menure application that is clean. consumers should look for these labels on their food. there is a requirement that it be labeled with the country of origin. and they may choose to buy more from one then another. there is more information available out there at places like foodsafety.gov where consumers can learn more about safety and how to protect themselves. host: sarah klein, food safety attorney with the center for the public interest. thanks for being on the program. and a reminder, will continue our discussion on a food policy in america tomorrow with issues

facing small farmers. wednesday, sustainable food movement. thursday, child nutrition, and friday we wrap things up with regulating organic food. thanks for watching today and we will see you again tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this morning on c-span, a debate between democrats and republicans on whether american cultural standards are diminishing.

later, women defense officials from the bush and obama administration's will talk about their experiences. in january, there will be eight members of the u.s. house from the state of florida. one of them is republican sandy atoms from the 24th district -- sandy adams from the 24th district. she is a deputy county sheriff and air force veteran. she deferred -- defeated the incumbent, 59% to 49%. -- 41%. another incoming representative is david rivera, a native of brooklyn, representing the 25th congressional district, covering part of the miami metro area and the florida keys. the new congress convenes on january 5, with live coverage on c-span.

>> florida will gain a couple of new seats during the redistricting. most of the places that will gain seats lean to the gop. according to "the christian science monitor", there are 12 seats in flux. of the winners, six are considered politically conservative. according to the cook partisan voting index. now, a discussion are and how the constitution is being interpreted by today's politicians, judges, and the public. the bill of rights institute 90-minute even bang. -- 90-minute event.

>> i want to welcome you to our first annual bill of rights day forum. the bill of rights institute is an educational and nonprofit dedicated to teaching people about the constitution through a variety of curriculum. we provide seminars for students and teachers about the constitution and founding documents. we put on a being an american essay contest. over 24,000 students entered essays this last year. we are excited about that. we want students to understand the constitution and the institution and issues surrounding it. that the purpose of today's forum. we hope to pull educational products from the remarks we hear today and develop it into material to be distributed in the classrooms. as a lead up to bill of rights day, we commissioned a press

release which is in your packet. first of all, 42% of americans 's dictates toist the constitution, nearly all to the bill of rights. most people do not understand that our government derives its power from the people, rather than the other way around. there is work to be done. we're glad you hear -- year here today. -- you are here today. one of the requirements to get into the room is to have read the bill of rights. i will assume that you have. there is a test before you leave the room. prepare for that. i will introduce our moderator

who will introduce our speakers. michael cromartie is vice president at the ethics and public policy center. he directs both the evangelicals in religious life and another program. he is the editor of 16 books on religion, society, and politics. he was appointed by george w. bush to a six-year term on the u.s. commission on international u.s. -- international religious freedom. he was elected chairman twice. thank you for being here. >> thank you. it is a privilege to be here with the institute for this important conversation and dialogue. we could not have two better people to address the question at hand than the two gentlemen i'm going to introduce to you to the question is, -- introduce to you. the question is, is there a coming culture clash over the constitution?

it isn't urgent subject. i'm delighted that day -- it is an urgent subject. i am delighted that they are here. first, some ground rules. after we hear from the speakers, i will allow them to dialogue with each other for a few minutes. i am sure they're going to say something that they might want to address. after that, i will want you all to come in. feel free to ask any questions you like to both of our speakers. simply raise your hand. i will keep running list of people who want to get in so that we can move in an orderly and civil fashion. please do not be shy. we're putting this on for you. we wanted to be able to ask the questions that you have for these two gentleman. when you do speak, we ask you to try to pull the microphone close so that we can both hear you and be able to transcribe this conversation later. it is the -- easy to transcribe

if we can hear you. the best way to hear you is if you pull the microphone close your mouth when you talk. let me introduce profession -- professor codevilla. many of you do have the packets here. since we have a viewing audience, i want to go through the credentials of our speakers. dr. angelo codevilla is the americas -- and emeritus at boston university. his most recent book is about the ruling class of america. he has held positions as a u.s. naval officer and in the u.s. foreign service. he was a member of president elect's reagan's transition team. he served as a senior fellow for the two institution at stanford university. he has appeared oin on and on ad

