and misunderstanding of 9/11. patriot act would not have passed if we would up called it repeal the fourth amendment act. [applause] the steady erosion occurs, whether it is a consequence of the war on drugs, which has been an excuse for people invading and doing the unconstitutional searches, but also just the way the system of regulations, the administrative courts whether it is the epa or any other agency or the one other favor agency, which i am sure everyone loves, and that is called the internal revenue service, but they write the regulations. they because -- they become the

law of the land. they are not under the constitution allowed to write regulations. laws are supposed to be written by the congress. someday we will have a revolution and change all that. [applause] under the excuse of the drug laws they invade our houses, many times the wrong houses. they say people should not be doing those things, we have to stop them. what about the places that might be selling nutritional products or raw milk or something like this? they get broken into and the federal government closes them down. we have undermined our opportunity to make our own choices when it comes to fruit and nutrition and alternative medical care. quite free and clear we can solve that problem by allowing

you to make up your own mind about what kinds of things you want to have it. -- you want to have. [applause] about a year ago the president had one of his and designees go to the senate and testify, and now it is the policy that he has the authority to assassinate american citizens. no trial, undercharges, nothing. if he designates them a bad guy, he is allowed to do this. someone asked him where he got the authority in the constitution. he says i am a commander in chief, i can do everything i want to do, except for those things i am prohibited by doing in the constitution. he is allowed to do only the things he is explicitly allowed, not what he thinks he can do. [applause]

the president has gone on to prove his point, and free american citizens have been assassinated. one guy was very controversial, but the whole thing is, even the controversial people need trials. if they do not get a trial, what will they do with us when we get a trial? he decided family members were also collaborating with him, so they killed but a family member. turns out it was his 16-year-old son. this does not go over well, and i think we need to be aware of it, because this is the way it starts. they do it secretly for a while

and we do not know about it, and then they change the law and make it lib did it. now they are saying the law permits it. to add insult to injury, congress passed the national defense authorization act. , and that was signed into law on january 1. this repeals -- that is as the president can use his military to arrest any american who they think is a suspect. the only definition is associated forces. associated with someone who might be causing a criminal act. no charges made. you can be arrested and held without a trial, without an attorney, put in a secret prison indefinitely. that became the law of the land.

right now how many people? i do not know, there has been a few. these of the things we have to address. if we allow them to slip by, sometimes it is too late. it is the attack on liberty that is necessary to address. it will address foreign policy as well as the economic policy, dealing with who owns property into does the contract and what happens in a volunteer society. the crisis is here today. i am actually encouraged. because i am meeting not thousands, tens of thousands of people like you who are sick and tired of it. [applause] quite a few have come from the state of idaho.

that means if the message is going to get out, we have a very good opportunity coming up quickly, like tomorrow, to express ourselves. [applause] freedom is something that is relatively new. we get accused of going back to the dark ages of the gold standard of the 19th century, but those who advocate big government and downplay what we're talking about are the ones who are favoring a system that has been around a lot longer than freedom, and that is called tyranny. when you have big government, you are going in the wrong direction. [applause] we have had a relatively short amount of time in this country. we became very wealthy.

the largest middle-class ever. the richest middle-class ebert and distribution of wealth better than ever before. it is not true anymore. standard of living is going down. they get the bailout and benefits from the system that is in place. if they get into trouble, they get billed out and we end up holding the debt. it is not to get used to be, but the message is out there. the numbers of people are growing. they want to see changes. washington is still pretty much asleep. our message has to be heard loud and clear in order to bring about the changes that are necessary. [applause] what i believe has happened over time as we grew out to be the wealthiest country and the freest country, we neglected to understand or concentrate and

defend where wealth came from. that is hard work and savings. the country became so well be that we were concentrating on the material benefits of a free society and became involved in the redistribution of wealth and thought it would be for endless times. some people could help free food and free education and free medical care and free housing, and all of a sudden it did not last. it undermined the wealth, but it destroyed the productivity. we are not the producers we used to be. that is why there is a cop -- climactic and coming soon. the answer is loud and clear. we did not have to invent it. it is what made america great. all we have to do is get the confidence back and understanding back. from the tens of thousands of people i've talked to, and i imagine there is plenty here, it is the young people that are demanding that we defend liberty

for their generation. [applause] this is the reason that we should welcome opportunity, and the one thing that is such a pleasure to defend is the principle of liberty, because it is incorporate -- because it incorporates people. if you say i believe in this group of lawyers or this group of values or this group of saying iit would like thes am want to become president because i am a christian protestant. that is important in my personal life, but when you want to bring people together and live peacefully were you can become what you want.

