it becomes a much more secure process with us involved. part of the thing that motivates us, we realize veterans are at elevated risk for identity theft because the only ubiquitous for prudential about 90% of the veterans is their ggd-14 like carrying your birth certificate around with you. the only federally issued i.d. card that veterans are go to retirees who have served 20 years or more or been medically retired. so for guys like matt who's served for 12 years and guys like me who served for 7 1/2 years, we are at a disadvantage when it comes to proving our identity unless we pull out our photo album and show pictures. here i am, and things like that. >> how many members? >> we have over 140,000 members. we've gone with under armour and veterans affairs and telluride ski resort signed up

48,000 new members between november 12 and december 31. we recently had overstock, integrate into the program and right now we've got 10 or 11 foster 500 and national telecom, national airline on the integration schedule. so we think we're on a trajectory to hit somewhere between 1.5 million to three million users. that's a big delta but we're talking to some of the biggest names. >> blake hall is the c.e.o. of troop i.d. troopid.com is the website. >> thank you very much. >> c-span. created by america's cable companies in 1979. brought to you as a public service by your television rovider. >> tonight on c-span first ladies, influence and image, focuses on julia grant. then president obama honors the nation's top cops at the white house. and later, a discussion about the supreme court and the death penalty.

host: serving as first lady from 1869 to 1877, julia grant relished the role. she once commented that life inside the white house was a garden spot of orchids. growing up in a slaveholding family, she ended up as wife of the commanding u.s. general during the civil war. she and ulysses s. grant shared 37 years together that included the hardships of war, the challenges of politics, and eight years in the white house. welcome to our program, "first ladies: influence and image." tonight, julia grant. let me introduce you to our guests. bill seale is a member of our eries. he is a longtime white house historian and the author of "the president's house." pam sanfilippo is a historian at the ulysses s. grant

national historic site. she is also working on a biography of julia grant. i want to start with you. we last left the series with the johnsons after impeachment and the politics with the radical republicans in reconstruction in the south. set the stage for us as the grants come into the white house. guest: well, grant's election started off with the campaign -- "let us have peace." people were really looking to grant to kind of bring some peace and quiet to the white house and to the nation after the war and the years of the johnson administration. so, those were grant's initial efforts as he took office. host: those were the themes -- we were looking at his first inaugural address -- these were the themes he struck when he spoke to the nation for the first time? guest: yes, and he had the

added advantage of being a hero, famous even in the south, if he wasn't beloved, but everywhere else, one million young men tried to imitate this particular stance he had. he was wildly popular and clean. there was nothing dirty attached to him. i think he was a natural. host: the country was ready for him. so, talk about the first lady herself. she had been the wife of the general. that brings a certain skill set along with it. what did she bring to the role n the white house? guest: she brought an incredibly strong supporting role to the president. their lives had been that way. she ultimately was very supportive of him. she would argue and all, but she was supportive to him. they wanted to represent in the white house the ideal american family. they were not there for a few days when this huge portrait was brought in on an oxcart and

hung in the red room -- the white house had been open to the public since jefferson's time -- they put this in the red room, a huge picture of the grant family so the public could see it on the tours and see that this was their home, this was where they lived. this whole symbolic home julia grant developed. host: since you are working on a biography, tell us about her personality and what kind of woman she was. guest: she was very outgoing. in some ways, they were opposites. yet they had similarities as well. they both had a fondness of riding horses and reading. she was a very likable person. you get that not only from contemporaries of hers, but from her own memoirs as well. host: would it be fair to say she was the better politician of the two? guest: she could be very politically astute in some of her dealings with cabinet

members and their wives and the public, but she would most often defer to her husband first. host: do you have any thoughts on her and her personality? guest: she seems to have been very protective of her husband. she was not hesitant to give her opinion on things. she seems to be a woman who cut her cloth, as they used to say, exactly where she wanted it. she knew what she wanted to do, what she wanted to accomplish, and the rest of the stuff could be arranged. host: she was unusual in the fact that she had been educated. she completed something like 15-16 years of school. guest: yes, she had gone to a neighborhood school as a young child with her siblings, and then to a female academy in the city of st. louis, a boarding school that she attended until about age 18. host: the grant administration is a two-termer.

it was full of so many stories, it was hard for us to find a few to put on the screen to give you a sense of what it was like. in 1870, president grant was successful in having the 15th amendment to the constitution ratified, giving people the right to vote regardless of ace. of course, still not women. in 1871, the force acts were passed -- that was anti-kkk legislation. that was something president grant was much involved in. that was to protect voters in the south against the rising work of the kkk. 1873 -- we will talk more about this later -- the panic of 1873, a big downturn that resulted from some of the policies of the administration. in 1876, the battle little big horn was fought. that is some of the important points during the administration. as he brings on his cabinet, the story of the grant administration is that they

were no strangers to political patronage. what kind of advisers did he surround himself with, and how involved was julia in the process? guest: most of the people that grant appointed, at least to his cabinet, he either knew of or knew personally. for example, elihu washburn secretary of state washburn. it was kind of a thank you for having supported, for washburn having supported him through the war. others were business people that he thought would do the est job. some of them turned out to be not so press-worthy, as deserving of it. host: tone is often set at the top. what kind of tone do the grants

set for his cabinet and administration? guest: first of all, grant made decisions himself, which caused friction with congress, especially those in congress who thought he should consult with them. uest: the whole theme of the era was great success. it was before the national panic of 1873. whether it was in business or military or what, he was attracted to those kind of people. they entertained them, they associated with them, and it was certainly a more loose supervision by the government than today over what politicians did. the idea was that grant would

e the chief executive over a great company. the white house was called the executive mansion. the executive mansion, this is where the executive of the great nation lives, and the congress was the board that ran the country. that is oversimplifying, but that was the idea. grant did not always stick with it. host: you know the insides of the white house like nobody else. we have some video of the white house treaty room. we will show that to people right now. that was the room that grant used for his cabinet. we are looking at the pictures right now. can you tell us about the table in the room? guest: they purchased the table. the grants purchased the table in 1871 in philadelphia. it has been in the white house ever since. it was brought back to use in the kennedy administration, but it was used through the beginning of theodore roosevelt

administration. a very elaborate carved table, supposedly made for the same purpose. that room was a sitting room always. lincoln made it into a reception room where you took reports, clerks took reports to register them. andrew johnson took it in as a cabinet room. grant refurbished it as a cabinet room. other things you see here, the sofa in the back, and different things, those were in the house at that time. it was a grubbier room than it was today, spittoons, political memorobilia. host: president grant used to smoke cigars each day? guest: yes, he picked up that habit in the civil war. he was sent cigars in appreciation. he had so many, he began smoking them on a very regular basis. host: we invite your

participation in our program. that is what makes it work for us this week. you can do it in a number of ways. you can call us. ere are the phone lines -- you can also send us a message on facebook. we already have interesting questions coming in. find c-span's facebook page. you can tweet us. use #firstladies. julia grant, by all accounts, loved life in the white house. here is one quote similar to the one we used at the outset -- guest: she considered herself hostess to the nation. she was going to do her best to ensure that she acted in that manner that the public would

have received very well. she did compare her time there to her life, her early life at white haven. i think that was more a reflection of the fact that it was the first time in many ears that the family spent eight years together without eparation.