on. is great to have professor -- it is great to have professor codevilla with us to address the question, is there a coming culture clash over the constitution? after he speaks for about 25 minutes, i will have the opportunity to address our second speaker. >> i will wrote a paper that i thought you would have the chance to see before the session, but i understand will be distributed afterwards. >> we did not want them to read it while you were presenting. >> it does not matter. sooner or later. why am i here? why me? i am somewhat in the position of a white man who has lived out among the natives, speaks the native language, and is being

brought into the white man's sport to explain why the natives are restless. -- the white man's forced to explain why they are restless. so i will do that. the assumption within the white man's sport is that the natives are restless because -- fort is that the natives are restless because they lack wampum or beads or economic goods. everyone seems to agree on that, from below rightly on the right to barack obama =-- bill o'reilly on the right to barack obama on the left. jobs, jobs, jobs, and beads -- in fact, the language of the

tom-toms of the natives -- it has nothing about beads, but a lot about the constitution. so, why are these people so exc about the constitution? there's something going on fundamentally that has nothing or very little -- only tangentially to do with economics, but has to do with something much more fundamental. now, to bring it to the point of the bill of rights, some of you, no doubt, are likely to have read professor rosen's article in "the new york times" last month, which pointed to a

certain weird view, which is out there, being that the first clause of the first amendment was actually written to protect religious establishments. congress shall make no law affecting a religious establishment. according to this weird view espoused by this fellow i have never heard of, it was close to protect the religious establishment. i got that weird you from somebody else, --weird view from somebody else, namely james madison th.

it was one of the first amendment to be ratified by all 13 states. seven of them had -- there is a prima frosh a case -- plymouth saatchi -- prima facie case that we would not have a first amendment if it had not been written to protect religious establishment. there is another view out there. forgive me so early for referencing professor rose and -- rosen's work. there is a view very well

founded in modern constitutional law that there is an opposition between the first and second clauses, between prohibition of religious establishment and free exercise of religion. gosh, well, i can assure you that, not only was there no prohibition of religious establishment in the minds of the folks who wrote the first amendment, but there was also no notion that the religious establishment, as understood in the 18th century -- not talking about the 17th century, which is another matter -- but there was no opposition between them and religious freedom.

if you are free concerning religion, collectively, you may darn well established church -- establish a church. is the ambushing a church in the sense of america in the 18th century -- establishing a church in the sense of the 18th century until very recently did not mean that you could not a darn well -- that people were not part of that establishment and could not practice their religion freely as publicly -- freely publicly as well as privately. this opposition is an arcti -- artifact of constitutional law. what does the constitution mean? all of it, every part of it, including, of course, the bill

of rights? what do these words mean? well, there are two views on that, as you know. the official view, nowadays, those somewhat as follows, best expressed in a colloquium obviously written and agreed to beforehand between senator leahy and supreme court nominee elena kagan. once upon a time, i worked on the hill. i am very familiar with how these colloquium's get written. useful, not fake, because they do expressed a concordance of use -- express a concordance of views.

super -- senator leahy said to the nominee, to the words of the constitution mean what they actually -- do the words of the constitution mean what they actually say? you may have read "the new york times" yesterday in which one of the editorials excoriated justice scalia actually reading below as written -- the law as written. there is another view that says you really ought to read those words in a way that makes the case come out in a way that serves the public good, in circumstances are different than those envisaged by the framers. what do you say, kagan? kagan reply in a way that it was

designed to show how moderate u.s.. she said, i see some good in both sides. surely there are times when you ought to read the words to mean what they say and applied them -- apply them that way and there are times when you should not. we ought to look at that a case by case basis. a lot of dumb heads nodded. if they had thought about this a little bit, and i assure you people not in washington did think about it and did not have to think very long to come up with the conclusion that, if, in fact, a judge or anybody -- anybody -- can choose when and if words mean something, it is because they have already decided that they mean nothing. that is clear, isn't it?