whether it is your personal values are relational bayous, what you want is a tolerance of other people so they come together to defend liberty, because we all enjoy liberty. [applause] this becomes a difficult problem for some people, because some who think the economic system would be a disaster, some people will be poor and rich, and there will be no answer and not releasing the more you interfere, the more poor people you get. they will not be tolerance, because they will want to change it. on the other side, they will say people will not take care of themselves, they will do things that are not right. therefore we cannot tolerate that. the whole thing is if you except liberty and personal decisions whether they are economic or social, it does not mean you endorse what they do, you

endorse liberty. that is why everyone should come together for defending that right. [applause] this is what i believe is giving us the energy in the campaign as well as the revolutionary spirit, which is an intellectual revolution. it has been going on now for 20 years. it was more in the remnant stage and people talking about it and knew about it. now it is coming alive out of necessity. young people are leading the charge and are excited about it. at the same time some of those who were quiet about it and frustrated about it, they are coming around now and people are coming together. a reporter the other day said something to me i was very pleased about. i complimented the reporter.

he said i have noticed over the many months you go to the campuses and get a very young crowd. he said recently i have noticed there are many others from an older generation coming out. i said that is true and that is good, because it has to be pervasive. it has to be a true revolution. it is not the base of the republican party. remember what nixon said when he recognized the keynesian revolution have been successful. he said we are all keynesian snout, which was the peak of the keynesian experiment. it has to be bipartisan and bring people together, and this is what is happening today. this is the reason our campaign is recognized that we do better than the other candidates when it comes to independent, as well as putting my name up against

the president. this means people are coming together. i think this is wonderful. also, the people will challenge us on foreign policy. i think one of the best things i hear and the statistics prove this, people think because i do not want to go to war, i do not like the military. i have been in the military and gone to war. maybe the military just wants to defend the country, not go to war. [applause] so the statistics we can cite now is looking at some other candidates. if you look at the top four, the army, navy, air force, and coast guard.

[applause] so we should be optimists, assume responsibility for ourselves. we do not need to wait for the majority. we have the minority right now that are willing to work and change this and continue to build and start the brush fire of liberty. that is what is happening. if you are part of the i rate minority, there is more responsibility on your shoulders, because a large majority of people never get involved. the large majority of people in the country, half of them do not register to vote. if you come around to understanding this, the importance of the constitution, the importance of a sensible foreign policy, you do carry a greater burden because you know about it and know what is right, so you have to participate. therefore the best thing we can do at the moment, the best thing

we can do is send a loud and clear message tomorrow to tell the country this idea of individual liberty, limited government is the best way to achieve peace and prosperity in our time. thank you very much. [applause] thank you. [chanting "ron paul"]

>> watch super tuesday election results tonight on the c-span network. well you what, use the laptop or computer to see results maps and social media post and a public forum for your tweets and those of other viewers. you can monitored the mentioned on c-span plot. use a laptop or tablet to extend your c-span viewing of our brand new web page made especially for our super tuesday coverage. c-span.org/screen2. >> eric holder says the u.s. has the right to order the killing of american citizens overseas if they pose an imminent terrorist

threat. his remarks are next on c-span. washington journal -- begins at the top of our. a preview of super tuesday and talk about u.s./russian relations following sunday's elections in russia. 10 states hold presidential contests today. this morning, rick santorum, mitt romney, and newt gingrich. live coverage gets underway at 8:30 eastern on c-span3. attorney general eric colder spoke about national security issues and defended the killing of u.s. citizens abroad who were viewed as terrorists. he spoke at northwestern university law school in chicago, and is -- and is theoduced by the leahe dean of

law school. this is about 30 minutes. >> good afternoon. it is my great privilege and pleasure to welcome you to northwestern law school. we are pleased this afternoon to host the honorable eric holder, attorney general of the united states. he will deliver an important policy address. before i welcome our speaker, i want to acknowledge and welcome several distinguished guests. joining us from the department of justice, chief of staff and counselor to the attorney general. a proud northwestern law alum from the class of 1976.