host: because of his war duties? guest: correct. guest: part of her job as she envisioned it was to make this a model house for the nation. other first ladies felt that as well. it was part of grant's program. they entertained very lavishly, and not in a fancy, but an elegant sense. she handled that very well herself. grant brought his own cronies in as much as he could. he brought a cook in from the army as chef at the white house. he would serve big roast beef slices, apple pie with cheese on it, and diplomats were horrified. julia let him go. she hired another chef, a well-known chef in new york. he came there and turned it into a very cosmopolitan table. flowers, costumes, she was very stringent about rules. all the white house staff had worn business suits. they were half guard, half staff. they had to be well-dressed. there is a story she tells herself -- women would come to noon receptions, and if you did not wear a hat, you were part of the house party. if you did, you were an outside guest. women from time to time would go into the coat room to take their hats off and come out, and mrs. grant said they never repeated that a second time. host: how was this received by the nation? one other thing happening was there was a burgeoning press corps and lots of coverage of

the couple in the white house. guest: people were so interested in him and all the details of what he did. he would appear in public. he and his friends would get in races down pennsylvania avenue with their horses. as you know, grant was absolutely a horseman to his soul. his father dealt in horses. he was raised that way. grant knew horses. he had quite a stable. he brought his own coachman to the white house, albert hawkins. hawkins stayed there, until the automobile took over, as head of the stables. he was a black man and wore a special uniform and managed the stables with his staff. grant would spend time in the stables. the public liked it because it looked good, successful, peaceful, and of course, the

accumulation of successful friends -- which was one of the sad things, he trusted people that he should not have trusted. guest: while there was this pulence on one level, he was very down-to-earth and the fact that there were four children at home. julia grant closed off the backyard so the children could play. host: how people understand the economy of the united states at this point -- was the south still reeling after the events of the war? guest: it depends on where you were. louisiana sugarcane back on its feet, until the hurricane of 1883. you go into mississippi, it was pretty horrible. it was not all blamed on sherman. it was the collapse of the cotton market. the english went to india,

egypt for cotton the last few years of the blockade, it broke them. 6000 union soldiers elected to settle in new orleans. it was not all like "gone with the wind." it was coming back, but it was a different culture. it would not be agricultural. it would not have that until later in the 19th century. host: the north was in the midst of a great big industrial revolution. the days of the big financiers on wall street. tell us about what was happening there. guest: thanks in part to the machinery of war. guest: it was a continuation of the war and an expansion, and they were getting ready for the centennial of the nation and howing off the advances that had been made in the past 100 years. most of those were technological advances, the old farming equipment to the new modern technology,

transcontinental railroad, transportation was bringing people closer together, making it much easier to get cross-country. host: here are a few of the big things that happened in the grant presidency. as pam mentioned, the transcontinental railroad was completed in 1869 as the grants were coming into the white house. 1870, the establishment of the national weather service and the issuance of the first forecast. 1871, the great chicago fire happened. in 1872, the first national park was established in yellowstone. as we just heard, the philadelphia centennial exhibition. how big a deal was it for the nation to celebrate its anniversary? guest: absolutely huge. it was almost like a world fair. people from all over the world attended it. it was really a time for america to shine and to show that it was coming into its own as a world power. guest: mrs. grant loved it. she bought two things for the

white house from there -- one was a shield that showed characters from milton's "paradise lost." then she bought a more endearing piece -- she hated the old james monroe centerpiece with mirrors on it -- she bought a hiawatha centerpiece, which was about this big, and it shows a canoe in the middle and hiawatha lounging on a bearskin rug. that was the new centerpiece for the white house. she bought it there on exhibit. it is still in the silver closet at the white house. host: on twitter -- who were the first lady's staff at this point in the process? guest: there was no social secretary then. usually the ladies got together and filled out the blanks for invitations. it was president and mrs. grant

and the honorable blank and blank. their friends would come over for tea party and they would fill out the blanks. she had mary mueller as the housekeeper. is that the one who traveled to europe with her? guest: i think so. guest: they were very close. she called her "most excellent woman." i daresay she helped with some of that. most of the social duties, there might be a clerk from the office who would help, but there was no social secretary until theodore roosevelt. host: here is a question about their days preceding the white house -- guest: i would say yes. guest: yes, actually, because grant was still head of the army after the war and for a short while interim secretary of war. she talks about the reception that she held, they held in their home in dc and that it

was a natural progression into the white house. guest: don't you think she was one of those women that attracted people too? she was a personable woman and she cared about people. when somebody had a hard time, she went to them. she was a nice person. people were attracted to her. host: one of the interesting stories, it alludes to tensions between mary lincoln and julia grant. julia grant would come during the war years, certainly sometimes with the general, but it seemed as though there were some bit of competition that mary lincoln might have felt. let me read you this little paragraph from a book called "rating the first ladies" by john roberts. he writes, "on another occasion, julia was in a military camp when mary lincoln visited. she imperiously commanded julia to leave the room as is done in royal courts. mary ordered julia to back away from her, so julia would never turn her back on the first lady, as if the first lady were a queen and julia a mere

commoner. if the humiliating treatment was intended to provoke an outburst, mary lincoln failed. julia later denied she had any ill feeling about her treatment at the hands of the first lady." guest: i'm not familiar with that particular story. guest: i could've happened during the steamboat days when richmond was being defeated. there were problems there with ms. lincoln. she is very kind in her recollections of ms. lincoln, but when those recollections were dictated, it was years later. ms. lincoln's tragedy had happened, her insanity and all of that. there were problems with mrs. lincoln. mrs. lincoln was very jealous of women and lincoln. i can't think -- there is absolutely no reason for that -- but she was. she would be very ugly to people. general love made a remark once -- there was a feisty horse, and he said, you need a feisty horse like that to keep up with her husband, words to that effect.

mrs. lincoln said, what do you mean by that, sir? host: we are going to see videos of a few of the grants preserved sites. how many are there ltogether? guest: there are several homes that are owned and operated by the national park service or the various states they are located in. then grant's tomb, and each of the battlefields at connecting sites, and then there are some that are no longer there. host: the first one is in galena, illinois. this sounds fairly shocking, but because of his great achievement in the war, when he came home, people built for him a fully furnished house, more than one of them. how was that viewed in the day? was that considered ethically appropriate to do? guest: apparently so. it was welcoming a hero. guest: look at the british at wellington.

it was done. houses were given to people in various places. it is unusual to see in american history, but it was certainly done with him. he had to sell most of them. they were fully furnished. host: we will visit the galena, illinois house. this was where the grants lived in the years after the war and before coming to the white house. let's take a look. it sets the stage for their residency. >> this home was a gift that 13 businessmen from galena purchased to give to the grant family, in appreciation for his service during the war. julia mentions in her memoirs coming up the hill and being presented this lovely villa that she said was furnished with "everything good taste could offer." this is the parlor which was the entertainment part of the home. of course, we know julia was an avid entertainer. she loved it.