other words, if i can decide when the words of a document mean something and when they do not, it is only because i am the decider, not the words themselves. the words themselves are important only in so far as i deem them. means -- as i deem them so from time to time, as fits my needs. that is the dominant view of the constitution here. outside, where the natives are restless, it is something very different. the simpleton's know only how to read -- simpletons know only how to read and, to them, the words

mean only what they say. the fact -- affect of this is to set up a clash not unlike the clash that took place between the crux of the catholic church and ordinary people -- clerics of the catholic church and ordinary people when some people put it into their heads for them to read the scriptures themselves. when they read the scriptures, they found nothing about indulgences or all sorts of things that the church says are absolutely essential. what are these 30 men arguing about? -- these clergymen arguing about? just imagine that you have millions of people out there who

are just plain reading the bible or the constitution. when they read it, they say what is all of this constitutional law about? these fine distinctions that are drawn, especially, since these fine distinctions, appease the broadest conclusions that seemed to be, at variants, -- seem to be at variance with the plane meanings of the words. for example -- i do not think there is any clearer example these days. it is barely trivial, but very clear -- barely -- fairly trivial, but very clear. it has to do with the fourth amendment and what is going on at airports these days. sharks -- shucks, wouldn't the

people who wrote the first amendment have gagged at the thought that somebody would run their hands up their legs and play around their privates? no, no, no -- they would not have gone for that. and yet, there is a body of constitutional law which would lead some to conclude that is a legitimate government purpose. well, if it is, my gosh, you know, what is the worst of the constitution? one can go on for far more significant things, such as the invention of our right to abortion. it is an invention. i point out that -- in the paper

that i wrote it -- again, this is not a lengthy treatise. it seems to me that anyone who can read and who has read it, say, the dread scott decision can see that, even though one may disagree very strongly with that decision, it does have -- proceeds from some of the words of the constitution. there is, after all, and approval -- a certain approval of slavery. the constitution really does envisage the conclusion to which justice -- the justice comes, namely that the black man has no rights that the white man need respect. if you read roe versus wade, you

are adrift on the high seas. where does that come from? well, it does not. that is the answer. it just does not come out. so, if you -- federal paper no. 78 is very clear here that is alexander hamilton's main -- is very clear. that is alexander hamilton's main argument on the power of the supreme court. the main power is the power of persuasion -- persuasion that those who are affected by a government document ought to abide by the decisions of the government because they are right and they are consistent with the basic deal, the

constitution. if it is anything, it is the basic deal. now, that deal can be changed. that deal provides for its own changing. thomas jefferson made it perfectly clear and no one would have disagreed that laws are for the living and not for the dead. it is certainly possible and advisable for people to change that deal with the constitution is very clear on how the deal is to be changed -- change that deal. the constitution is very clear on how the deal is to be changed. it is unconstitutional to suggest the deal can be changed by other than amendment. you can interpret it, but you cannot make it mean the opposite by interpretation. that is not kosher, as they say in my old neighborhood.

that is really a deal breaker and leaves those who are affected by this -- they will sit, if you do not abide by the deal, why should i? this brings me to what really is the central point of my presentation, because i have five minutes left. which is that these clashes do not arise merely from a difference in -- of how the constitution is red. the arise from profound cultural differences -- they arise from a

profound cultural differences which have arisen in our country. those who live in the white man's fort are living by a culture very different from the natives. these cultures can be antagonistic. the natives have lost faith in the ruling class. that is really the fundamental fact. this has nothing -- i should not say nothing -- this does not deal primarily with economics, it is not primarily about economics. this is about the ruling class's performance in general and, most pointedly, to the ruling class's attitude toward the rest of america. it is, i would say, a good

50/50, 50% performance, 50% attitude. perhaps attitude is even more important than that. as we all know, insult is far more abrasive than injury. in a nutshell, the ordinary citizens now perceive the ruling class as having failed in everything that it has touched in the past couple generations. everything you have told us has turned out to be wrong. we have followed you into wars and have had no victories, only blood, and no prospect of peace. anybody who has read the founding document, anybody who lives out in the real world knows what most americans expect

from foreign policy is peace. why peace? because we're here not to rule the world, but to live our lives. living in our lives requires peace -- living our lives requires peace. this is not pacifism. we do not want to fight wars that do not lead to peace. aristotle points out that peace is victory. i am a former peat -- former. people dig in the ground to get crops. people fight to get peace, not to fight. security -- economic security, boy, that was promised. social security was promised -- no commendatory, no.