[applause] we also welcome the senior counselor to the attorney- general for the civil division of the department of justice. i am also pleased to welcome northwestern university's president. professor lee, andr clos other senior officialsmany of the law schools and the university of distinguished alumni. we are very pleased you could join us. the students are at the center of everything we do here.

in that regard, i want to give special thanks for general holder for meeting earlier this afternoon with a group of law students. a distinguished lawyer and devoted public servant, attorney general holder has held a wide range of positions in his career. as a federal prosecutor, united states attorney, superior court judge. a graduate of columbia university law school, the general joined the department of justice following graduation and was assigned to the newly formed public integrity section for investigated and prosecuted corruption involving officials and local state and federal government. in 1988, president reagan appointed him to the superior court of the district of columbia.

he remained a judge until 1993 when president clinton appointed him to the post of u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. in 1997, president clinton promoted him to deputy attorney general of the united states. in july 2001, he joined a washington, d.c., law firm. in 2008, president barack obama nominated him to be the 82nd attorney general, a nomination confirmed by the u.s. senate. general holder is the first african-american to serve in this critical post. he oversees the efforts of federal prosecutors, investigators, analysts, and fbi agents who work on counterterrorism.

during his tenure, the justice department's work has been marked by significant national- security achievements, successfully confronting some of the most significant terrorist threats since 9/11. strengthening the department's decade-long track record of successfully prosecuting terrorists in our federal court. dismantling a number of potentially deadly plots. he has forged and strengthen the international partnerships that are proven so integral to our success in combating terrorism. he has secured convictions and prison sentences against the christmas day bomber, the times square bomber, and many others. he participated in a successful operation that resulted in the killing of osama bin laden last year. on behalf of the northwestern law community, i want to thank the attorney general for his

service to the legal profession. please join me in welcoming the honorable eric holder, attorney general of the united states. [applause] >> this is my kind of crowd. i have not said a word and i already have a standing ovation. thank you, dean rodriguez for your kind words. and also for the outstanding leadership you provide for our nation's legal community. it is a privilege to be with you today and to be among the distinguished faculty, members, staff, alumni, students.

for more than 150 years, this law school has served as a training ground for future leaders and as a meeting place for issues of national concern. this afternoon, i am honored to be a part of this tradition. i am grateful for the opportunity join with you in discussing a defining issue of our time. a most critical responsibility that we share. how we will stay true to america's founding and an enduring promises of security, justice, and liberty. since this country's earliest days, the american people have risen to this challenge. as we have seen, and president john f. kennedy described it best, in the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in

its hour of maximum danger. half a century has passed since those words were spoken, but our nation confronts national security threats that demand are constant attention. we have reached an hour of danger. we are a nation at war. in this war, we face a nimble and determined enemy that cannot be underestimated. i begin each day with a briefing on the latest and most urgent threats made against us in the past 24 hours. i go to sleep each night thinking of how best to keep our people safe. i know that more than a decade after the september 11 attacks, there are people currently

plotting to murder americans. they reside in distant countries as well as within our own borders, disrupting and preventing these plots and using every available and appropriate tool to keep the american people save has been and will remain this administration's top priority. just as surely as we are a nation at war, we are also a nation of laws and values. even when under attack, our actions must always be grounded on the bedrock of the constitution and must always be consider the statutes, court precedents, rule of law, and our founding ideas.

not only is this the right thing to do, history has shown that it is also the most effective approach we can take in combating those who seek to do us harm. this is not my view, my judgment is shared by senior national security officials across the government. as the president reminded us in 2009, at the national archives, we uphold our most cherished values because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. time and again, our values has been our best security assets. history proves this. we do not have to choose between security and liberty. and we will not. today i want to tell you about the collaboration across the government that defines and distinguishes this administration's national- security efforts. i also want to discuss the legal principles as well as the special role of the department of justice in protecting the

american people and upholding the constitution. before 9/11, today's level of interagency cooperation was not commonplace. government lacked the infrastructure as well as the imperative to share a national security information quickly and effectively. those who attacked us on september 11 chose military and civilian targets. they crossed borders and jurisdictional lines. it immediately became clear that no single agency could address these threats because no single agency has all of the necessary tools. to counter this enemy aggressively and intelligently, the government had to draw from all the resources and to radically update the operations. as a result, today, government agencies work together to address a range of the emerging