the family spent quite a bit of time here in the parlor. we know mrs. grant and their daughter nellie played the piano. you can imagine the family sitting here, the general inhis favorite chair, the other boys listening to their sister and mother play songs for them. they entertained in here. julia and maybe nellie played a song for their guests. grant launched his presidential campaign from galena, and his headquarters were located at the desoto hotel in downtown galena. the day after his election, grant and julia opened up their home and the parlor for people, townsfolk, to file through and congratulate both of them on his election and the next step of their lives. this is the general and mrs. grant's bedroom. the bed is the oldest piece we have in the house, probably the most personal. this is the original bed they brought to galena from white haven, putting down roots in galena. they left it here even throughout all their travels this was always here for them when they came back.

this has mrs. u.s. grant on it. she probably kept papers, pens, her correspondence in here for when she was either writing letters or receiving them. religion was important for mrs. grant. her grandfather was a methodist minister. growing up, it was very important for them. he pew they used at the church is still marked. we have a bible given to mrs. grant by the methodist episcopal church in 1888. this is the dressing room, the most personal space in the house relating to julia grant. this was the room she would come in to get ready in the morning, get ready in the evening, ready for bed, and to come in, maybe to get a little solitude from everybody in the house. we have a lot of personal things that belonged to mrs. grant. we have her sewing kit that she probably would have used to

mend socks for the kids or the general, sew a button on. we have pairs of her size-4 shoes that she wore and some purses she would've used as they were going out on the town, visiting on a sunday afternoon. a majority of the furnishings we still have in the house belonged to the grant family when they were here. if they walked through the door, they would recognize this house and probably feel at home. this was where he came back after he was a military hero. he started his political career here. this is where he was living when he was elected, when she became first lady, and this was home to them right before then. host: a question on twitter guest: they visited there for a while as they did at white haven, but settled in new york in part to be closer to three of the children.

their boys were living in new york city, and their daughter was in europe. part of it, we think, was the social life in new york was a little bit more enjoyable for julia than galena or st. louis. host: the grants had five children, four who lived to maturity. guest: four. host: one child died -- guest: no. host: that is just bad information? oh my goodness. guest: they only had four children. host: you do find things from book to book that are contradictory. guest: then, nellie renounced her citizenship and was english. we haven't talked about nellie's wedding. host: and we shall talk about nellie's wedding. we just saw the family life that they created in galena, illinois. talk about the life they created in the white house. guest: one thing i would like to tell about the family life, that makes me want to have been a fly on the wall, general grant -- as you face the white house from pennsylvania avenue, on your right, there were greenhouses built on the top of the wing, the west wing, not the offices, but just a straight wing -- general grant

built between that and a house a billiard, which had stained-glass in it and a billiard table, and he would invite his civil war cronies to play billiards and smoke cigars and maybe drink a little, and they would end up going into the red room and reliving the battles, taking an object off the table and putting it on the floor, this is memphis, vicksburg. imagine being able to see that. that is the informality they lived in with their friends. they hayeses were very moralistic. they tore the billiard room down immediately. host: we also had some video from the white house family dining room. it was told that the grants would gather there for breakfast everyday.

what is that room like today? guest: it is very dressy today. it doesn't look anything like it did. it reflects more theodore roosevelt, what theodore roosevelt did during 1902. there was always a clock on the table. you served through a pantry through those doors on the side. dishes were washed there. the family gathered there at this great big table. not every family did. through the door was then a hall and staircase and a big dining room where state occasions were held. in 1902, this room was turned around and incorporated into a dining room. it is the state dining room of today. host: the grant family had four children. were all of them living at the white house? guest: the oldest son received an appointment to west point under the johnson administration.

he was coming and going. the younger children were still there. julia talks about the dining room table, how ulysses sometimes with the kids would play around, play games, and take pieces of bread and roll it into a ball of dough and throw it at the kids, the boys. guest: she disapproved. guest: she also recalled upstairs in the private family area, the children and ulysses coming into her room about a half an hour before dinner, and they would all just sit and talk and visit and share their day's comings and goings. she would recall that fondly. guest: they were very lenient parents. i think fred was the most disciplined. then buck, the second one, ulysses, a little less, and jesse, he actually talked back.

he could checkmate a lot of the things his father said. they thought it was funny. i don't think it hurt any of them in later life. host: here is our first caller. caller: hi, how are you? i would like to know more about julia dent grant. i understand that her family is the dent family. can you talk more about her family, the dent family? host: very briefly, because we will spend more time on that later. give us a quick synopsis. guest: julia's parents came to st. louis in 1816. they established their family in the city of st. louis and then a country home out at white haven where she grew up spending most of her summers and year-round. she had four older brothers and two younger sisters. it was a fairly large family. the consider themselves southerners, her father did.

they were a slaveholding family. there were as many as 30 slaves that colonel dent utilized the labor of. host: that created tension between the two families? guest: when ulysses and julia were married in the city of st. louis, none of the grants attended the wedding reportedly because they did not approve of ulysses marrying into a slaveholding family. host: did dent live in the white house at some time? how was that received? guest: colonel kent was a jolly old man. he was very heavy, white-headed, and funny. he was very witty. that is probably where she got it. grant's father jesse would come in, who was a horse trader and entrepreneur, and he would go around the departments to try to make them buy horses and hides or whatever from him.

the two of them would -- their rapport was unbelievable. the colonel called jesse grant "that old gentleman over there." they teased each other a lot. it was good-natured. it would've been stopped if it had not been. host: very different views about the world. guest: the old colonel was very lovable. jesse grant was never around enough. he was always wheeling and dealing. host: on facebook -- guest: i think that is quite fair, a good remark. she brought a real order and organization. she had to manage the money, the people, the servants, and all

the payrolls, and she very much interacted with them. there was one named henry harris who had a lot of children. she suggested that he start buying washington real estate. he died a wealthy man. she forced him to put part of his salary into that. jerry smith was another favorite of hers, of the members of the staff. she ran the whole thing with the help of the doormen. i think that is a likely remark, the way the military was organized. host: she found the white house in a state of disrepair. bill, who studies the white house, has a bit of a different view, but you and i read about the fact that there were infrastructure problems, and she tackled this and did great refurbishments of this. what do you know if it? ofat do you know if it?--

it? guest: i think a lot of it was the perception she wanted to present to the public. this was the nation's home, as well as their home. they were only temporary residents. she was concerned in some ways, the fact that she was from the west, as she called it, which missouri was at the time -- that she did not have the social acumen that many of the eastern families would've expected. she wanted to ensure that what she did would meet with the approval of the nation and those social elites. she immediately talks about not even moving into the white house right away, because she is going through and cleaning things up and getting things organized. host: the money for that came from congress, congress appropriated the money? guest: through andrew johnson initially. his daughter, mrs. patterson, she had completely redone the white house inside and repainted and decorated.

