

>> thank you. panel.ring out our good morning, everyone. there should be four of them. good morning, everyone. our topic this hour, it is 6:00 in the evening for you. otherwise, it is morning. we have a great panel. we will start with the senior political analyst for cnn. [applause] as well as a director for the center for public leadership. david began his career in public service in the nixon white house back in 1971. is that not right?

he did go on to become director of communications in both the ford and reagan administration. he was the adviser to the 1980 george h. w. bush presidential campaign. >> you left out grover cleveland. >> good lord. we have the junior senator from indiana. [applause] during -- he has written legislation calling upon congress to fully implement the 9/11 commission recommendations, help close the bermuda a tax loophole, and cast the tie- breaking vote to advance credit card reform. the senator also spearheaded the creation of an organization on developing common sense legislation solutions.

prior to this election and the u.s. senate, he served two terms as governor of indiana. >> we refer to that as the good old days. >> to my right, joe was elected to the united states senate for west virginia last month. prior to this election, he served as the governor of west virginia. during his five years as governor, he led the efforts to pay down a $1.7 billion in underfunded state liability and cut the food tax in half, saving west virginia consumers millions of dollars.

to my left, joe scarborough. [applause] serving as a member of the u.s. congress -- is this the young republicans club? >> there are three of them out there. >> not here, not today. it is not about labels. he was a member of the judiciary committee and the armed services committee. he was also part of a smolt -- a small group of republican congressmen that invested some surprising amount of power given their youth and lack of years in congress. he is 2004 book -- his 2004 book predicted the collapse of the republican majority. his recent book predicted that democratic policies and massive spending would not revive the economy.

today, a joke is co-host of a show that time magazine called the revolutionary morning. i want to start the panel. david, we will start with you because you have been around a lot is, obviously. [laughter] >> your day will come. >> i am already there. you worked for presidents of both sides of the aisle. is hyper partisanship worse than ever? >> it is about 15 on a scale of one to 10. it is far worse than it was. i have reached an age -- it takes me an hour-and-a-half to watch "60 minutes." i came to washington in the early 1970's.

the world war two generation was running things. that generation -- it was a very civic experience. they consider themselves strong democrats or strong republicans, but first and foremost of americans. the country came first. richard nixon told me shortly before he died, one of its proudest moments in politics came early on in his career. nixon was part of the world generation. that was the year of the big republican sweep. harry truman really down in the polls. in 1947, he wanted to have a rescue plan. he asked george marshall if he

would have it under his name. it became the marshall plan. it was very unpopular. truman called in a lot of republicans. they gradually got public support. one of its proudest moments came when the marshall plan would to a vote on the floor of the house and heat stood up on one side of the aisle in favor of this democratic plan. on the other side of the aisle was another freshman member standing up in favor, john f. kennedy. the importance of american politics is when the chips are down, we stand up together. that was the spirit of the world war oii generation. [applause] >> i wonder if some of the worst of it is in the echo chamber. maybe america does not reflect

what we are seeing on television or hearing on the radio. there is a media component. >> one of the most fascinating feelings that i have heard of our show was when pat buchanan and tom brokaw started talking in 2009 during the health-care debate. i said, you guys cover the civil rights struggle, 1968. chicago was on fire. that was about as bad as it had gotten, right? pat buchanan said, nope. this is much worse. it is interesting now. when i thought the survivors of the clinton administration and the new gingrich congress, but we got together, despite the fact that it seemed so ugly back in the 1990's, we talk about how

we did not like each other, when the chips are down, we had to do the right thing. balance forbes -- balance the budget for first time -- for the first time in a generation. we grow the economy. we did a lot of very positive things together. that is before the hyper partisanship really got fuelled by the new media components. i am not saying that it is the responsibility of bloggers to be more tactful. the responsibility falls, the responsibility lies and politicians being grown ups and knowing what to filter out. washington has not done a good job at distinguishing between

ground noise and the signal. i think that it is beginning to change. i really do. there is no doubt that there is immediate compounded to this that we did not have during the clinton administration. >> be a found that -- we have found that our show has been a breakthrough in the national conversation. we did not attack each other. there is ultimately peace at the end, usually. >> it is not possible -- it is not personal and that is the bottom line. >> better, tired, cynical, but still idealistic. looking for a different role. >> tell us why. i want to hear from both senators. why are you here today?

this obviously resonates with you and it is something that you think we need as we move forward. >> i have the perspective of someone who grew up in public life by virtue of my service. i think we searched in vain for a golden era. it has already -- it has always been a rough and tumble. it is worse today than it was before. my father tells the story that in 1968, he is running for his first reelection. the republican leader -- he comes to my father in the floor of the senate and put to his arm around his shoulder and asked what he could do to help with his reelection. this would never happen today. you look for sharp instruments. it was different in those days. my message is that to -- there are gathering challenges that will define the future of our

country. my children, who are now 15, will inherit from me an america that is less than what we inherited from our parents. i fill a deep moral responsibility not let that happen. [applause] the current political process is not delivering the result of the american people want. to the unfortunate part is that that middle, at near where i'm from, they do not care what party he belongs to. they want practical progress. it also can be good politics. look at what happened the last couple election cycles. my party won independence by 9%. they are looking for something better, something different. that is what this organization has the chance to deliver. we will make a remarkable

contribution to public welfare. they said, what is your audience? we also have an inside audience. if i stay out that sensible center, i will get shot from both sides. now there is a movement that will support you in during the right thing. that is very important. [applause] >> i sit here with a sign that says no labels behind me. was i wrong to label you as idealistic? we were talking about some of the things that you see in washington and tell separates the parties are when they're trying to work together. >> i was in the legislature in west virginia and in the state senate for 10 years and became secretary of state and then governor. i've been in washington for

three weeks. as soon as the election is certified, we take office. at 12:00 on november the 15th, i was governor. was gone.i i had four hours of transition. the first week, i was labeled a conservative and a liberal. >> that is a good day. >> my first observation -- i go to my first armed services committee and you're listening to the joint chief of staffs, and i'm thinking, here is the chairman. we have john mccain. then we have all the republicans on one side and the democrats on the other side. the body itself, i know we will have separation. in committees, we all sat

together. we talk to. -- we talked. we started to build a relationship. what i've observed and three weeks is designed to push us apart traded as gone to the point where committees respondence is based on who had the best lobbying. not where you can make the most in plant and have more input for america. i ran on this, my observation of washington was that to they put their party first, they put their personal politics second, and their government last. i put my country first and let the rest fall where it may. no labels is giving us the vehicle to do it. >> we also want to talk about how we can get the two existing parties talking again. >> look at the tea party. the tea party had a movement

because -- in my little state, people did not believe that you can spend yourself to prosperity. things are tough. the are having a hard time. -- we are having a hard time. we do not believe that in west virginia. >> this is -- i wrote a column about a month ago before the election. it made a lot of my republican friends very angry and a lot of my democratic enemies very angry. i need the overall point that nancy pelosi is going around saying, elected democrats for the future of our democracy is resting on it. then you have republican leaders saying, in socialism, collect republicans. at the end of the day, when you talk about this issue, it is not that much of a difference. the bottom line is we have a

deficit commission that work forever to pay down $4 trillion in debt. it got voted down and then the next weekend, both parties got together and agreed to a $1 trillion stimulus plan. this is what americans -- david, you have seen it time and time again. everybody is screaming and yelling and is calling on the other side. they are all working together to give us deeper and deeper in debt. at her -- it is a charade. it is a scam. >> all of us are discouraged about what we see in washington. at around the country, there are examples where government is working. it happens in cities and states. you find this happening.

here in new york city, mayor bloomberg has gone a lot of progress in schools, creation of jobs. it has not -- chicago has been an extremely well-run city. both of you guys had to learn to work across. it was much more productive in your state. it was a more satisfying job to be a governor as you got some things done. >> they are the most oppressed people on earth. >> they thought it was an upgrade. >> evan i do not know what it is like in the senate, not only do you get committee assignments based on the money you can bring into the party, but they see how loyal you are. it is kind of like "the

sopranos." you do not get credit for being loyal to the family 95% of the time. >> there are some important institutional reforms that should be made. it is almost tribal. democrats have lunch together. we do not eat with the republicans. literally, in my 12 years, there have been three times we have sat down to actual listen to one another. first was when president clinton was impeached. there were no rules. it was a constitutional crisis. we gathered in the senate chamber and listen to each other for three or four hours. the trial went forward. the balance of power was preserved. three days after 9/11, the

senators to could make it back to washington gathered in the senate dining room and nobody was thinking like a democrat or republican. you want to protect the country. about a month ago, when the midterm elections came by, it was immediately following the financial panic. we were called down and ben bernanke was sitting there. it will take millions of jobs with it, thousands of businesses. we looked at each other, okay. what do we need to do? it should not take a constitutional crisis, an attack on the nation, or a financial panic to have our government function in a way that it is in the american people's best interest. [applause]

there are a couple of reasons why we got to this point. joe gives in coming senator and vice. -- advice. >> i do not need to give him advice. >> be your own man. do not sell your boat. -- vote. did not sell your vote to party leaders. i see it time and time again they separate the freshmen and this around them. this is about a movement. this is about freedom. this is about whatever. you've got to learn to see note from the one. >> it is also about -- if you want that committee assignment -- they look that solidarity.