social security is a ponzi scheme and everyone here knows it. people out there know it even more than people in here. i could go down the line all of the things that have discredited the ruling class. let me some people out that this is not a matter of policy -- point out that this is not a matter of policy, but of identity. this loss of confidence is not something that can be remedied by changes in policies or by elections. this is something that is a fundamental, cultural problem. how it may be addressed is another story. one obvious beginning to addressing it is to stop

insulting the voters. in a democracy, it makes sense not to insult the voters, but no one seems to have caught on to that. keeping faith with the voters, doing what you say you are going to do -- that is just the beginning. again, how 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, sir. right on time. prof. jeffrey rosen is legal affairs editor of the new republic. he is also professor of law at george washington university and a non-resident senior fellow of the brookings institution. he is the author of about six books. >> four, not six.

>> four, two in the works. his essays and appeared in "the new york times -- have appeared in "the new york times" and other publications and he has been called the most widely read legal commentator. thank you for being here. >> thank you. i'm glad to be included in this stimulus -- stimulating conversation. i know you'll appreciate reading my colleagues provocative paper -- my colleague's provocative paper. there is much that i admire. i understand that he believes the supreme court has not had a history unconstitutional interpretation. i like that he realizes that is a good thing that mobilize

americans are reading the constitution, marching on the mall, and making judgments about what it's words mean. i admire and agree with him that, throughout history, constitutional change has come from those mobilized americans and not from an elected judges imposing an alien vision on an unwilling people. for all of those reasons, i think professor codevilla's paper and his argument deserve respect. i am not here to praise professor codevilla, but to try to stick in the knife if i can. [laughter] i have to say that his basic thesis, which is to drop an antithesis between the country class in the ruling class -- the anti-government sentiments of the majority of the country and the elitist, indian sentiment of an unelected bureaucracy is one that i find destructively unconvincing, both as an account of our politics

today -- descriptiveely and commencing, both as an account of our politics today -- i want to convince you that i am right and he is wrong. the country class, which he equates with most americans, believe the constitution has a lot with restraining government. but our ruling class made the notion that the constitution must be read to empower the government to do good, rather than to restrain it. he says that the ruling class got up and running during the progressive era would begin to impose alien and unwelcome bureaucratic visions of the country class. he argues that, today, the ruling class believe this mentality grains -- reins not only in the obama administration, but also in the supreme court, which proclaimed its own supremacy, thwarting the will of the mobilized, anti-

government majority. he says the country class needs to take power and restate the founders' vision of limited government. i want to note his inconsistent attitude toward judicially oppose limits on government power. at its core, professor codevilla as an act would -- has an activist vision of what the court should do. he believes the founders would have insisted -- >> he believes -- he wants the court struck down body scanners, finance reform, affirmative action, to give just some of his most prominent examples. note that all of these measures were passed either by democratically elected legislatures or by democratically accountable regulatory agencies. it is pretty obvious that most of them are extremely popular. let's begin with the body scanners. i was cheering professor codevilla on when i heard him say the founders would have been

appalled at being felt up at the airport. i agree, as it happens, with his constitutional policy analysis on this particular issue, but the supreme court decision's decisin is hardly an elitist conspiracy. polls show that there are popular with 80% of the population. that immortal in junction -- injunction, "don't touch my junk" -- still, you can hardly see the approval of the body scanners as an anti-elitist conspiracy. or decisions striking down campaign finance reform -- the citizens united decision was not popular with 80% of the country, democratic and republican pierre

the numbers were not different across the parties. when it comes to affirmative action, it is a, a question -- it is a complicated question. the country is evenly divided. some of the programs that have been struck down were popular. the bush institution had reinstituted several of them after the supreme court struck them down. in these cases, " avila -- codeavilla is calling on the supreme court to strike down a number of these popular policies. it is hard to see this as an elitist conspiracy. any measure in the government sentiment in this country -- he suggests that about 2/3 of the country is on the side agreement -- a limited government and free enterprise as opposed to the 30% or so who back the state policies. i do not find is convincing.