julia grant says in her memoir that she went in and changed the furniture around. it was very stylish in the 1860s not to have sets. people were reacting to mass production. mrs. patterson had everything mixed up and all the rooms so it would look artistic. mrs. grant went in and pulled everything together in sets again. she put tidy bows on the back of the furniture. she did that, and of course, they later redecorated the east room and did some work in 1874 on the house. host: the style was what? guest: they call it neo-greco. sometimes they call it steamboat gothic. host: i cannot get that in my mind. [laughter] were the children educated at home or in school? guest: they did attend school even during the war. the boys were sent to various schools. once the grants moved east, once

his responsibilities called him east, the boys went to school in burlington, new jersey. jesse and nellie would have been schooled in washington, d.c. host: we didn't really establish this, but it was implied or inferred -- michael asks on twitter -- was this something she supported? guest: she did, but she was initially hesitant. she said she always wanted to marry a dashing lieutenant and always thought of herself as the wife of the general. initially, this change into the presidency was a little -- she wasn't sure about it. she wasn't sure if ulysses really wanted it either. she asked him, and he said, no. he really wasn't interested in it, but felt he was the one that the nation could best use at the time. guest: she was happy as an army wife. she loved the army and army people.

he was still a famous general. she relished that. however, eight years later, she was not so happy about leaving the presidency. host: we should say that in those years in between -- this is the story of their life, so many ups and downs economically, great success and then ruin -- after he left the army, he struggled. he struggled to find something he could do well. guest: he resigned from the military in 1854. he was stationed on the west coast. julia was living at white haven in st. louis. she had made the journey with him two years earlier because she was pregnant with her second child. grant resigns from the military in 1864 to come back to st. louis. rather ironically, he supposedly told somebody, "if anybody hears from me in 10 years, they will know of me as an old missouri farmer." of course, 1864, he was general of all the armies during the

war. host: what a turn. guest: he came back to st. louis to farm, just getting started, and those years, it was rather difficult. throughout the country there was economic panic. bad weather. he held a couple of different jobs in the city of st. louis and then moved to galena. host: we will show more of that later. i do not want to leave the section of the life and the white house. a lot of people are asking about the daughter, nellie, being married in the white house. guest: it was a sweeping, romantic, dramatic event that happened in the white house. nellie was 17. she met alernon sartoris, an englishman, on a ship and they were engaged to be married. the parents disapproved because she was going to england. she was so young.

mrs. grant said, "oh so young." the wedding took place may the 21st, 1874. they redecorated the east room for it, leaving the basic woodwork and adding a lot more, mirrors, all sorts of things, and the nation went wild. there weren't a lot of invitations, 200, i think. the streets were mobbed. you could not get near the place. walt whitman -- i brought this walt whitman was there, and wrote, "o bonnie bride! yield thy red cheeks today unto a nation's loving kiss." it was carried in all the papers. it was the most wonderful thing. she married the need two huge wedding bells. stewart would have a table with his name on it. there was a wedding breakfast, and then they left on their honeymoon.

they lived in england where she renounced her citizenship, which she later very much regretted. she partitioned congress to get back and did get it back. guest: i think she had to renounce her citizenship by marrying somebody from england and moving over there. guest: not very happily. guest: reportedly after the wedding was over, grant went upstairs, fell on the bed, and wept, he was so upset his daughter was leaving. guest: the guy was a womanizer and drank a lot and spent a lot of money. it was not happy. they had four children? guest: one died in infancy. guest: he died in 1890- something. host: we've shown so many photographs of julia grant, and they are often from the side. one of our viewers is asking on twitterbook -- excuse me, facebook -- [laughter]

i read that mrs. grant was injured as a child and never saw straight again. was this true and how did she stay so active and involved in the war? guest: i have read one instance where it was supposedly caused by an injury. but my understanding is that she was born with what today we would call a lazy eye. one eye turned in. she was very self-conscious about that. she felt she needed to do something about it. on two separate occasions, she attempted to have the surgeon work on her eye to fix it. grant found out about it and told her that he had fallen in love with her the way she was, and he might not like her half as much if she had her eyes surgically corrected. host: marty is watching this in lancaster, ohio. you are on. caller: i have a question. it has been rumored that president grant liked to drink a

lot. how did julia handle the situations where he was getting drunk? guest: well, there is not a whole lot of proof that grant was a drunk. he drank. a lot of people drank. there are stories about him being drunk, secondhand stories and things like that, but when you lay it all on the table, it doesn't go very far. he wasn't a binge drinker type of person that anybody has been able to prove. he went through a lot of trouble in the years before the civil war. he had hard times in business and half the people in the united states had a hard time in business. it was a national depression of the worst kind. it was only ended by production in the civil war. he was trying to do business in those terrible years. there really isn't much documentation for him being drunk all the time. guest: rumors are greatly exaggerated. some of the things i've looked

at have indicated that perhaps on the west coast after being separated from his family for two years, he was definitely depressed and missing them. there is no evidence that he was forced to resign from the military at that time. later, at times during the civil war when some of these rumors came up again, it seems to have often been when other generals were jealous of grant's success. this was one way to possibly bring him down a step or two. it was not successful. of course, lincoln is rumored to have said -- although it is not a proven story -- that when congressmen came to him saying, remove grant, he is a drunk, he cannot be running the army, he reportedly asked of them, find

out what type of alcohol grant was drinking, and he would order barrels for all of his generals. host: because of his success. [laughter] we have so much to cover in so little time. often when you see historians' analysis of the grant administration, it ranks very close to the bottom for the many scandals that encompassed the administration. what were the most important ones, and what were the effects on the presidency? guest: historians have been reassessing grant's presidency. i think c-span's own 10-year survey has moved him from 33, 13 years ago, to 23. he is improving in perspective. a lot of that has to do with his actions regarding civil rights for the newly freed african- americans in the country.

host: he did do that, but it doesn't take away from the domestic scandals and the corruption and those sort of things. we need to talk about it. guest: they were peripheral to him. i would say all of them had been going on before his time, some as far back as lincoln. host: some suggest that julia grant was in the middle of this. do you contest that? guest: yes. she talks about the black friday incident where fisk and gould try to capture the gold market, corner the gold market. julia talks in her memoirs, that the only she knew about was when grant had her write a letter to her sister-in-law who was actually grant's sister virginia who was married to abel corbin, who was reportedly involved in this, trying to persuade grant, and grant has her write to virginia saying, be careful.

then he turns around and sells off government gold to bring that to a stop. host: martha is watching us in charleston, south carolina. caller: hi, susan. thanks again for another terrific show. you alluded to my question earlier in the show about the possible tension between julia grant and mary lincoln. then you visited the beautiful galena home that was given to the grants. i'm not sure, was it during the same time period that mary lincoln was try to get a pension out of the government, and here grant has a home given to him -- mary lincoln was in germany trying to educate her son tad, and i believe the grants later visited mary lincoln in france.