that and then that you are bringing up, we might be able to find time for that. but we are counting on you for that other thing. those trade-offs are constant. but you have to have the strength of character. >> that is easy to say. in this atmosphere, there are a lot of different dynamics. years ago, you talked about how people on the hill interacted. they went to church with each other. they knew each other. they were not just competing megaphones. isn't that a problem? >> they moved their families to washington. i cannot call him a socialist if i have to eat dinner with his wife the next night. that is a huge cultural

disconnect. >> they talk about getting disconnected from your voters back home. in three weeks, i feel there is a disconnect. i felt like i had to go home. i went home this last weekend. you start -- the best politics is good government. what we ran it was a retail government. identify your customer. the government does not know who its customer is. they do not have to react to the bottom line. most of the people that are in

legislature have never been a in a business where they had to get a loan. they did not know the pressures. [applause] >> david, is and what we assault this week giving the customers what they want? >> -- isn't what we saw this week giving the customers what they want? >> i think that what has happened is that the generation -- we lost a lot of that civic culture that was there. to me, you the question is not only what the folks in washington do. the real question is what you do. especially those of you are younger. my sense from teaching and i just talked to david brooks about this backstage, a number of us to have been exposed to the younger generation believe that you represent the new hope for the country. you are going to look beyond partisanship. there are a lot of view that

will be successful in making change. you have been out working. we have 24 -- people want to go out and work. we have all these military doctors coming back from iraq and afghanistan who are deeply committed to this country. a very loyal. there is a culture of service coming up in the other generation that will save the country over time. you can bring us back to some sort of greater sense to commitment. we are all in this together. of course, we have sharp differences. at the end of the day, you need to put the country first. that is represented here on the stage. we need a whole flood of young people coming into our politics and into the political arena. if you could do that, you could save the country. [applause] >> the message of no labels has

-- has its time come? >> its time has come. this is an example of where the public is ahead of the politicians. the politicians are not done. they see this movement gathering force. they will catch on. i share your concerns about the debt and deficit. i really do. i would look at the vote next spring on raising the debt levels. nobody is going to want to vote for that. that might be the kind of moment that forces meaningful tax reforms and spending restraints that will have the added effect of getting the deficit on the right path. it may take that kind of misogynist events to make it

happen -- and misogynist to -- event to make it happen. >> you are exactly right. there is such a fundamental disconnect from more washington is and where in new york is compared to where most american voters are. we have seen it time and time again. we have gone out with a couple of different folks and given 200 speeches all across the country. it shocks me. it shocks me -- we give the same speech that we gave at pat robertson's university. people laugh at the same lines. they nodded the same lines. they agree time and time again. this country is a lot closer together than you would believe watching television.

are these republican issues or democratic issues? balancing the budget. the americans do not care how long it will take, they wanted done. most americans are tired of this fighting this war in afghanistan. we have been there for a decade. it is costing us $2 billion a week. i do not care if you are republican or democrat, we have people saying, let's rebuild our own country. let's stop rebuilding the other countries. energy and independence. americans want their governments -- we a been saying this for two years. they want this government to invest in energy liked it is a sputnik moment. it is happening in china, among

our competitors, and we're going to be left behind. it does not. if you brought out some of those things to democrats, you'd be mocked. if you brought up and getting out to afghanistan to republicans, we would kick you out. you have to set parties. >> you have to have a vision where you want this country to be and how we will get there. i've been talking to all different -- liberals and conservatives. they all have a vision. if you talk long enough, you'll find out that everyone agrees on something. once you find that common denominator, you honan. you've everybody moving in the same direction. it does not matter if you are right.

if we do not bring together, we cannot figure it out at all. >> it is fascinating. we were talking about the fact that you got the endorsement of the chamber of commerce and it is not because they knew you were going to win. you did nothing before first bringing them into the room. let's find a common ground. we will build a better west virginia and it will be a west virginia were the chamber of commerce thrives. that is a revolutionary concept. >> i walked into republican caucuses as a democrat. the last time i checked, we both have the same decision. we are both serving the same

people. this is a plan. let's see if we can work together. energy security, if you did not put security at the highest level, every war in history has been fought over energy. we are paying money -- they are using their money against us to rate hike. every state should be energy independent. >> this is where i get discouraged. i was in the white house when the -- i wrote a lot of those early speeches for president nixon and president ford, that we would become independent -- energy independent. we were 30% dependent on foreign oil at that time. where now 60% dependent. both speeches were very effective.

did those speeches were very effective. it is one area after another where the partisanship and the special interest have blocked our capacity to deal with the problem. we have almost 40 years of trying to deal with this energy problem. we still do not have a comprehensive energy policy. i was in the white house when president reagan got the report on the terrible state of our schools. it was an alarming indictment. a lot of good governors went out and push on education reform. here we are, some 30 years later, and we still have not reached for schools. if we're going to get serious, all of these problems, they're

all coming down on us at once. either we're going to deal with them now and compete with china or we are going to surrender to these problems and we will go down as a great nation. it is about that simple. i think the reason this moment is here is not just because -- it is because the country is on the edge. if we do not deal with these problems now, we're going to condemn our future. i do not think we have much time. >> what is the way forward? you have two parties that look very much alike. in terms of the way they follow the wrong policies. in spending, he really cannot see much of a difference. what is the way forward? is it a third party? >> i just think that it is inevitable.

i read a number somewhere or nancy pelosi into a dozen sex won independence by a 16 percentage points -- in 2006 won independence by a 16 percentage points. four years later, just four years later, republic -- -- republicans won independence by a 16 percentage points. that is still 32%. it is inevitable that is both parties continue doing what they have been doing, ignoring the challenges, ignoring the challenges of our deficit, ignoring the challenges of grundy economy and bring our

troops home, it is inevitable that to a third-party candidate start winning and breaking this 150 years old of power that the republicans and democrats have had. >> what is most likely is that because of the state of the economy and some of the unsustainable imbalances you mentioned it, what is most likely is that we'll have a sustained period of turning where there'll be a swing on the independent voters that you just mentioned. there is still in material chance that one of the portable parties -- they will change what they're doing credit all lot like when ross perot ran. suddenly, deficit reduction became popular. they got it. there was a movement out there and people were voting based on that.

>> how did we go from barack obama being the candidate of change to 2010? it is mind bending. >> it might make you cry. >> on hold those two thoughts simultaneously. -- hold us to assaad simultaneously. >> there is a chance that -- i wish i could say that it was a devotion to higher ideals, but it is more likely to be self preservation, one of the two major parties will get act and have a platform that will embrace dealing with some of these issues.

the practical barriers to having a national third party are so substantial, it is pretty difficult to pull off. one of the two existing policies will get it. >> david, do you agree with that? >> look for this vote on the debt ceiling. look for the credit markets reacting if we do not get our act together. look for a run on the dollar, perhaps. an event is most likely to bring that about. >> the history has bent wendy's popular movements, -- has been a when a popular movements have sprung up, another party has moved in. look at the tea party. it is a movement.

the question is whether in an effort to revise this -- the center of our economy is that we have a vibrant middle class. our economic landscape has been hollowed out. the issue becomes, in time you get something that has enough spontaneity to which some of people show up its various downhauls -- town halls, the voices they are hearing more from the ends of the spectrum. if you are a republican, you are hearing mostly tea party voices. they can be intimidating. >> look at this last election. blanche lincoln in arkansas, $11 million.

that was a clear message to moderate democrats. if you are not with the program, this is what will happen to you. look at bob bennett in utah. look at mike castle. he is the state's ban. he would have won that election by 20%. that is where a group like this can serve a real purpose. [applause] >> it comes down to this crippling debts. my grandfather was an immigrant and the had a little grocery store. he would also say, if you are inclined to want to help people, keep ourselves strong. -- keep yourself strong. i mean strong financially. he would show me an example.