in "the new york times," there is a statement that the line between conservatism runs in many human heart, not just tea party years -- tea partyers. the most reliable all i have found a measure in the garments and it was quoted repeatedly by -- a measure anti-government sentiment was quoted repeatedly by john ashcroft when he was attorney general and defending the usa. at -- u.s. a patriot act -- the u.s. patriot act. some of the government -- some of the people thought it went too far. some of them were not decided. those whom he called a small, but local, mobilized minority, is comprised of both the libertarian conservatives to pressure -- who professor codevilla praises as anti-

elitist, but also the secretary -- the civilian libertarians who he disdains. that combination of elitists and libertarian conservatives -- they are minority. it is extremely hard to paint the anti-government side is having represented the majority of this country. that is why the patriot act passed with only one dissenting opinion the senate from senator feingold. that is why there was the same support for bigger government as there was in the clinton and obama administration. i think that is a basic weakness in his analysis. when it comes to the court, the truth is the court, for most of its history, has been a majoritarian body. and has not been out of step with public opinion. and as endorsed the people's views in most -- on most

occasions. when it has tried to impose an invasion on an unwilling nation, it has often had a backlash leading to a judicial retreat. when did the court it out of step with public -- the public? in the gilded age, the progressive era, the new deal peak period. he wants to paint this as elitist activism on the political level, but it was the opposite. court strikes down the income tax, provoking a populist movement and, ultimately, a constitutional amendment. the court pembrokes minimum wage -- the court invokes the minimum wage. in 1912, the presidential election, the leading candidates would both denounced the curse of bigness, to use my yearly

brandeis -- louis brandeis's phrase. a political woman had been mobilized and the national sentiment had been transformed -- a political movement had been mobilized and the national sentiment had been transformed. roosevelt, regardless of how much or little progressivism, believe he was trying to follow the american founders to the best of his abilities. there is no mistaking that he came to his judgment based on his -- from bases diametrically opposed to wilson. he was more of a centralized your -- centralizer. both wilson and roosevelt were united in their opposition to judicial activism.

progressivism is founded in this edition of the courts -- in the suspicion of the courts. he believed courts should basically get out of the way. that bipartisan consensus for judicial restraint build the conservative court in the 1920's and 30's. it boiled up in the mid-1930's when the court challenged the heart of fdr caused national recovery administration, creating a national uproar. the court ultimately retreated and began upholding laws. between 1995 -- sorry, between 1937 and 1995, the court did not strike down a single law on congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. it was when the court embraced

the addition of conservative judicial activism that it was most at odds with the wishes of a majority of the country. it was historically discredited. this is a complicated picture. professor codevilla is not consistently in favor of judicial activism. he criticizes the court for thwarting the will of people -- the will of the people in certain cases. he says there are countless instances in which the court has nullified decisions by elected officials, citing constitutional mandates or prohibitions, like the city case where the court explained, we rule the likes of you do not count. i share his disdain for the decision and his -- its embrace of the judicial supremacy and. i am no fan of roe versus wade.

i have been a liberal critic of that for a long time. or of the dread scott decision -- dred scott decision. but the weakness is not a failure of textualism. roe was wrong. the professor says that the right to property was in the constitution. there is often a clash between textualism and regionalism. this view was famous and is characterized when it came to the rights of free -- mis characterized when it came to the rights of free african- americans. there are some who believe the constitution believed -- means what it says and those who do not -- it has no connection to any serious constitutional debate in this country. these are not debates about the mess -- the meaning of the text, but about the will of the

people. dred scott was popular with the incoming politicians. there was still under a national majority favoring a political rather than judicial legislation of the slavery question q that is what led to lincoln -- question. that is what led delinquent. we can debate these other questions. to say that the meaning of the constitution's vision of church and state can be settled just by reading the text, again, it is simplistic. it is true that my favorite teacher from law school, he agrees with the professor here, and some tea party constitutionalists agree as well, but there is no consensus on the contemporary meaning.