guest: no, they crossed paths, but julia said she did not find out about mary lincoln being in the same town they were in until they were on their way out and could not change their plans. host: do you agree with the irony that mary lincoln was struggling and looking for a pension after her husband was chief executive during the war and the grants were just given these homes? guest: it seems extremely unfair to mrs. lincoln. guest: she was seeking pension from the government, and the houses were given by private people. there is a difference. if the congress did not approve of pensions -- and congress -- they are remembered as thugs in a popular way -- they were vigilant. it was not all that bad a congress. they were vigilant. they exposed these three major scandals, the one closest to the white house being orville

babcock, and he's almost part of the family. he got involved -- host: through congressional oversight -- guest: yes, he was tried. general grant testified. guest: he submitted testimony. he didn't actually come to st. louis. guest: the first time a president had ever done that in a criminal trial. host: next to sherry in independence, missouri. caller: you answered my question about her eyesight. i have another question, being so well educated for the time, did julia speak other languages? i also understand that after the grants left the white house, that they were really party animals. i'll hang up. thank you. guest: she may have learned soml basis that i know of. during the world tour, which may be what the caller is referring

to, they took a two and a half year world tour and were welcomed by the public and by royalty throughout the world. most of the time, they had to have an interpreter while they were there. host: we learned that at least mary lincoln thought washington looked down upon her as a westerner. the question from dave on twitter -- guest: i never found that at all. she was more sure of herself and not insecure like mary lincoln. she went after it. she was one of those people that jumped in the middle. she considered herself the head of woman society in the capital. she was accepted. she was friends with all those kind of people in washington, all the embassies and everywhere. she was a go-getter. mary lincoln sat back and waited for people to come to her. host: we are going to visit another one of the sites associated with the grants.

we will learn more about the influence of her early childhood at white haven farm outside of st. louis. [video clip] >> this is the front porch of the historic home known as white haven where julia dent grant spent many of her childhood years. she was born in the city of st. louis. she spent all of her summers initially and year-long out here as she grew up, watching boys play out in the yard or her sister playing the guitar and singing on the front porch. it is where she has her earliest memories of father lifting her up in the air, telling her that the trees were waiting and welcoming her back to her childhood home. that was when she was about two years old. a very early memory. they would have ventured through the front door into the foyer. from here, they would've gone up frequently into the former parlor where they would've been

welcomed by colonel and mrs. dent, julia at her mother's knee, learning how to be a lady and welcome guests and company to the home. some of julia's fondest memories from the dining room here at white haven include the meals that were served here. meals were always served by the dents' enslaved housekeepers. they talked about white china with gold trim. she talks about the slave cook making maryland biscuits and the games that would be played over the dinner table with the children, as well, talking and laughing about the days activities. from here, after dinner, the guests would've -- family and friends would've come into the sitting room, which is really where the family would've spent more of their personal time in the evening, playing games on the game table, checkers or

chess, things like that. julia would've played with some dolls. lots of reading taking place. on the second floor of white haven were two rooms that served as bedrooms for the family. her parents typically would've had one bedroom. julia and her sisters would've shared most likely this bedroom. in the 19th century, frequently, when you had a nice upstairs porch area, the boys would've slept out there in the summertime. we know much about white haven from her, those memoirs. she is the first first lady to ever write her memoirs. she spent a lot of time talking about her life here at white haven. host: there we saw our guest pam sanfilippo in her day job. [laughter] guest: the grants had the house painted after he had purchased the property from julia's family

in 1874. during the civil war they purchased it. host: reed williams asks -- guest: he was about 5'8". she was around 5'2". they met at white haven. he had been a roommate of julia's brother fred dent at west point, and after graduation from west point, he was stationed at jefferson barracks, which is five miles south of the city of st. louis. fred invited ulysses to visit his family out at white haven. grant did that in september of 1843. in february of 1844, julia returned home from the boarding school she was attending in the city, and julia says that initially his visits had been about once a week to white haven, but once she returned

home, his visits were daily. he proposed to her within three months. host: we learn from you they were slaveholding family. a number of questions about their families and personal attitudes towards slavery. here is one -- guest: initially she did. she had been born and raised at white haven with the enslaved individuals providing everything that she needed. in fact, at one point, she says, she thought the house kept itself with all the work that was being done by those individuals. there were as many as 30 slaves, according to the census record. once she met, fell in love with, and married ulysses, it kind of put her in the middle between

these two opposing viewpoints. she talks about growing up, some of those enslaved individuals were her playmates, playing in the yard with her, carrying her to school, things like that. these are the same individuals who would provide the work on the farm. the older individuals she considered part of the family, aunt, uncle, a typical southern way of addressing these individuals. she would consider them part of the family. they obviously did not. host: with the grants have been the last slave holding family and the white house? guest: there was one slave that he acquired from julias' father that he freed in 1859.

julia, although she talked about having four slaves given to her by her father, she did not own any. her father never made illegal transfer. e a transfer. i think, though, counting william jones. guest: they all left white haven. guest: before they were legally free by missouri. host: is sitting on true story that when she made trips to visit grant from the battlefield that she brought slaves? that is a true story? even fighting the civil war? guest: as a nurse for her children. host: was the irony not lost on her? it does not seem to have ben. -- have been. guest: she needed the help, and

she even talked about how black julia was almost captured at free springs and did herself on one of the troops. host: related to this -- regina on twitter asked -- she,: i only know that when asked of colored people in the request for b-2 -- were to be admitted to the reception. she said, yes. she said she'd never remembered any. her treatment of the staff at the white house, it was a personal one-on-one thing with her. how shee how -- that is saw african-americans, as a personal relationship. as apart from the bigger issue.

prescott, arizona. you are on the air. caller: what kind of retirement did grant received after the war? of retirement fee from the government you mean? was there a pension? guest: no, they're worse not. hisas not until shortly for death that congress awarded him a pension right before he died. host: and we will talk about how he found a way to make money later on. we have a half around on hour l. guest: do you have a minute for a story? host: always, especially if it is a good one. guest: grant was small. you always think of them as scruffy with a beard and a cigar. when he was a young lieutenant, he was very small for a military

man. there were down in mexico, and the mexican war, and the soldiers were being entertained and they got together and did a production of othello. and grant was elected to play desdemona. later when the famous actress, came to entertain the troops that took the part of desdemona, the audience booed and put grant on stage. host: following up on the question about her views about women, they are asking -- if she hadt know influence on that decision. she did become friends with susan b. anthony. and although she was not working for suffrage for women, she did refuse to sign an anti- suffrage petition that was going around, which was duly noted.

and she has certainly learned during the war years, when she was forced to take on roles that typically the husbands would have assumed, she learned how to become independent and felt that women should have some role in decision making. host: we are going to visit another of the sites. what is it and where is it? from: when grant resigned the army and came back to st. louis they lived for short time at the main house white haven. but living under his father-in- law's roof was not what he wanted for his family. forso he built a log cabin juliette and their children as a family group. and so we are going to see that log cabin. >> we recall that julia dent was from a very wealthy family. we will see what kind of house that ulysses s. grant built for them is their first mary home --

married homestead together. let's take a look. [video clip] >> we are standing inside hard scrabble, a two story log cabin that grant for his family in 1856. >> julia did not like it one bit. she found it crude and homely. but true to her nature, she will make the best of it. farming, having his own home on his land, having their own place to begin their life again, to renew their marriage, is what inspires grant. julia is comfortable with that. she wants her own home, too. as a young woman she would want to be mistress of her own home. she thought that he could have built something as nice as white haven. the cabin itself may be rustic -- whitewash would have been typical not only to help with

bugs but white reflects light so the rooms would have been open and a little more cheery but so rustic. with would have brought her things, because as a privileged child she would have had fine china and fine furniture that would have been comfortable chairs and a broad table, because you have at this point, she had five people eating in this dining room. these are not set up for cooking. the kitchen at the back with servants. enslaved people coming and serving julia and ulysses and their children. it is important for them. inn though they do not live that very long, this represents their very first home together. ofia will gain a great deal confidence as a wife and mother. it starts here at hard scrabble.