how about old charlie of there? >> charlie is the best guy in the remote -- and the world. charlie does not have an extra shirt to give you. that was emblazoned in my mind. i'm standing there taking that of, keep yourself strong. indebtedness -- we are making cowardly decisions now. we will continue to make them. [applause] >> if it all comes down to the crippling debt, what in the world happened in the past week? it all sounds good. you are about to have your taxes increased. >> you are looking at the 700 billion extending any of the taxes. >> my biggest problem is -- i do

not think the federal government should take a fair verdict -- 40% of our money. we are $14 trillion in debt. if you're going to extend tax cuts, and you are going to do all these other things i cost of $960 billion, and you are already $14 trillion in debt, you better pay for it. this is where both parties come together. it is a national emergency. we have to get people back to work. barack obama said two years ago, a national emergency, we have to do this to revive our economy. it is the same thing that we heard george w. bush say about their tax cuts. we have to get america back to work.

we have to keep americans -- and that is fine. we have all these priorities. but the only thing that you -- they want something for nothing. they want a free lunch. [applause] they do not have the political courage. we were $14 trillion in debt. here is the reality. at some point, we will understand that if we do not start to saying that we have to pay for it, we will become greece, ireland, but worse, california. >> you'll have quite a few states, up.

the stimulus of runs out 2011. all the states that stimulus money. it's a tough choices are not made, that you will have many states that cannot meet their general obligations. >> no doubt about it. we have the deficit commission get together and work for months to try to figure out how to trim $4 trillion of the debt. it was to have the left. after they adjourned, that weekend, they add another trillion dollars. >> i want to come back to you wall. here is the situation. some really tough choices are coming out on spending and taxes. everybody was looked at this and said the only way you can get the financing of this country a

better place is that you have to both cut spending and raise taxes. you have to do both. the problem is, if you are a democrats' anti-war past to vote on spending cuts, there is a real danger that they will run at you from the left about the trend the party. if you are republican and your vote to raise taxes, you are guaranteed -- they are guaranteed to take you out. what these folks need, we cannot put the many situation -- a few votes to put the country -- if you vote to put the country first, you will die. what is needed here is some kind of move and that gives some protection to people to do the right thing for the country. it gives them some kind of

support that salutes them for doing something courageous. [applause] >> i think it was abraham lincoln that said we cannot escape history. we basically have -- we can either make these decisions ourselves and give them a way that is best for the american people. or we can wait for outside forces to force them upon us at a time where it will be more difficult and largely beyond our control. those are the two choices we have. expect to take the reins ourselves and choose our own destiny. my best guest is that perhaps -- look at great britain. we have a conservative party and a moderate party together in a coalition government. they have come up with a very aggressive package. if you can do their revenue,

there is another side to that. if we wait for the markets to impose it on us, it will be all pain and no gain. >> that is what happens politically. leaders in washington have to follow up the governor's mansion approach great when you were governor, that would be extraordinarily difficult. figuring out to raise taxes. figuring out how to cut spending. these are all rails -- these are all third rails of american politics. you touch them and you die. you have to get everybody in the room talking. these are the challenges we face. china is destroying us. china is going to allow us in

the next century if we do not stop investing money in wars and start investing in new energy sources. the way we do it -- the way you do it in was tradition is the way we need to do in washington. >> we wanted to cut the food packs. tax. it was a big part of our revenue stream. that is a big chunk of money for us. we will cut its one. a year and we will do it as we it afford to do it. we put a trigger on it, too. if we start dipping into our rainy day accounts, we might raise taxes.

the first indicator is that when your savings or your rainy day account starts dwindling, that means you went into the piggy bank and that is the trigger that goes off. that gets everybody's attention. >> ok. before we get to final thoughts, just a question. did the white house and the democrats miss a major opportunity this week? >> it is a wish list. they miss an opportunity to say, this is our priority. i heard about the purpose of this. unless you take its stake to

state and expand on this and you have real input and said downs with their elected officials, it might be the only chance that we have left to bring every ready together. [applause] >> we are going to take a few moments for some final thoughts. what i would love to hear is what is the way forward? it will start in order of seniority. david? >> i think we are at a strategic inflection point for the country. we eat keep doing business the way we are doing it and we go down as a country. or that we change the way we are doing it in washington.

we cannot keep doing what we are doing. what we need is a citizen engagements. my plea to you would be is to have a launch pad were you go from here and put real pressure on the political class to fix these problems and get support to those who are brave enough to take the right steps. to prepare yourself from this point, to get into the political arena and change the underlying culture. if you can change the culture, a lot of other things will follow and we can still change -- we can still save the country. if you just leave it, our future is very cloudy. if you get into the arena and you fight, we still have a shot. [applause] >> i am the new guy.

i is that all the senators and they are all great people. they are there for the right reasons. there is something that is driving them to make things that you normally would not do it every day life. the pressures of the meetings. the pressures of always chasing the dollar. you better tell your story before someone tells one on you. that happens. i am seeing the pressures from the outside turning good hard- working people into a political animal. it does not seem to take that long to do that. you might be becoming voice -- calming voice. >> i think the senator is right. a lot of this has to do with the

24/7 news cycle. you guys are selling portions. this organization is so important. to even with what we do every day, we had an idea several years ago that we would do something radical on cable news. we're going to allow people to talk. we're always going to respect what they had to say and it was born to be a safe house. it worked. like all of these guys up here, i know it is the reality. you go on the internet, your read articles about you, or if you see your child reading an article about you, you have to say, do not leave a comment. the hatred and the vitriol poured people who try to find a common ground -- you would not believe what was launched

against people who are trying to keep the conversation going. i know these guys have dealt with it. you get discouraged. we would go out on this book torras and people would come up and they would not say thank you, they would come up and how does. you find that time after time after time, there are normal people all their that do not live in their mother's basement blogging about what aid terrible human being we are -- what a terrible human being we are. i cannot state enough. all of these guys can put up with 100 people screaming at them at a town hall meeting. they see five people there in

orange shirt saying, hold your ground. it has nothing to do with ideology. it has nothing to do with politics. did everything to do with civility -- it has everything to do with civility. that is the one thing that we have forgotten to do in washington, d.c.. [applause] >> the whole notion of compromise seems to of gotten a dirty name on both the far right and far left. we would not have a united states of america if our forbearers had not been willing to compromise. small states against large states, north versus south.

and almost fell apart. but they decided we had more in common. before chasing gold country. -- they forged a single country. it is american. i have been on the intelligence committee for 10 years. i hope that is not it's an oxymoron. we are at an inflection point. you are privy to some information that you normally would not have access to. when you see and read what the chinese leadership says, they really do think we are a declining power. they think going forward, we will continue to be a military power. but because of our inability to deal with our financial

imbalances and energy independence, they think that we will be an eclipse and less and less significant. that has profound adverse implications for our future. we must not let that happen. that is number two. i am sometimes asked, what is it going to do to make things better? you have the far right out there and the far left. i should give you the names of the least half a dozen republicans. i can give you the name of lots of democrats, same kind of thing. what needs to change? if you see people out there who are being partisan or ideological, do not support them. supports the same candidate regardless of party.

that is what needs to happen. drawing the their raging center. harry truman used to say that the united states of america, it is not the politicians who run the government. it is the people. the politicians, we are just a hired help. tell the hired help what to do. [applause] >> if you can believe this, there is someone by the name of show that wants to make one other point. but by the name of a joke. >> rick warren gave a sermon one time.

are you on the right wing or the left wing? they kept talking about the different wings. if a bird had just a right wing or left wing, what would it do? it would be going in circles. i want bad bird to have both wings. that is what -- i want that person to have both wings. thank you for starting this. let's keep it going. [applause] >> thank you very much. a great conversation am. thank you for having us. we appreciated. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> great job. thank you very much. >> tonight, scullers discuss the importance of the constitution in society. after that, a panel looks at women working in the national

security field. the head of the census euro discusses the impact of the 2010 u.s. census. >> friday, a discussion on the repeal the don't ask, don't tell policy on gays in the military. our guest is the defense correspondents for the christian science monitor. she stops by to talk about religion and politics. "washington journal" picture calls every morning starting at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> coming up on january 2, c- span documentary, the supreme court. see inside the historic building and a beautiful place is only available to the justices. hear from the current justices, including our conversation with elena kagan. that is

this weekend, to a continues saturday and sunday with interviews from london. the shadow minister of public health on her government plan for budget cuts. on sunday, comparing the british and american forms of government as we talk to our guest about elections, the impact of money in races, taxes, social issues, and the cost of living. "q&a" this saturday and sunday evening at 8:00 on c-span. it is a three-day holiday weekend on a booktv. the latest nine-fiction titles and authors. on afterwards, james smiley on the man who changed the world --

the man who created the computer. find the complete holiday schedule on booktv.org. >> now, a discussion on how the constitution is being interpreted by today's politicians, judges, and the public. jeffrey rosen and dr. angelo codevilla -- this is 90 minutes. >> good afternoon. i want to welcome you to our first annual bill of rights day forum. the bill of rights institute is an educational and nonprofit. we are dedicated to teaching young people about the constitution. we do that to a variety of a curricula that we distribute to schools. we provide handouts to teachers and students about the constitution. we put on an essay contest.