national security threats. the lawyers, agents, and analysts at the department of justice work closely with our colleagues across the national security community to detect and disrupt terrorist plots, to prosecute suspected terrorists, and to identify and implement the legal tools necessary to keep the american people safe. the fact and the extent of this cooperation are often overlooked in the public debate. it is something that this administation and the previous one and the previous one can be proud of. as part of this coordinated efforts, the justice department plays a key role. we must and will continue to use intelligence gathering capabilities congress has provided to collect information that can save and protect

american lives. at the same time, these tools must be subject to appropriate checks and balances, including oversight by congress as well as within the executive branch to protect the privacy and civil rights of innocent individuals. this administration is committed to making sure that our surveillance programs appropriately reflect all of these interests. the attorney general and the director of national intelligence may authorize collection aimed at foreign intelligence targets. this insures the government has the utility that it needs to identify and to respond to terrorists and other foreign threats.

the government may not use this authority to target a u.s. person here or abroad or anyone known to be in the united states. the law requires special procedures to make sure these restrictions are followed and to protect the privacy of any u.s. persons whose nonpublic information may be acquired through this program. the department of justice and the office of the director of national intelligence conduct extensive oversight reviews and will report to congress on implementation twice a year. this establishes a comprehensive regime of oversights in all three branches of government. it is the top legislative priority of our nation's intelligence community.

surveillance is only the first of many complex issues we must navigate. much has been made of the distinction between our federal civilian courts and military commissions. the reality is both incorporate fundamental due process and other protections that are essential to the administration and we should not deprive ourselves of any tool in our fight against al qaeda. our criminal justice system is renowned for its fair process and respected for its results. we are not the first administration to rely on courts to prosecute terrorists, nor will we be the last. far too many choose to ignore the fact.

the previous administration relied and criminal prosecution in federal court to bring terrorists to justice. the attempted shoe bomber, 9/11 conspirators were among the hundreds of defendants convicted of terrorism related offenses without political controversy. without political controversy during the last administration. over the past three years, we have built a remarkable record of success. he provided significant intelligence during the briefing sessions with the fbi. he described in detail how he

became inspired to carry out an active jihad and how he traveled to yemen. he made contact with a leader of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. he detailed the training that he received as well as the specific instructions to wait until the airplane was over the united states before detonating the bomb. in addition to the attempted times square bomber, three individuals who plotted an attack against jfk airports in 2007 have begun serving life sentences. convictions have been obtained in the cases of several homegrown as well. last year, a united states citizen and north carolina resident pleaded guilty to

conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and conspiracy to murder, kidnapping, and injure persons abroad. a u.s. citizen and illinois resident pleaded guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction in connection with his efforts to detonate a truck bomb outside a federal courthouse. i could go on. that is why the calls i have heard to ban the use of civilian courts and prosecutions of terrorism related activities are so baffling. they are so dangerous. these calls would significantly weaken our ability to incapacitate and punish those who attempt to do us harm. since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism in article 3 courts

and are now serving sentences in federal prison. no judicial district has suffered any type of retaliatory attacks. these are facts, not opinions. there are not two sides to this story. those who claim that our federal courts are incapable of handling terrorism cases are not registering a dissenting opinion. they are simply wrong. federal courts are not our only option brick military commissions are also appropriate and proper circumstances. we can use them as well to convict terrorists and disrupt their plots. this administration's approach has been to ensure that the military commission system is as effective as possible. strengthening the procedural protections by which the commissions are based. with the president's leadership and the bipartisan backing of congress, the military

commissions act of 2009 was enacted into law. meaningful improvement have been implemented. it is important know that the commissions draw from the same fundamental protections of a fair trial. they provide a presumption of innocence and require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. the accused has the right to counsel and the right to present evidence. they prohibit the use a statement obtained through torture. they have the right to appeal to article three judges. a key difference is that in military commissions, roles reflect the realities of the battlefield. statements may be admissible even in the absence of a miranda ordinance.

you cannot expect military personnel to administer warnings to an enemy captured in battle. instead, a military judge must make other findings. the statement is reliable and that it was made voluntarily. i have faith in the framework and the promise of our military commissions, which is why i have sent several cases to them. there is quite simply no inherent contradiction between using military commissions inappropriate cases also prosecuting other terrorists in civilian court. their differences between the systems that must be weighed carefully. such decisions about how to prosecute suspected terrorists are corp. executive branch functions.