>> a question from sheldon cooper, "as an army wife, did julia find any location more her home than any other? >> she considered white haven her home. in her memoirs, she again compared the white house to whitehaven because of the home that represented. they traveled so much and had so many different headquarters or homes are around the country that it would have been next to impossible, but she created home wherever she was for her family. >> it is the purview of army spouses over the years. we have one more video of white haven, the beautiful green structure we showed you earlier, but you have to go to our web site. each week we are putting a feature on c- span.org/firstladies.

showve a video that will you the grants' life together. boy, does it look green. next is john watching us in washington state. you are on the air. caller: my name is john grant, no relation, but my great granduncle was on general grant's staff. i have a copy of his diary and in it it mentions a number of times when he was in washington that he would have lunch with general grant's wife. anybodys wondering if could elaborate on that. mostly hear about general grant and his war escapades, but afterwards, and has anybody ever heard of that?

blair,arried elizabeth which was her grandfather was the secretary or postmaster general under lincoln. >> they were very close to the grants, the blairs. guest: julia entertained so much that quite possible and i recognize the name comstock from the civil war years. whitelia's memoirs in the house. and frequently, congressman or people who were looking to get into see grant would try and do that through julia or to gain favor from grant, they would free the we go through julia because she was accessible to them. host: our next is a call from judy in brooklyn.

caller: since general grant smoked so many cigars, i was wondering if julia or the children had any respiratory problems. and my other question was, since england had leaned so heavily towards the confederacy, what were the relations during the grant administration with england? guest: good questions. neither julia nor the children ended up with respiratory problems. of course, grant ended up with throat cancer from smoking cigars. so it did eventually kill him. as far as england was concerned, one of the first issues that grant had to deal with as president was the claims against england for their support of the confederacy. he sets up the first ever international arbitration. and is credited with peacefully

to solving the dispute with england. host: this is larry in pennsylvania. caller: hello. i have been watching your series and enjoyed them. i have recently read "the general's wife" by isabel ross. and one of the comments she makes in her book is that julia's father did not care for ulysses. i was wondering if you could comment on that. told: he did say that he grant that she would not like the military life. he was very dubious. she had been raised with everything. and would definitely have to do without. guest: and they also had a disagreement over slavery. guest: i think he thought that grant was not going to amount to much financially and would not be able to give her what she took for granted. yes, ms. ross was absolutely right about that. guest: julia was the first

daughter born after four sons. and according to julia, colonel dent offered, he told ulysses that the life of the army was not what julia was fit for. he offered her sister nelle to grant, which grant obviously turned down. and continue to try to convince colonel dent that he would be the one to make julia happy. host: some of his concerns may have been valid because ulysses s. grant was a great general, but most of the venture's he got involved with, he had a difficult time. guest: in 1844, nobody knew grant would become a success -- he was in the army.

he actually did not intend to stay in the army. he wanted to get out and be a math professor. host: but let's look look at his post white house years. even after he has all of his experience, he then goes on to a career and wall street and loses lots of money. guest: his son. guest: fred. guest: who is the joint -- guest: i thought it was fred. didn't fred lose the first? guest: it affected all the family fortunes. ward had everybody fooled. he was making everybody mining hand over fist. -- money hand over fist. and that should have rungs some bells, like today it doesn't. guest: he made off. guest: grant lost just about everything. host: how was it that grant lost all his money or states? was it due to his drinking?

was he a gambler? financially irresponsible? guest: he was not a man who concentrated on finance. i do not think that was the first thing in his life. he would have liked to have had a lot of money, but i think a lot of other things interested him. host: was he a bad judge of character? guest: he talks about when this financial failure happens with ward where word comes to ulysses jr and to grant himself and says that they are in financial straits and the bank. can you borrow some money? and we need to get through the next few days. and grant except that, borrowers $150,000 from william vanderbilt. and ward ensconced with the --

absconds with the money to canada. and the fortune is lost -- ward absconds with the with the money -- with the money. host: we have not talked about them leaving the white house. there were no restrictions on running for a third term. did the grants which to seek a third term? guest: he didn't. she did. when he declined, he did not tell her. he gave the letter to them without telling her, and she began to be suspicious. they are in the upstairs and the hall of the white house and she says, you cannot do this. you can't do this to me. host: wanted to continue being first lady? guest: and he said, it is done. she seems to have held up fine until inaugural day when they got into the the train car. and then she said she went to the bedroom and fell on the bed and sobbed and cried.

she hated to leave the place. guest: she said she felt like a waif with no home, because she was not sure what was going to happen. guest: surely, she had felt that before. host: she was loathe to leave. did they plot a comeback? guest: when they returned from the world tour, there are those who felt like he should run for office again. especially with all of this foreign relations experience. and he was interested at that point, feeling again that he could be of service to the country. julia says they were in chicago when the convention met, and she tried to encourage him to go downstairs and meet at the convention, knowing that would put him over the top with the votes needed, but he refused to do that and lost the nomination. host: some of the properties we are looking at are near the

anheuser busch family property. michael reagan wants to know, were the grants tied to anyone in the anheuser-busch family? host: no. the busch family purchased 280 acres of the whitehaven estate in 1903. the only connection is that in the early years of the war, adolphus busche served for a short time in the civil war. host: mark in cincinnati. caller: i had heard the story and you alluded to about the enmity that mrs. lincoln and mrs. grant had between each other. they were cordially the first couple that was offered an invitation to ford's theatre the night of the assassination and that mrs. grant politely told mr. grant not to accept and

that was the only reason they were not in the box that night. is that true? guest: that is true, but there were going to philadelphia. they had a house there. there were going to see the children. that is where the were when they heard the president had been shot. guest: she talks about it in her memoirs. even earlier during that day when she was at lunch, that there had been a suspicious group at the other -- guest: and then when they're driving to the train, a man came riding a horse by the carriage on the way to the station, which was on the mall in those days and looked in the window at grant and grant remarked that he was sinister puree he did it -- and he did it twice. it may be just coincidence. who knows? she was scared to death. host: they believed he was targeted as part of the assassination plot?

wasearned that julia grant much, very unhappy to leave the white house. and general grant assuaged that grief by taking her on a two- year world tour. what should we know about that tour? guest: it was actually his idea, that he felt like a boy out of school, and he had always loved travelling. and so they embarked on this tour that was just origingally supposed to be europe. and then extended all the way around the world. she enjoyed every minute of it, mostly because of the praise and a claim that she saw her husband receiving. and the shopping that she did as well of things that she wanted to bring back home that she just had a wonderful time on the world tour. guest: we are going to return to the gallina home and look at some of the items on display there.