lots of students entered this year. we are excited about that. if we want students to understand the constitution, but also the issues surrounding the constitution. that is the purpose of today's form. we hope to pull educational products from the remarks we were here today. we want to develop the material so we can distribute it in classrooms. the commission did a survey to test america's knowledge of the bill of rights. that press release is i in your packet. i want to share a couple of particulars with you. -- of americans attribute one in five americans believe that is in the bill of rights. 60% of americans do not recognize that the united states stands apart from other nations

in that our government derives its powers from the people rather than the other way around. clearly there is work to be done. we are glad you are here today and that you are interested in the bill of rights. i did not mention this earlier, but one of the requirements to get in the room is that you have read the bill of rights. i will send you all have. there is a test before you leave the room. [laughter] be prepared for that. i am going to introduce our moderator. michael cromartie is the vice president at the ethics and policy center. he is a senior adviser to the ku form on religion and public life. mr. cromartie is the editor of 16 books on society and politics. he was appointed by president bush to a six-year term on the commission on religious freedom. he was elected chairman twice.

thank you for being here. >> thank you, tony. it is a great privilege for me to be here at the institute for this important conversation and dialogue. we could not have two better people to address the question at hand than the two people i will introduce you to. is there an upcoming cultural war over the constitution? it is a complex subject. it is an urgent subject. we could not have two better people to address it. i am delighted that it could be here. i first want to explain to you a couple of realm rules before i introduce our speakers. after we hear from them, i am going to allow them to dialogue with each other for a few minutes. i am short they will say something the other one may want to address. after that, i want you all to comment. still free to answer any questions you like.

raise your hand and i will keep a running list of people who want to get in so that we can move in an orderly and civil fashion. do not be shy. we are putting this on for you. if we want you to be able to answer the questions you have -- be able to ask the questions you have. please pull the microphone so close so we can hear you and be able to transcribe his conversation later. it is easier to transcribe if we can hear you. the best way to hear you is to have the microphone near your mouth. please pull it near when you talk. let me begin by introducing professor codevilla from boston university. many of you here at the biography of our speakers. since we do have the viewing audience, i want to go through for our viewing audience the credentials of our speakers.

professor codevilla is a professor at boston university. he is the author of 12 books. the most recent is "the ruling class -- how they corrupted america and what we can do about it." he was a u.s. navy officer in the u.s. foreign service. he was a member of president reagan's transition team. he served as a senior staff member on the u.s. committee on intelligence. in his article -- he has written several articles. it is great to have professor codevilla with us to address this question, is there a coming culture clash over the constitution? he will speak for 25 minutes and then i will present dr. rosen. >> i wrote a paper, which i had assumed would be distributed to all of you before the session, but that is good to come to you

afterward. please do read it. >> we did not want to read it while you were presenting. >> it does not matter. sooner or later. look, why am i here? white meat? i am -- why me? i am it sort of in a position of the white man who has lived among the natives, speaks the native language, and have to explain why the natives are restless. i will do that. beginning with a fundamental point, which brings us to the constitution -- the assumption within the white man's for is that the natives are restless because they lack wampum. they lack beads.

they lack economic goods. everyone seems to agree on that from bill o'reilly on the right to barack obama on the left. economic conditions improve, -- once the economic conditions improve, the natives will stop messing around. there is nothing in there about beads, but there is a lot in there about the constitution. why are people so exercised about the constitution? there is something going on fundamentally out there. it has very little to do with economics, but has to do with something much more fundamental.

to bring it to the point of the bill of rights, some of you are likely to have read professor rose and's article in the "new york times" last month which pointed to a certain weird view which is an out there. the weird view being the first clause of the first amendment was actually written to protect religious establishment. >> "congress shall make no law

establishing -- respecting religious establishment." it is a weird view expanded by a fellow i have never heard of. gosh, i got that weird view from somebody else, namely james madison. i think you will all agree that madison and everybody else to associated with the negotiations and went into this first calls what did the first amendment to be ratified by all 13 states. seven of those states had religious establishment. there is a prime facia case even if you have never read the debate or the accounts of the debates in the first congress

about the first amendment. the case is we would not have a first amendment if it had not been written to protect religious establishment. then, of course, there is another view out there. forgive me for records a professor rosen's work, but there is this thing out there that did in modern constitutional law that this is a position between the first and second clauses, namely prohibition of religious establishment and free exercise of religion. well, i can assure you that not

only is there no prohibition of religious establishment in the minds of the folks who wrote the first amendment, but there was also note notion that religious establishments, at least tell their understood in the 18th century -- i am not talking about the early 17th century. that is another matter. there is no opposition between them and religious freedom. if you are free, concerning religion, collectively, you may well establish a church, but establishing a church by in the sense of america in the 18th century and, in fact, until very recently, did not mean that you could not practice their

religion freely, publicly, as well as privately. the fact that the opposition is an artifact of modern constitutional law brings us to the main point, which is what does the constitution mean, all of it, every part of it, including, of course, the bill of rights? what do these words mean? there are two views on that as you all well know. the official view nowadays goes somewhat as follows -- obviously agreed to beforehand between senator leahy and elena kagan.

once upon a time i worked on the hill. i am it very familiar with all these are written. they are very useful. it does not take. the duo expressed a concordance of views. senator leahy said to protest -- set to prospective supreme court justice elena kagan, there are two views about the constitution. the word's meaning what they actually say -- by the way, you may have read the "new york times" yesterday in which a lot of the editorials excoriated justice scalia for actually reading the law as written.

there is another view that says that you really ought to read those words in a way that makes the case, out in a way that serves the public good -- makes the case come out in a way that serves the public good. what do you say, taken? her reply was designed to show how moderate she was. she said, "i see some good in both sides. surely there are times when you read the words to mean what they say and applied them that way. there are times when you should not and should look at them on a case-by-case basis." a lot of dumb heads nodded/ .

if they had thought about it a little bit, and i assure you that some did think about it and did not have to think about it very long, did come to the conclusion that if in fact a judge or anybody can choose when and if words mean something, it is because they have already decided they mean nothing. that is clear, is it not? in other words, if i can decide when the words of the document mean something and when they do not, it is only because i am the decider, not the words themselves. the words are important only so far as i game at them. from time to time, they fit my needs. that is the dominant view of the

constitution here inside the -- hear inside washington. outside, where the natives are restless, it is something very different. you see these supplements to -- simpletons to only know how to read. to them, the words mean what they say. that is very strange. the effect of this is to set up a clash, not unlike the clash that took place between the clerics of the catholic church and ordinary people when radicals like martin luther, etc., readclifycliff,

these pictures of themselves. there is nothing in there about all sorts of things the church says are absolutely is central. what are we arguing -- what are these churches arguing about? what is left for us? we were reading the bible. just imagine that you have millions of people out there who are just plain reading the bible and the constitution. when they read it, they want to know what all the constitutional law is about. the fine distinctions that are drawn, especially, these fine distinctions appeared to have brought us to conclusions that seem to be at variance with the

plain meaning of the word. for example, i do not think there is any clearer example of this. it is trivial compared to the other, but it is very clear. it has to do with the fourth amendment and what is going on at airports these days. shucks, was that the -- would be people who wrote the fourth amendment at gagged at the thought that someone would like a hand up their legs? no. they would not have gone for that. yet there is a body of constitutional law which would lead some to conclude that that

is a legitimate government purpose. it is a legitimate government purpose, then what is the worst of the constitution? one can go on to far more significant things, such as the invention of the right to abortion. it is an invention. i point out in my writings that it seems to me that anyone who can't read and has read the dread scott decision, even though when they disagreed with the decision, it does not proceed from -- it does proceed

from some of the words of the constitution. there is a certain approval of slavery even though the words were never mentioned. the constitution does envision the conclusion to which -- the conclusion that the black man -- that the white man needs respect. they say you are a draft on the high seas. where does that come from? it does not. that is the answer. it just plain does not come out. federalist letters 78 is very clear. that is alexander hamilton's main argument on the power of

the supreme court. their main power is the power of persuasion. persuasion that those who are affected by government action ought to abide by the decisions of the government's because they are right -- decisions of the arernment because they right and consistent with the deal. the constitution, if anything, is a basic deal. that deal can be changed. thomas jefferson made it perfectly clear and no one can disagree that the malls are for the living not be dead -- that the laws are for the living, not the dead. the constitution is very clear

on hal the deal is to be changed -- on how the deal is to be changed. it is unconstitutional to suggest that the deal can be changed by other than amendment. you can interpret it, but you cannot make b mean the opposite of a by interpretation. that is not kosher. that is a deal-breaker and leaves those who are affected -- if you do not abide by the deal, why should i? this brings me to what is really the central point.