in each case, prosecutors and counterterrorism professionals, conduct an intensive review of case specific facts. several practical considerations affect the choice. first of all, the commissions only have jurisdictions to prosecute individuals that are part of al qaeda. or you have purposely and materially supported such hostility. this means they may be members of certain terror groups that fall outside this jurisdiction of military commissions. they lack ties to al qaeda. civilian courts cover a much broader offensives. this means the federal prosecutors have a wider range of tools that can be used to incapacitate suspected terrorists.

those charges and sentences can provide important incentive to reach plea agreements and convince defendants to cooperate. there is the issue of international cooperation. a number of countries have indicated that they will not cooperate with the united states. if we intend to use that cooperation in pursuit of a military commission prosecution. the use of military commissions in the united states can be traced back to the early days of our nation in their present

form. there are less familiar to the international community that our time tested criminal justice system and article 3 courts. we will continue to reject the false idea that we must choose between military commissions and federal courts instead of using them both. if we were to fail to use all necessary and available tools at our disposal, we would undoubtedly fail in our fundamental duty to protect the nation and its people. that is not an outcome that we can accept. this administration is working

in other areas as well to ensure that counterterrorism professionals have the flexibility they need to fulfil their critical responsibilities without divergent from laws and core values. last week marked the most recent step when the president issued procedures. last tuesday, the president exercised his authority under the statute to issue procedures to make sure military custody will not disrupt ongoing law enforcement and intelligence operations. an individual could be transferred from civilian to military custody only after a thorough evaluation of his or her case. as authorized by that statute, the present wave of the requirement for several

categories of individuals. these procedures expressed intent of the sponsors of this legislation. they address the concern the president expressed when he signed this bill into law at the end of last year. i have gone into considerable detail. it is preferable to capture suspected terrorists or feasible. so we can gather the valuable intelligence from them. that we must also recognize that there are instances where the government has the clear authority and responsibility to defend the united states with the appropriate use of lethal force.

this principle has long been established under u.s. and international law. in response to the attacks perpetrated by al qaeda, the taliban, and associated forces, congress has authorized the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against those groups. we are authorized to take action under international law. a constitution empowers the president to protect the nation from any imminent threat of violent attack. an international law recognizes the inherent right of national self-defense. none of this has changed by the fact that we are not in a conventional war. our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields of afghanistan. neither congress nor our federal courts can limit the

geographic scope for us to use force. we are at war with a stateless in any -- enemy. over the last three years, al qaeda has directed several attacks against us from countries other than afghanistan. our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats. this does not mean that we can use military force whenever and wherever we want. international legal principles, including respect for another nation's sovereignty, constrain our ability to act unilaterally. the use of force in a foreign territory would be consistent with the international legal principles after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with the threat to the united states.

furthermore, it is entirely lawful under both the united states law and law of war principles to target senior operational leaders of al qaeda and associated forces. this is not a novel concept. during world war ii, the united states tracked the plane of the commander of the japanese forces and shot it down specifically because he was on board that plane. as i explained to the senate and judiciary committee following the operation had killed osama bin laden, the same rules apply today. some have called such operations assassinations. they're not. the use of that loaded term is misplaced. assassinations are unlawful killings. for the reasons i have given, the u.s. government use of

lethal force and self-defense against the leader of al qaeda or an associated force that presents an imminent threat of violent attacks would not be unlawful. it would not violate the executive order banning assassinations or criminal statutes. it is an unfortunate fact that some threats we face come from a small number of united states citizens. they have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from abroad. based on generations old legal principles and a supreme court decision, as well as during the current conflict, it is clear that the united states citizenship alone does not make such individual's immune from being targeted. it does mean that the government must take into account all relevant constitutional considerations with respect to united states citizens, even those who are leading efforts

to kill innocent americans. of these, the most relevant is the due process clause. the government may not deprive a citizen of his or her life without due process of law. the supreme court has made clear that the due process clause does not impose one size fits all requirements. it mandates procedural safeguards that depend on specific circumstances. in cases arising under the law and due process law, including a case involving a u.s. citizen, the court has applied a balancing approach. when the private interests will be affected against the interest of the government is trying to protect. where national security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities of combat. here are the interests on both sides of the scale are

extraordinarily weighty. an individual's interest in making sure the government does not target him erroneously could not be more significant. it is imperative to protect the innocent people whose lives could be lost in their attacks. in a decision to use lethal force against a united states citizen, even ones intent on murdering americans and has become an operational leader of al qaeda in a foreign land, is among the greatest leaders the government can face. the american people deserve to be assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws. i cannot discuss any particular program or operation, i believe it is important to explain this legal principles publicly. let me be clear.