[video clip] >> the grants came back here for a couple of months. ad then they decided to go on world tour. they were gone for over two years, visited 40 countries. the grants were so popular at the time. there were like american celebrities. and they were treated like royalty. they received a lot of gifts on the tour. there were fortunate enough to have some of those still in the house. two of them are on the mantel. these red vases were a gift from the king of bulgaria. after the world tour, they came back here for another couple of months and they went to mexico and cuba. the paintings on each side of the fireplace were given to the grants on that trip by the government of mexico. jose velasco did these landscapes paintings for the grants. this is the dining room.

this is where the family would have their meals. julia would have done a little light entertaining here. this is not anything to elaborate. thatve some other gifts were given to the grants on that world tour. this piece was actually given to julia. this is a bronze urn given to her by the citizens of yokohama, japan. the vase was given to the grants by the emperor of japan. on the mantel is one of the most personal pieces that julia liked the best. she framed the leaves. the leaves were given to her by general grant, they were leaves that he picked up from the holy city. she had it framed and wrote the whole story on there. julia probably have the time of her life on this world tour. she devoted 1/3 of her memoirs talking about it. she developed friendships with queen victoria and a very good friendship with the emperor of

japan. ended up staying in japan lower-than-expected because they developed such a nice, close relationship with him. after president grant passed away, julia was living in york and the emperor of japan came to visit julia while she was there. they kept that friendship and headed for the rest of her life. this was a place that the family could come back to, and this was considered home and was welcoming for them. not just this house but gallina. she always refers to it as her dear, dear gallina. host: we have a short while left and we have to talk about their years after the tour. they come back to the united states and they have lost lots of money in this event that we talked about, the investments in new york city. what was their financial situation and what is the role of the memoirs in assuaging that? guest: when word gets out that

they have lost this money, there are veterans from the wardress cent grant money to help him -- from the war that lent grant money. he was offered to write articles in the magazine. he was encouraged to write his memoirs. he had never been interested in doing that. it is mark twain's publishing company. and he ended up publishing the memoirs for grant. although he completes them just a few short days before he passed away, he knows that they will bring financial comfort to julia. wast: the first royalty $200,000. a mention in that day, the book made $1 million. it is a great book. i recommend it to anyone. host: still readable? guest: absolutely. host: were mark twain and the

grants friends, since he offered to publish his memoirs? guest: yes, they did become good friends. and it was through twain's efforts that grant began -- diligently of arriving the memoirs. and there were some claims that twain had ghost written but twain was adamant that it was granted that had written it. host: how close was mark twain to the grants? i know that twain played for -- paid for a sculptor? was mark twain or regular at the white house? guest: not at the white house. it was afterwards that they developed a close relationship. apparently twain had years earlier suggested to grant about writing his memoirs but almost as an offhand remark.

so when grant says that century magazine is going to publish his memoirs, because there were the first to make the offer, mark twain reminded him that, no, he had made the offer much earlier. host: i will ask if we can bring the photograph up again of the president in his final days. it is such a poignant picture. wrapped in his blanket on the porch of the cabin in new york. guest: in horrible pain. host: it was throat cancer. how was he able to get these memoirs done? guest: sheer determination. guest: he became impassioned. a was so important to secure comfort for his wife. after he died so shortly that it seemed as though adrenaline was keeping him going. julia talks about that and grant does, too, that that was keeping him going to finish

those. ast: i would like to take call, but then a with like to hear about her memoirs. she was the first first lady to write her memoirs. kathleen in san francisco. caller: thank you very much. i had a quick question, julia had four brothers. and i think i remember during the civil war, they fought for the south. is that true? and did they finally reconciled? fred: it was her brother who had been at west point with ulysses and stayed in the union army and ends up serving on grant's staff. her brother john, none of them actually joined the confederate army, but they certainly did go south and support the confederacy during the war. at one point, her brother john is captured and put in prison

and seeks grant's assistance in getting an exchange -- a prisoner exchange and grant refuses basically to teach john a lesson. but when they're in the white house, the family is always there. host: another question on twitter. with all of these complexities during the civil war, were the grants friends with robert e. lee or jefferson davis? guest: not friends. certainly grant respected robert e. lee during the war, and he had known him and the mexican war. guest: afterward. guest: but julia does become after jefferson davis and ulysses grant passed away, julia does become friends with irina davis. host: here is the memoirs. this is julia dent grant's memoirs. this edition was edited by the great john simon, now deceased,

a great lincoln historian. what is the story about how these became -- the grant papers? and the editor of the grant papers, his life work. be did these memoirs, to published, and why so long between her death and their writing? guest: she says it was her children who after grant's death and courage to to begin writing her memoirs of her wonderful life with her husband. and she says she just started it to satisfy their request, but then she realized that recalling all of these wonderful times kind of brought new life to her. and she did look at them, i think she was ambivalent about having them published initially. she thought it was something to record for her children. but then she did try to pursue getting them published several different times. and one publisher told her that

they were so private that the people that were alive at that time, it was too much personal information. another time, it was, she was told that they would be sold through subscription and she was looking for a lump-sum deal. family remained in the hands and unpublished until john simon convinced the family that they should become public. host: she lived a good number of years after him. was she an active first lady, she did it -- dishy advise other first ladies or become a private citizen again? guest: she did a lot of entertaining. her son was appointed ambassador to austria. she joins him over there. and comes back to the united states. she wrote several articles for different magazines, harper's bizarre, after the spanish-

american war. she writes an article that talks about the government's and the nation's responsibility to the widows and orphans of the war. host: norma in new castle, in. your question. caller: i was wondering about whether or not there was a relationship between julia and ulysses and there was a confederate general longstreet. guest: longstreet was a distant cousin of julia's. and so when grant was first court and julia, would have a long strait was stationed at jefferson barracks. there is a possibility, although the record is not clear, that longstreet served as one is -- of grant's groomsmen. host: how long after president grants death was the famous grants to build in new york city? guest: april 27, 1897.

host: how to the country mourned him? guest: was the largest funeral held in the country? host: larger than lincoln? guest: yes. he passed away in new york city. and they buried his body in a temporary tomb in riverside park in new york city and began the fund raising effort to build this. host: julia was alive for the dedication? what was her role in all of that? andt: proud widow of pleased to see the nation recognizing her husband. host: as we close, we have looked at a long and distinguished military career, a life of ups and downs for the grants over time. 8 years in the white house, a successful world tour. what is the legacy of julia dent grant, and how does she fit

into the pantheon of first ladies were learning about this year? allt: well, as they are women who basically support with their husband is trying to achieve. she did it with certain splendor and a very difficult time in american history. and turned the nob on a dark period, early reconstruction, and brighten things for the rest of the century. whitek her image in the house, her public popularity, her featuring of the general the way she did things, the purse the way she was -- the personal wish you was, she was a public first lady. host: after coming from the victorian first lady, is she as a harbinger of the modern first lady in any way? guest: that is very difficult to answer. i think there were all opinionated, strong women. hadperhaps in the way, she public interest.