justice clarence thomas says it means that the state should be free to promote religion in general, as long as they do not promote a particular sect. one of the most distinguished conservative historians of the reconstruction says, on the contrary, it was a vision of religious neutrality that was intended. these are hard, historical questions about which there are serious disagreements on both sides and it cannot be reconciled by simplistic indications in the text. i agree with his prediction -- his rejection of super--- of judicial supremacy is an -- just as a surprise and --

professor codevilla is in favor of a germanic increase in judicially-enforce limitations -- they struck down the most federal and state laws, justice sandra day o'connor, kennedy, justice thomas, rehnquist, ginsburg. what about the roberts court? i want to distinguish between three separate strands of judicial conservatism that are fighting for ascendency on the courts and in the political culture today. there are significant tensions among them. they passed the complicate the picture, suggesting that a simplistic opposition between those who believe the constitution means what it says and those who do not does not do justice to the ferment of the political debate. these are the fruit -- the tea party constitutionalists, second, libertarians, third, the prohibitionists conservatives.

who are the tea party constitutionalists? on the supreme court, they have only one consistent at all like -- acolyte or representative, justice clarence thomas, who combines opposition to elites, views before the party was up and running. he might be called a model of the tea party justice. speaking french] i was interested to learn that professor codevilla had not learned of him before i wrote about him and "the new york times." there is a book called "the 5000 yearly" that people are waiting on the mall when the march at tea party rallies.

his views are most consistent with the league -- the leading tea party members. he combines religious conservatism and the suspicion of the separation of the church and state for restoral reasons -- for historical reasons with the robust, chris sitting and the government criticism suggesting what they do is unconstitutional. he suggests that the epa, the fcc, the department of education -- they are unconstitutional. he argues that the 16th and 17th amendments should be repealed. he said that social security is a form of unconstitutional wealth redistribution because the founders made things like the european welfare state unconstitutional. substantively, if not intellectually, there is a great overlap between much of the author's vision and a provision that professor codevilla

endorses. descriptive lee, i want to say that it would lead to a radical increase in judicial activism, striking down most of the post new deal regulatory state. this is somewhat no one on the current court except for justice thomas has expressed an interest in entertaining. the tea party vision which is an anti-elitist, populist vision at its core, for which a respected, is about -- for which i respect it, is about the libertarianism movement. the leaders of that movement are my friend, unlike the tea party -- my friend, unlike the tea party people, libertarians are pro-choice, pro gay marriage. support roe versus wade and judicial activism to strike down unconstitutional a decision such as health care reform, the gun free school zones act, and

others. the libertarian heroes do not like religious conservatism. ginsburg has called for resurrection of what he called the constitution in exile. there have been documents dormant since the new deal. they strike down gps device is placed under cars that can track people 24/7. he would not like the body scanners. like his fellow libertarians, he is not a religious conservative in any significant way. the third category, at odds with the others, are pro- business conservatives who are led by the u.s. chamber of commerce, which represents the unified interest of american business. it has done remarkably well beyond -- before the roberts scored. they have won 39 of 18 cases

recently. this is no surprise -- 13 of 18 cases recently. this is no surprise. justice roberts worked at the chamber. he supports unanimity. these business decisions are more often unanimous than most other cases. 80% are unanimous or decided by 7 to 2 or greater. pro-business conservatives are at odds with the libertarians and tea party people when it comes the federal power parity party movement was founded in opposition to the t.a.r.p. program. by contrast, the pro-business conservatives are supporting t.a.r.p. they saw the failure of the banks as an existential threat. they are willing to use doctrines like federal pre- emption, which are nationalistic doctrines, to

thwart states' rights in advance the interests of american business. we will see increasing clashes between the pro-business conservatives and tea party people in the next congress over questions like farm subsidies, which business likes, but the tea party people do not. we will also see that class working itself out on the supreme court when it hears the health care case, perhaps even as early as next year. i do not think we're confident that the court will strike down health care. i would like to talk more about that. previously, the sudden justice thomas, the conservatives on the robert court have rejected the "states wright's vision" that would lead a delegation of health care. -- "states' rights vision" that

would lead to the legislation of health care. i am not holding my breath. professor codevilla denies this, but the courts do fall election returns -- to follow the election returns. i want to close by saying that, like codevilla, the tea party constitution lists are trying to have it both ways. is support legislative repeal -- they support legislative repeal of health care. conservative judicial activism got into trouble during the new deal. good collet believe this. it thwarts the wishes of the majority. i would like to close by noting that, rather than simply bashing