an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a u.s. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill americans would be lawful in the following circumstances. the u.s. government has determined after a thorough review that the individual poses an imminent threat to of a violent attack against the united states. second, capture is not feasible. the evaluation of whether an individual presents an imminent threats incorporates considerations of the relative window of an opportunity to act, the possible harm of missing the window without cost to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disasters. as they learn to on 9/11, al

qaeda has demonstrated the ability to strike with little or no motive. devastating casualties. the leaders are continually planning attacks against the united states. they do not behave like a traditional military. given these facts, the constitution does not require the president to delay action until some theoretical in stage of planning and precise time, place, and manner. such a requirement would create an unacceptably high risk that our efforts would fail and americans would be killed. whether a capture is feasible, it is a time sensitive question. it may depend on a lot of things.

given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a united states citizen terrorist. in that case, the government has the clear authority to defend the united states with legal force. of course, any such use of lethal force by the united states will comply with the four fundamental principles governing the use of force. the principle of necessity requires the target has definite military value. the principle of distinction requires that civilians directly participating in hostilities may be targeted intentionally. under the principle proportionality, the anticipated collateral damage must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated

military advantage. finally, the principle of humanity requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering. they did not prohibit the use of technologically advanced weapons. the use other advanced weapons may help to ensure the best intelligence is available for planning and carrying out operations. some have argued this president was required to get permission from federal court before taking action against the united states citizen who was a senior operational leader of al qaeda. this is simply not accurate. due process and judicial process are not one in the same, particularly when it comes to national security. the constitution guarantees due

process. it does not guarantee judicial process. the concept and management of national security operations our core functions of the executive branch. military and civilian officials must often make a real time decisions better balance the need to act, the existence of alternative options, the possibility of collateral damage, all of which depend on expertise and immediate access to information that only the executive branch may possess in real-time. the constitution is guaranteed of due process is ironclad. it does not require judicial approval for the president to use force a broad. even if that individual happens to be a u.s. citizen.

that is not to say the executive branch should ever have the ability to target any individuals without robust oversight. that is why the executive branch informs the appropriate members of congress about our counter- terrorism activities. these circumstances are sufficient under the constitution. it is important to note the legal requirements i have described may not apply to every situation. operations that take place on traditional battlefields. the unfortunate reality is that our nation will likely continue to face terrorist threats that originate with their own citizens. when such individuals take up

arms against his country and join al qaeda, there may be only one realistic and appropriate response. we must take steps to stop them. in full accordance with the constitution. in this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until plans are carried out. this is an indicator of our times. it is not a departure from our laws and our values. this administration and for this nation, our values are clear. we must always look to them for answers when we face difficult questions, like the ones i have discussed today. as president obama reminded us at the national archives, our constitution has endorsed for civil rights, world war, and cold war. because it provides a foundation of principles that

can be applied pragmatically. it provides a compass that can help us find our way. our most sacred principles and values of security, justice, and liberty for all citizens must continue to unite us, to guide us, and to help us build a future that honors our founding document and advances are ongoing in pursuit of a safer and more perfect union. in the continuing effort to keep our people secure, his administration remains true to those values that inspired our nation's founding and over the course of two centuries, has made america an example of strength and a beacon of justice for all of the world. this is our pledge. thank you for inviting me to discuss these important issues with you. thank you so much. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> 10 states hold presidential contest today. this morning rick santorum, newt gingrich, and mitt romney will speak at the israeli/american public affairs committee. president obama local the news conference later today from the white house. live coverage at 1:15 eastern on c-span to.

-- c-span2. watch super tuesday election results tonight on the c-span network come and use our second screen web page to see results maps, a social media post from candidates and reporters, and a public forum for your tweets and other viewers. you can also monitor our blogger where we will pose super tuesday news stories. use a laptop or smart phone to extend your viewing. c-span.org/screen2. in a few moments, today's news in your phone calls live on washington journal. the house is in at 10:00 eastern to work on a terrorist measure. coming up at this hour, a business roundtable president, john engler, on president obama is addressed to the nation ceos today. consul