i have five minutes left. these clashes do not arise merely from a difference of how the constitution is read it, they rise from propelled cultural differences which have developed within our country. as i point out in my paper, those who live here in the white house fort are living by a culture very different from the natives. the natives have lost faith in the ruling class. that is really the fundamental. -- that is really the

fundamental fact. this does not deal primarily with economics. ' is is about ruling class performance in general and their attitude toward the rest of america. it is, i would say, a good 50% actual performance and 50% attitude, and perhaps may be attitude is more important because, as we all know, it is far more abrasive and injury. in a nutshell, the ordinary citizens now perceive the ruling class as having failed in

everything it has touched in the past couple of generations. everything you have told us has turned out to be wrong. we have all of you into wars and have had no victories, only blood, and no prospect for peace. anybody who has read it the common document, anybody who lives in the real world knows that what most americans expect from foreign policy is peace. white piece? peace? o we are not here to rule the world, we are here to live our lives. living our lives requires a piece. this is not pacifism. we can fight a war so long as we get the peace. why fight a war that does not get to peace?

victory and peace or the natural outcomes of war just as produce is the natural outcome of farming. people dig in the ground to get crops. people fight for peace. security -- economic security. social security was promised. no. social security is a ponzi scheme and everyone here knows it. people out there now with more than the people in here. i could go down the line of all of the things that have gone to discredit the ruling class. this is not a matter of policy. it is a matter of identity.

this loss of confidence is not something that can be remedied by changing policies or by elections. this is something that is a fundamental, cultural problem. how it may be addressed is the story. the obvious beginning of addressing it is to stop insulting the voters. in a democracy it kind of makes sense not to insult the voters. keeping faith with the voters, doing what you say you are going to do -- but that is just the beginning. again, tell the cultural chasm is to be remedied is the elephant in the room. it is a big problem. the clashes over the

constitution are merely one manifestation of that larger problem. thank you. >> thank you, sir. right on time. professor jeffrey rosen is a legal affairs editor. he is also a professor of law at george washington university. he is a nonresident senior fellow at the brookings institution. he is the author of about six books. >> for, not 6. >> two in the works. his essays have appeared in the "new york times" and " ththe atlantic monthly." he is the most widely read legal commentator according to the "los angeles times." thank you for coming. >> thank you for including me in

this stimulating conversation. thank you for prof. codevilla for having written this provocative paper. i know you have all enjoyed reading it. there is much in his paper that i very much admire. i'd like the fact that he understands that the supreme court throughout history has not had a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. i liked the fact that he realizes it is a good thing that globalized americans are reading the constitution, marching on the mall, and making their own judgments about what the words mean. in meyer him at agree with them that constitutional change -- i admire him and agree with him that constitutional change has come from americans and not from judges. his paper in his argument deserved respect. i would be remiss not to play

with professor codevilla and try not to stick in the night as far as i can. [laughter] his basic thesis, which is to draw an antithesis between the country class and the ruling class -- the anti-government symptoms of the country and the elitist alien sentiments of a unelected bureaucracy is one i find unconvincing, both as an account of our politics today and our constitutional politics do well american history. i would like to try to persuade you that i am right and he is wrong. [laughter] professor codevilla yet argues that the country class, which the debate -- which he equates with the majority of americans, -- the ruling class says the constitution must help the

government do good rather than restraint it. he says that the ruling class got up and running during the progressive era. they began to impose rulings on the country class and the courts. he argues that to date this ruling class, elite this mentality raines not only in the obama administration, but also on the supreme court. he says that the country-class needs to reinstate the founder's vision of limited government. i want to begin by noting this inconsistent attitude towards judicially imposed limits on power. at his court, he criticizes the court repeatedly for not imposing boundaries on government power that he believes the founders would have insisted on. he wants to it -- he was the

court to strike down naked body scanners, unconstitutional taking of property, and affirmative action. those are just some examples. all of these measures were passed by the democratically elected legislators or regulatory agencies. most of them are extremely popular. let's begin with the body scanners. i was cheering professor kennedy on what i heard him say that the founders would have been appalled at being felt-up at the airport. decisions approving a similar technologies are hardly an elitist conspiracy. the body scanners were popular with 80% of the country. when you talk about populist heroes, that immortal objection,

unk," rates upmy jo there with "give me liberty or give me death." decisions striking down campaign finance reform was unpopular with 80% of the country, democratic and republican. when it comes to affirmative action, it is a complicated question. their responses vary depending on how the questions are asked. the country is evenly divided. there is no question that parts of the program the court has struck down have been popular with some majorities. in all these cases could via is calling up -- codevilla is

calling on the courts to strike them down although they are popular. this is not a surprise. when you measure anti-government sentiment in this country, his papers suggest that two-thirds of the country is on the side of smaller government and free enterprise. i do not find these numbers convincing. the "new york times" has noted that the line it runs too many hearts.art the most reliable poll i have found to measure anti-government sentiment was courted by that former libertarian, john ashcroft. when he was attorney general he

defended the patriot act. he suggested that half the country thought the patriot act struck the right balance. one-third of the country thought it did not go far enough. only one-third thought it went too far. that third, which ashcroft called a small but vocal minority, is comprised of libertarian conservatives, to professor codevilla describes as elitist, but also liberals. that combination of elitists and conservatives are definitely a minority. they do not constitute a majority sentiment. it is extremely hard to paint the anti-government side as a representative majority of this country. that is why the patriot at only

ct only had one dissenting vote. i think that is a basic analysis. when it comes to the court, they held for the most other history been a majority body. they have not been out of step with public opinion. on the rare occasions when they try to oppose an alien vision, it is the backlash's that have led to some kind of judicial retreat. when did the court get out of step with the public? interestingly, in the gilded age, in the progressive area -- progressive era, in the new-deal age.

the court first strikes down the income tax, provoking a populist movement and a constitutional amendment approving the and contacts. this and erase the progressive movement. in 898 there was no constituency for progressive legislation. in the 1912 election, the curse of bigness and opposition to the banks and determination to break them up was a matter of bipartisan consensus. it was a political movement that was mobilized and national sentiment had been transformed. professor codevilla tries to distinguish between theodore roosevelt and franklin roosevelt.

many of the judgments may have been mistaken, but they came to them. roosevelt was more of a centralized. he wanted regulator -- regulated banks. wilson wanted banks regulated by the states. both wilson and roosevelt were united in their optimism -- opposition to judicial -- progressives of that era elite political change should come from the legislature and courts should get out of the way. it was built as a conservative court in the 1920's and 1930's. they struck down the new-deal. it boiled up in the mid-1930's. they challenge the heart of roosevelts national recovery

administration. it caused an uproar and threats from the president and congress. the court, ultimately, retreated and upheld the loss. between 1937 and 1995, the court did not strike down a single powereferring to congress' to set interstate lost. it was when the court embraced the decision of conservative activism that it was most at odds with the majority of the country. it was discredited. it is a complicated picture. professor codevilla is not in favor of judicial activism. he says there are countless

essences in which -- in which the court nullified decisions citing constitutional mandates. the court claimed exclusive right to interpret the constitution. i share professor codevilla thoughts on the views of the court as the exclusive authority of the prostitution regardless of the views of the president and the people. i am not a fan of reverses weighed, but i have to say that the problem is not a failure. the right to privacy is not in the constitution. professor kennedy it says the right to property is in the constitution. was wrong, it scott reminds us that there is a

clash. the views of the original state where mischaracterized what it came to free african-americans. to claim that all you have to do is read the documents, there is an opposition between those who believe the constitution means what it says and those to think that it does not. it has no connection to any serious constitutional debate. these are not debates about the meaning of the tax. they are debates about the will of the people. dred scott was popular with the incoming democratic president and congress. the court found that both parties were begging for additional resolution. the were still a narrow national majority that favored a judicial move rather than a judicial move. the connection between the court and public opinion is meaningful. it is not a failure of

textualism. we can debate these other questions if you like, but to say that the established ment clause can be settled just by reading the text, it is simplistic. it is true that my favorite teacher from law school agrees with professor codevilla and 70 party constitutionalist that the establishment clause was meant to protect state establishment, but there is no consensus on the contemporary meaning of that. justice clarence thomas says states should be free to promote religion as long as they do not promote a particular religion. it was really a vision of religious neutrality that was intended. religious a permissivism cannot be reconciled with the views of madison or anyone else.