progressives for their elitism, tea party constitutionalists and professor codevilla might find common ground with the progressives in their opposition to the wall street mentality that led to the crash of 2007 and their opposition to the curse of bigness. when my friends called for a new progressive movement that would be mobilized -- one of my friends called for a new progressive movement that would mobilize against the dangers of corporate business and angry about the role of money in politics and he sees a strong overlap between that vision and the tea party's vision, which is populist at its core. in that sense, it is the two visions -- they might find a common hero. i would like to suggest louis brandeis. he remarkably unites the strands that professor codevilla insist are not

compatible. was both progressive and a representative of states' rights and judicial restraint. he wanted to apply the fourth amendment to new technology. he understood the political change comes from the political process. judges could translate constitutional values and the circumstances the framers could not anticipate. while professor codevilla wants to make a simplistic opposition, brandeis transcended that opposition. he was both an original list and insisted on a living constitution. you might call them a living original -- him a living originalist. as these threaten him liberty -- threaten liberty, brandeis would

, as hes about this and put it, if we would guide by the light of reason, we must let our minds be bold. thank you so much. >> thank you. i think professor codevilla might have a response. we will let them have a back and forth. a few have a question, i will write down your name -- if you have a question, i will write down your name. >> i think we are a lot closer with regard to public policy than we are with regard to the constitution. my mind can roam these policy questions quite as easily as yours. i can be quite creative, as a lot of people can be.

surely the idea of melding the opposition to the corporate corruption which is now really the standard of american business -- big business with the state's' rights -- it 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 -- by supporting the court striking down things that are passed by a popular majority. there is no inconsistency there at all. after all, like most americans,

most people who believe in the constitution, i am a the bouquet of -- a devotee of the decision which makes perfect sense, if you have a conflict between the constitution and a statute, the constitution dominates and that is that. there's a big difference between striking down things a la marbury and striking down things because you do not like them. the notion that the court is simply -- that it likes and dislikes things because they are in tune with the culture of the time is certainly partially true. no doubt about that. there is a current and in constitutional law for that --

there is a current in constitutional law for that. the court -- it's sometimes follow popular perversions. it's sometimes leaves them. of course. . to suggest that the majority of the people or rate repository of wisdom ultimately the right to have it as they wish. 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. >> come january, there will be three new members in the u.s. apples from the state of arizona. one of them represents the first district along the eastern and northeastern parts of arizona. he defeated the democratic first term incumbent 50% to 43%.

republican dan quayle will represent the northern phoenix metro area. -- republican ben quayle. the third represents the fifth district, covering the northeastern phoenix metro area. he defeated the three term incumbent democrat, harry mitchell. the new congress will convene on wednesday, january 5th, with live coverage on c-span. arizona is one of several states that will gain a new congressional seat during the 2011 redistricting. according to the "christian science monitor" 12 seats are in flux. texas will gain four new

representatives and florida will gain two. arizona, georgia, nevada, south carolina, utah and washington will gain when new seats each. of these winners, six are considered politically conservative. >> the c-span network -- we provide coverage of politics, political affairs, and books, all available on television, radio, online and social media networking sites. find our content on time at -- anytime in c-span's video library. we bring our resources to your community. it is washington your way, the c-span networks, now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> tonight, primetime on c-span, a discussion on the role of limited government.

that is followed at 9:30 by c- span's " q &a"which is followed by a discussion on redistricting of whether class and not race should be used when redrawing congressional boundaries. officials from majority bush and obama administration talk about being women in the national security field. this took place at the harvard kennedy school of government. this is about one hour 15 minutes. 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 guest tonight demonstrate in their lives the fact tha 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 from china, to haiti, think of ani. 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 mhelle 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 inevitae 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 lcome. it is great to be back here at harvard. i was an uergraduate 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 befor 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 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. tops 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 morend more operations.

these costs have led many to woer why we remain in afghanistan and how we can hop 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

dangous 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 thatfghanistanould cease to hd any attction 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 tn 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 he 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 hi. 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 nlear weapons. the ainistration 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. e proess 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 populatio. 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 smer 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 begin by saying the policy overview that michelle laid out