these are historical questions about which there are disagreements on each side. they cannot be reconciled by simplistic readings of the tax. the truth is, suprematism is rhetoric embraced by justices on both sides of the political spectrum. in a sense we are all supremacist now. in theis no wione tradition -- in that tradition. on the rehnquist court, the justices to shutdown state laws were breyer and ginsburg. what about the roberts court? i want to distinguish between three separate strands of

judicial conservatism that are fighting in the courts and the political culture today. they vastly complicate the picture, suggesting that a simplistic opposition between those who believed the constitution to belize what it says and those who do not does not do justice to the political debate. these three divisions are the tea party and costa to solis, the libertarians, and the conservatives. who are the key party and constitutionalists? the supreme court has only one acolyte. that is justice clarence thomas. he combines anti federalism and opposition to the elite. he had these views before the tea party was up and running. he is the model 40 party justice. tea party justice.

it is significant that to learn that professor codevilla had not learned of them. i read about him in the new york times. because additional source cited at the party rallies is the one they weighed on the mall when they marched at tea party rallies. his views are the most consistent with the tea party leadership.; stella says most federal regulatory systems are

unconstitutional -- scalia says most federal regulatory systems are unconstitutional. he argues that the 16th and 17th amendments should be repealed. he says that social security is a form of unconstitutional wealth redistribution. the founders only authorized the government to protect equal rights. there is substantively a great overlap between much of this khalil's decisions and the decision that professor codevilla get endorses. it would lead to a radical increase in judicial activism, striking down most of the regulatory state. it is something no one on the court, except for justice thomas, what to entertain. the tea party is at odds with the other two conservative visions.

the first this the second legal movement -- libertarianism. its leaders or my friends at the cato institute. unlike the tea party people, the libertarians are pro-choice and pro gay marriage. they also support judicial activism to strike down unconstitutional regulations. i suppose that the libertarian hero would be, not justice thomas, would be a judge like judge douglas ginsburg on the u.s. court of appeals, nominated for the supreme court in the 1980's. ps call for a resurrection of what he calls a constitution in exile. justice ginsberg wrote a wonderful decision striking

down global positioning devices that are placed under cars and can attract people. he does not -- he does not like body scanners either. he is not a religious conservative in any significant way. the third category, very much at odds with the other two, or pro-business conservatives. they are led by the u.s. chamber of commerce. the chamber has done remarkably well. they have won 13 out of 18 cases in which they filed briefs recently. this is not a surprise. both justice roberts and justice alito worked for the commerce when they were advocates. they promoted anonymity. the business decisions were more often than not unanimous. most of them were decided in a pro-business direction. the spread-business conservatives are very much at odds with the libertarian and

the tea party people. they saw the failure of the banks as an existential threat. they are willing to use doctrines like federal pre- emption, which are doctrines that provide international rules to support state rights. we see clashes between the pro- business conservatives and the tea party people in the next congress over questions like farm subsidies and we will also see that clashed working itself out on the supreme court when it hears the health care cases, perhaps as early as next year.

we were talking about whether the court will strike down health care. we are not often that about that. we'll talk more about it in a bit. previously, the conservatives on the roberts court have rejected this vision that leads to the invalidation of health care. roberts and alito -- i am not holding my breath. all the other hand, the courts do all the election returns. the court is more likely to look skeptically at the health care challenge now than it was before november 2. i want to close by saying that, like codevilla, the tea party conservatives or try to have it both ways.

if they want to rely on and in blood -- on unelected judges. it is the kind of conservative activism that got conservatives in trouble in the new-still era. you can igor -- you can even call it in the disk. -- you can even call it eletist. i would like to end by noting that rather than bashing progresses for their elitism, professor codevilla may find common ground i -- with progresses in their opposition to the wall street mentality that led to the crash of 2007. there are oppositions to the "curse of biggest." a progressive movement has been called in opposition to the dangers of corporate business

and the anger about money in corporate politics. we see a strong overlap in that vision and the tea party vision, which is populist at its core. if the two divisions might find a common hero, i would like to suggest might own a hero. he remarkably unites the strands that professor codevilla was to insist are incompatible. the is an advocate of states' rights and judicial restraint. he was a constitutionalist you want to apply the 4 commitment to new technologies. -- when it to the west -- he was a constitutionalist who wanted to apply the fourth amendment to new technologies. what professor codevilla was to make this implicit opposition

between reading the document and ignoring the words, he transcended that opposition. he was both an been original less -- he was both an original and a living constitution advocate. as he put it, if we are guided by the light of reason, we must remind people. thank you very much. >> thank you, and jeffrey. i think professor could be it may have a response or two. we let these two gentlemen at a

quick back and forth. let me know if you have a question and i will write your name down. >> i think we were a lot closer on -- in regards to public possible policy -- in regard to public policy that we are on the constitution. i can be quite creative. a lot full lot of people can be. -- an awful lot of people can be. there is opposition to the corporate corruption, which is now the standard of american big business. all of that kind that makes sense, but my fundamental question is by what right? the only thing i resent in your

description of me is the notion that i am somehow inconsistent by not supporting the striking down of laws passed by a popular majority. there is no consistency -- there is no inconsistency there at all. like most americans, like most people who believe in the constitution, i am and advocate whichguebury vs. madison, makes perfect sense. if you're a big conflict between the constitution and the statute, then that is that. however, there is a big difference between striking marbury and ala

striking down tanks because we do not like them. the notion that the court simply likes and dislikes pains because they are in tune with the culture at the time is certainly partially true. no doubt about that. there is a term in constitutional law for that. it is called "locknering." the court lockners all the time. it sometimes leads popular perversions and further perverts the people.

to suggest that the majority of the people or rate repository of wisdom -- they do have the right to have its as they wished. -- as they wish. the constitution's words have to presumptively roll over -- rule over sentiment. do we have sadists on the court? is still galea a -- is scalia a statist? of course.

he was all for it because the government wanted it. is there perfect consistency out there? heavens no. there are two separate sets of considerations here. one is a substantive policy and the other is the law -- the all being the basic deal. you get away from the basic deal and you risk the most important thing all all, which is the people to ask "why should i obey?" if you risk that you are risking everything. roosevelt and wilson agreed on a whole bunch of policies.

my point is that they came at these decisions from a different basis. they did agree on a whole bunch of things. but for very different reasons. well, i will leave it at. >> a quick response. >> it is to distinguish between policy and legal plate spreads via -- points. >> i'm not a libertarian. >> i know. we converge around the body scanner.

my wife went through one of the secondary path down and told the guard that they would have to get her a cigarette. [laughter] >> my wife would have kicked them. >> the majority of americans do not agree with us. to the degree that you consistently make claims about what they believe, it will not work. if the majority of americans cannot distinguish between the nine justices any more than they warves.se seven dori it all comes down to this.

>> define the term. >> you support it. it was the decision in 1903 that struck down minimum wage -- maximum our mall -- hour laws. the supreme court struck that down and said liberty of contract is a constitutional right. there were too famous dissent -- two famous dissents. oliver wendell holmes said it did not involve the social statics.

there were contested use of the country. his point was when people of good faith could disagree, judges should defer to the legislature. he said the problem was a failure of pessimism. he said people of good faith may think baking is an unhealthy obsession predel. it is all about reading rights. that was not the problem. the problem was the country was divided about the law as a fair system -- lies a fair --

laissez faire system. that is why i think you are an enthusiastic [unintelligible] you want a dramatic increase. .> i did not say that predel i said nothing of the kind. these are the kinds of decisions it had to be made through political practice and not by the court. >> should the courts strike down health care reform? >> yes. but on a plane and sexual grounds -- plain, textual grounds.

>> that makes the point. it is not written down. that is not been the consensus since 1937. >> i suggest to you that the consensus is wrong. this is a fact. you have millions of people out there who take that as common sense. if it ain't there, it is not there. >> i understand. this has gotten the court into more trouble than it has ever gotten into in history. >> i do not particularly care where the court is a countrtrout the country. >> the supreme court struck down

income-tax and minimum wage laws. you begin to see a pattern emerging. the course to be very hesitant -- court should be very hesitant. >> if you liked the nra, then pass the amendment that allows you to set up these so-called independent agencies. with regard to be epa, it is where it gets the power. what allows you to have something that has judicial, legislative, and it to death powder -- and adjuctive power at the same town?

scalia agrees with me. >> you both agree to get there. -- together. >> the only thing i know about it is what you told me. >> is a remarkable display of aggressive power. >> it is the opposite. reading is not an aggressive act. reading is not an act of aggression. you cannot be held liable for reading. that is not aggression. >> we can continue. i want to get some others in to make it even richer. pull the mic up to you.

>> he is coming on. >> i hope this will make it richer. i want to put you in the direction of article 5 for a moment. i am struck by royour descriptin of tea parties as a certain identity. >> it is not on. it is on now? >> about a certain identity. i am wondering if you -- we did not merely self govern ourselves. it is constitutional self- government. i am wondering if you see the tea party movement issuing a circumstance will there will be

proposed one or more constitutional amendments? how might the courts to interpret things? i wonder if you see that as the individuality there? i am wondering whether you see it that way. i interested in your sense about the tea party movement. were you surprised by this development? i am just curious. >> i do not know. neither does anybody else. it really -- i have to leave it at that. all i can tell you is that the attitudes toward government we are seeing is not the classic

anti--- classic american/anti- governments attitude. it is something different prepa. when i came to america, i was delighted to see the civic commitment of americans and how different it was from the italians. what i am seeing is a walking away from government, the notion is that it is them vs. us in the same way that i have seen it in europe. do not think for a moment that you have simply docile sheep. you do not.

people -- part did this is not healthy. -- part of this is not healthy. there is one tea party in my area. there are certain attitudes that are coming along with it that are frankly at variance with the great american position. >> am i surprised by the? absolutely. i imagined the regulatory bureaucrats would be more greatly received then they were. one woman taught me a lot.

she never even thought about carrying a gun into the federal government told me i cannot. i respect that. i respect that feeling of frustration that the tea party members feel. that anti-elises sentiment is very american. this is a gareat contribution. i think he helps as understand the tea party. i think this surprises me and other people. progressive and populist movement on the left and right have gone to ways in the past. the president -- progressive

movement was adored by the major political parties of the cane mainstream. -- and became mainstream. i think it is not at all clear whether tea party senators will choose to marginalize themselves in a similar way. they can embrace it in a way that will lead to the success that he calls for. >> let me follow up quickly. there might be, as opposed to judicial review, -- is that what you are saying?

>> the best scenario for the tea party movement would be to continue to focus the energies of congress and not on the courts. i think it is a good thing. i love peoplehnjb let that says -- i love the pledge that says it must do it on which it rests. that is wonderful. people should read the constitution. she dismissed it as ridiculous that might have to be glib. i think the more constitutional discourse the better. this is a siren song. it -- as long as these arguments are thought out, the moment that you jump to the court to impose these visions upon an unwilling country, then you risk immortalizing it. quite the point that i made --

marginalizing it. >> the point that i made is that one of the challenges that they face is not to ape what the obama-ites have done. this country does not like and will never like partisan government. it is about self governance. the worst thing that could happen would be to try to have a revolution from above. that is what happened in banana republics. god willing, if this will not become that. there is a whole lot that i

am live like to throw out. i will try to limit it to the use of the word "activism." this is just the example of some of the other things that i could have spoken about. this one fits in with activism. the ordinary person who reads the constitution would say there is more justification for buckner -- lockner than there is for roe. they do say that states shall make no law. there is at least something in there.

since it, the idea has been that in certain circumstances, the judges must step in to protect these barriers against government. the question arises, when should de step in or not step in? there has been this term that is more popular on the left because they have redefined it, i would like to get rid of it altogether. that is the term "judicial activism." what bothers me about what to the left says when they use the term "judicial activism"is that they never even acknowledged that the right has meant something different. jeffrey rosen uses it to mean

when judges strike down a law. the right libertarian's commitee part years -- libertarians, tea partiers, say it means when a dead substitutes his own opinion -- when a judge to substitute his own opinion of the law. because he likes a law, he does not apply the constitution to strike it down. i guess what i am asking is, is there a sense in which either that difference of definition could be acknowledged to help

the debate? is there a truce in which neither side uses that term a again? >> thank you. usinge tried to avoid that term. i know it is contested. i started [unintelligible] i couldn't help myself. i use it as a shorthand for striking down laws. it is a neutral definition. it does not say whether it is good or bad. i think the constitution properly requires that. i think it is a neutral term. judges should not substitute their own opinions for those of the law. >> that has always been.

>> that. it and helpful -- un ishelpful -- is unhelpful. it is in the e ye of the. holder -- it is in the eye of the holder. different strands of conservatives disagree what the constitution requires. given the fact that professor codevilla has suggested as unconstitutional, it is difficult for those who do not share the political predispositions to feel like they are operating in good ba faith.

liberals conclude that the conservative judges are playing with methodologies. we do not want to have a debate about activism. codevilla professor -- professor codevilla said he supports striking down the epa. that is an enthusiastic use a judicial power. it calls for a broad and aggressive use of judges to restrain government. justice scalia in a debate -- epstein was calling for a

judicial validation. political debate should be solved in the political arena. i think we should at the knowledge that conservatives want judges to strike down a whole lot more lawles. >> there is a misunderstanding here. i am not suggesting that the courts -- i am saying that the epa is a constitutional anomaly. i have not suggested it is the job of the court to throw it out. far from it. that is a task for congress.

>> for giving for misunderstanding -- for a given me -- forgive me for ms. understanding. it is the job of the political branches to do it responsibly with boats for which they will be held accountable. >> it is up to congress? >> these things were passed by congress. they might have said there is no bases where the for the court to say you cannot have it at all,

it is another thing for the court to stand by as the epa tries to regulate the floatations of cattle. i am not suggesting that -- you r criticism would be quite valid. that has never crossed my mind. >> we have achieved agreement on this one. >> in response to the idea that the right hand to always -- tends to have the choices be the same, i offer the model in support of the right's definition of activism.

it was echoed by clarence thomas when they said it was a silly law. those are examples of times when the policy choice and the constitutional choices were clearly the opposite. that is the model i am throwing out there. >> i like that model. i would suggest those are anomalies. >> please come and join me in thanking them for a stimulating discussion. our time is up. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> at the bill of rights institute we end on time. >> friday, a discussion on the repeal of the do not ask do not tell policy and how it will be implemented begi. then a sally quinn on faith. she stopped by to talk religion in politics. "washington journal" began 7:00 a.m. eastern every morning. >> coming up on january 2 promise c-span's documentary, the supreme court. hear from the current justices

including our conversation with the newest justice elena kagan prad. >> christmas eve, the pelosi and other members of congress like the capitol christmas tree. president obama and his family the night of peace. christmas day, tony blair on the role of religion. sandra day o'connor discusses live on the high court. it is a three day holiday on "booktv."ook

the man he changed the world. if you have heard of him prepare -- few have heard of him. >> next, a discussion about women working in the national security every now -- area. it is hosted by the harvard university kennedy school of policy. this is one hour and 15 minute. -- 15 minutes. >> good evening. it is an honor to welcome three remarkable public servants who are also great role models for

students on how thinking individuals can have impact on issues of war and peace. president obama was last week in india. he praised the founding leader. ghandi' observation that is seared in my soul, i [unintelligible] our guests tonight demonstrate in their lives the fact that hard-headed analysis is not incompatible with an empathetic haert.

our speaker is the third ranking official at the department of defense. to the conflict in pakistan, and nuclear weapons, china, haiti. it of an issue where military forces are taking action and michelle is a person responsible for formulating the policy in place. we are proud of michelle who was a research fellow here. just before joining the obama

administration, issued the co- founder of washington's newest think tank in the security arena and. she is also a graduate of harvard college. michelle will speak to us about about some of the major national security challenges we face today. she brought two remarkable colleagues. paula certification from 2001- 2009 under george w. bush. see had - -she had responsibility for many issues.

agee is now an adjunct fellow here at harvard. professor at theresso school. she was a security advisor for iraq and afghanistan. if you are interested in how individuals can make a difference, meghan sock a situation that looked inevitable that the u.s. would lose and came up with an alternative policy that leaves as in a much

better place today. we have a terrific line of people tonight. we are especially proud that michelle has come from washington. we are looking forward to what she has to say. [applause] >> thanks for the warm welcome. it is great to be back here at harvard. i was an undergraduate year. i was later a fellow at the kennedy school. i've been a fond memories of an event like this to getting up very early in the morning to row to discussions and debates with mentors.

one of the things i've always cherished about harbor is the sense of history. says harvard is not shy, this is the oldest university in the united states. graduate have profoundly influenced the nation and the institutions from the colonial era to the present day. the involvement of harvard students in our nation's military began very early before we are even a nation at all. they fought in the american revolution all the way through the end of the war. in the civil war, 55% of the

class of 1860 spot in the northern navy -- fought in the northern navy. this university by virtue of its own history is a fitting place to talk about war, the sacrifices of war, and the purposes of war. about what to specifically talk to you about america's current wars, our fight in afghanistan and paramilitary presence in iraq. current u.s. troops is nearly

98,000. they fight as part of a diverse coalition that includes 47 other nations that work in partnership with afghanistan's allies. it includes not only traditional nato allies like france and turkey but nowhere pardners like malaysia and the united arab emirates. it brings the total strength of the international coalition in afghanistan to 140,000. afghan forces are taking the lead in more and more operations.

these costs have led many to wonder why we remain in afghanistan and how we can hope to achieve an outcome that is worth the sacrifice. as president obama said at west point, i am convinced that our security has a place in afghanistan and pakistan. but the president explained that this is no idle danger. as we have seen, been it is true that terrorist threats can come from any number of visitors around the world. there are a number of factors that make the border regions a

dangerous source of terrorism and instability. obama has made a commitment to defeating al qaeda and denying them sanctuary in the country. one of the factors is the region's history. leadership has prepared for terrorist attacks of the last. that includes a tax on london ttacks oni -- a ta mumbai.nd new b there is nowhere else in the world lesseps -- with such an

established record of international terrorist activity. it could be shortsighted for us to assume that afghanistan would cease to hold any attraction for al qaeda and associated networks. it to be equally shortsighted to ignore the relationships between afghanistan and the neighbor pakistan. the border between these two countries is more than 1,500 miles long. that is the distance between boston and dallas b. the geography and ethnic makeup of the border region means they

are truly can joined bur. their fate is intertwined. we have to address both cited the border. -- sides of the border. as the work with afghanistan to increase flexibility, we are also working to help pakistan deal with the insurgency. as president obama said, we will strengthen pakistan and the targets that threaten our country. we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and passions are clear. we also made clear that the united states will no longer make the mistake of being as

narrow as a have in the past brit. there is a growing middle class. we seek to help foster democratic development. our efforts against violent extremists depends member on the success on attaining -- maintaining the troop presence in afghanistan. removing or reducing this would ease the pressure on al qaeda. the potential consequences are quite high. this is one reason why the war

has drawn support from some many other countries. this is not just american fight. this is a regional matter. what happens now in afghanistan and pakistan has a broader ramifications be no -- ramifications. the actively seek nuclear weapons. the administration has conducted a review of our progress. the purpose is to assess the implementation of our strategy.

they have the right leadership in place. it will take time. there are tangible signs of hard progress. we are making steady gains in regional command south. an american brigade supported a mission outside canada are -- kandahar. markets have reopened. children are going back to school. it is totally impossible a few years ago.

we have extended our operations beyond the river valley. the progress is and it should be shown -- is because of our troops. i know this does cause disturbances. it calls for a plan whereby the afghan presence decreases and -- increases and the nato presence decreases. that is precisely our aim. it will take time prevent -- time. these are good examples of what

we can achieve. they afghan local police approved by president karzai has shown good early results. it connects the central government to rural areas and help separate insurgent from the population. this was a long contested area of insurgents. locals got off an insurgent sell -- cell. attacks by insurgents in the area was consistent throughout

the summer and early fall. this is just one conversation about the reintegration can affect the lives of the local population. as of this past july, the army exceeded the growth forecast three that had it time. we expect this in the local security forces to shift the momentum in the government's favor. we need in afghanistan that is fully capable and free of unwanted foreign involvement. these gains are real. there is a long way to cool and

afghanistan. we have seen what happens abandon afghanistan. it is not a mistake that we can afford to make again. we seek neither to occupy afghanistan nor leave it prematurely. it is grounded in mutual respect. we look to forge a lasting friendship. this is a good point to mention july 2011. that is when we will begin u.s. troop withdrawal and afghanistan.

i will talk about what it means and will not mean. it will mean the beginning of some combat troop reductions where and when conditions allow. july 2011 when not mean the end of our treatment for afghanistan or even a reduction of operations from the three operations. -- reduction of operations. they will provide for their own national security. president karzai will reaffirm our shared desire by the end of 2014. we envision a long-term nato commitment to continue acquiring and revising afghanistan nationals.

we also have a commitment to build the civilian [unintelligible] with a yardy increase the american civilian contingent by more than threefold -- we have already increased the american civilian contagion by more than threefold. we hope to improve the life of afghans. we see a similar long-term commitment for our back -- iraq. whether not you thought the invasion was a good idea in the first place, it is vital that we end it responsibly and that we continue to support them as a

stable and democratic country. they sacrifice a great deal to achieve as much as they have. we are close to consolidating and entering a new phase in our relationship. on december 1, our initiative shifted from a combat mission to an advisory assistance mission. this has been made possible by the security situation. they have made great strides. we have been allowed to draw down our troop presence. the security situation has

remained quite stable. it is at the lowest level since 2003. this suggests that the iraqi security forces are stepping up and providing internal security. the nature of the threat to al qaeda and other extremist groups is not what it used to be. the high-profile attacks are sporadic and not systematic bu. they are no longer setting off a chain of richard leaders -- retribution. divisions are inevitable in a society driven by conflict. iraq has taken a major step forward.

there is widespread acceptance of the system. iraqis are seeking to advance with in the system rather than support those who would tear the system down. over the first few years, we have drawn down 100,000 forces. the irving the foundation for long-term security relationships predatory -- relationships. i would like to include on the role you can play. i talked about the university's impressive history.

the timeline ended about the middle of the 20th century. some of these universities have significantly cut back. this estrangement between the military and some of our finest institutions has deeply negative consequences for all involved. secretary gates recently said that today are voluntary military is well educated abroad the diversity that is representative of the nation as a whole. the burden of the wars is borne by a very small slice of the american population.

1%. is less than1n certain segments of our society are bearing even more this portion of shares of the sacrifices. there is a risk of developing leaders that politically, culturally, and geographically have less and less in common with the people they are trying to defend. in not be good for our military or our nation. those most underrepresented are those that have most benefited from the three dams -- from the free dance. if you think i'm talking about you, you are right. i'm asking you to consider serving in the uniformed

military or elsewhere. many of you have an interest in security policy. i'm asking you to think be on the well-worn path of think tanks and policy offices. i'm asking you to think about directly contributing to the united states military. i have some knowledge of such people who have chosen such a course. my husband is a cornell grad phillips -- graduate and has served as a navy captain. why not consider a similar path? that is my challenge tonight. that is not something for everyone. the national security challenges before us are truly daunting.

we need smart and educated men and women like you to find some way to help. thank you. [applause] >> paulo will stay with -- paula will say what she agrees with their does not agree with. >> let me say how pleased i am to be here this evening with such a distinguished panel. i have known them all and worked with them. but we began by saying -- let me begin by saying the policy overview that michelle laid out i think is a very sound and realistic one. it is one that is rooted in our

national security interests. i will start with that. another thing that struck me is that at the end of this week [inaudible] what came to my mind was the issue of afghanistan and a section of that summit and where we are looking at where the next steps are. i do think the summit is an excellent opportunity to register our strong commitment. a number of our allies are looking at taking an alternative course. even though they may be taking

an alternative course, i think this does provide an excellent opportunity to lay down the markers of our strategy very clearly and definitively and it will still appeal to our allies. our security alliance is critical. it can encourage them to move forward and still provide support for the situation on the ground, which, again, is afghanistan. many are already involved in this capacity. i think they can continue to be involved in a very critical way. for long-term stability, it is

essential to have a sound foundation of civil society, economic growth, and a foundation that tackles corruption. and i think the summit provides an opportunity to galvanize support from those that can help in this capacity. i wanted to underscore another thing she mentioned. she talked about pakistan. i do think our policies toward pakistan is essential and key in the dynamics of the evolution. i think she laid out very clearly areas that we need to be clearly areas that we need to be focused on in terms of pakistan