the next people, it would be more so with mrs. hayes. julia grant attracted a lot of attention and public opinion to the family that lived in the white house. host: you are working on a book, to establish the series, what is your answer? guest: i think she would have said that her legacy was that she was a devoted and loving wife and mother to their children, but i think more than that, she tried to represent what her husband was trying to achieve -- peace and reconciliation in the nation. and in her role as first lady, she was able to accomplish that. host: many thanks to all the folks at the grant sites or run a country that brought you that here tonight and to the good people at the white house historical associations. and that concludes our discussion of julia dent grant. our thanks to our two guests for

being with us. guest: thank you, susan. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> next monday night, we will explore the life of the first lady lucy hayes, wife of president rutherford b. hayes.

she banned liquor at the white house during her husband's administration. watch next monday live at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c- span3, as well as c-span radio and c-span.org. our website has more about the first ladies, including a special section, "welcome to the white house" produced by the white house historical association. which chronicles life in the executive mansion during the tenure of each of the first ladies. with the association, we are offering a special edition of the book, "first ladies of the united states," presenting a portrait of each of first lady. the book include a section by michelle obama about the role of first ladies throughout history. it is available at $12.95 at c- span.org/products. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought you as a public service

by your television provider. >> next, president obama honors this year's winner of the top awardds. then the weekly addresses. then a discussion about the history of the a the men in capital punishment. obama honored this year's top cops at the ceremony. the awards are given by the national association of police organizations. to pay tribute for actions above and beyond the call of duty from the white house east room, this is about 10 minutes.

>> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you so much. everybody please have a seat. good morning. good morning and welcome to the white house for what is one of my favorite events all year. theant to start by thanking

former police officer, police chief in seattle. the police commissioner and buffalo. police officer and st. petersburg, florida. now serves as the head of the office of national drug control policy. he is doing outstanding work every day to make sure our young people are safe and not exposed to and so we very much want to give him a big round of applause. thank you, gil. we've got napo president tom nee right here next to me. tom is doing an outstanding job every day. and of course, we've got our 2013 top cops. as president, i get to meet and

work with a lot of extraordinary law enforcement officers every single day, from men and women who protect me and my family -- the folks in the secret service -- to local police who help out on motorcades in events around the country. and i'm incredibly grateful that all these law enforcement officers are doing such outstanding work. and then, just a few weeks ago obviously in boston, our entire country saw once again the strong stuff that these men and women in uniform are made of -- police officers, first responders who were running towards explosions, not knowing if there was something more on the way -- law enforcement from different agencies and different parts of the country working together as one united team to identify suspects and bring them to justice and in a moment that few of us will ever forget, the citizens of watertown, massachusetts lining their streets to cheer on and

high-five and hug the officers as they headed home after a job well done. we don't always get that opportunity to stand and applaud the men and women who keep us safe. but they're out there, hundreds of thousands of you, patrolling our streets every single day. and we know that when we need you most, you'll be ready to dash into danger, to protect our lives even if it means putting your lives on the line. that's what these folks are all about. that's what the men and women standing behind me have proven -- their heart, their courage, their dedication. and of course, as always, they're a humble group. they'll tell you they're not heroes. they'll say they were just doing their jobs. and today, we honor them as top cops because they're half right. it's true they were just doing

their jobs. from the moment they swore in office -- swore an oath to serve with honor, from the first time they put on a uniform and pinned on a badge, they knew they might be called upon to do some really tough stuff. more think that makes them heroic, not less heroic, because they signed up for this. they volunteered and yet, continue day-in, day-out to dedicate themselves. and when the moment came, they were ready to respond. i already talked about one of this year's top cops, brian murphy, in my state of the union address. when a gunman opened fire on a temple in wisconsin and brian was the first to arrive, he did not consider his own safety. he fought back until help arrived and ordered his fellow officers, who are here today, to protect the safety of the americans worshiping inside -- even though he was lying there bleeding from 12 bullet wounds. when he was asked how he did it,

he said, "that's just the way we're made." that's what you've got to do. that's what you've got to be made of to take down homicide suspects in los angeles or vegas, or shooters in miami or indiana or chicago or iowa -- saving untold numbers of lives. that's what you've got to be made of to dodge live power lines during hurricane sandy to free your partner pinned down by a tree, all the while saying, "i've got you, pal." yes, this is their job. but it's not just about the uniform that they wear. it's about who they are, what they're made of. when a gunman entered a restaurant in pasadena, texas, it was three off-duty cops who put themselves in harm's way so that others could escape. detective ivan marcano didn't care that he was off-duty when he saw two muggers attacking a cab driver in the bronx. he got out of his girlfriend's car to stop them and was shot

point blank in the chest, a bullet inches from his heart. but his story doesn't end there. as his girlfriend was driving him to the hospital -- i'm sure not very happy with him -- by total coincidence, they ran into the shooter's getaway car. so what does detective marcano do? he jumps out of the car -- he's been shot -- keeps pressure on his chest with his left hand, holding a service weapon with his right, he runs after the suspects. he took one of them down, which led to the capture of the others. he wasn't on the clock when any of this happened. this was his date night. it's unbelievable. [applause]

invitethe way, did you your girlfriend down here? where are you? stand up. she has got to get a big round of applause. [applause] she deserves a really nice dinner -- after putting her through that. detectiveiver who marcano rescued put it simply. he said, i will be thankful to him for the rest of his life -- for the rest of my life. so today, to all our top cops, let me say that our nation shares that sense of gratitude. you embody america at its best and at its bravest. and you set an example, because if top cops can risk their lives to do their jobs, the rest of us should just be able to summon some tiny fraction of courage and the same sense of responsibility. and certainly, that applies for

those of us responsible for supporting law enforcement and first responders here in washington. even during tough economic times, we've got to make sure they've got the resources that they need, whether that's supporting the cops program or helping you hire new officers or preventing layoffs or giving you the most advanced crime- fighting tools, and the mobile technology and critical data -- all of which you need in this 21st century when it comes to crime fighting. and we also need to take some common-sense steps that protect our rights, protect our children, protect officers in the line of duty by making it harder for dangerous criminals to get their hands on lethal weapons. these officers represent the best of us and they deserve the best from us. and that begins with being thankful to them not just today, but for the rest of their lives and recognizing the sacrifices not only they make, but their parents and spouses and kids who watch their loved ones go off and serve every day,

knowing that there's real danger out there. so i'd ask all americans -- everybody who is watching all across the country -- when you see a police officer, you meet an officer's family, let them know how much you appreciate it. it's the least we can do for the men and women who give us so much and help keep us safe. [applause] so with that in mind, let me give another huge thank you to our top cops of 2013, our entire law enforcement community, all the families who are here -- all the kids who are here, thanks for being patient and listening to me. and now, what we want to do is get a picture. so i think we're going to strike this podium and i'm going to line up. think there is a spot left for me.

[applause] >> thank you, everybody.

>> i think about the situation in afghanistan in 1978 and 1979 was just how different it was from what we face today. many things are radically different. there are no radical leftist parties or secular parties in afghanistan today. that has all been wiped out. but in the 1970's, they were the powerful forces in afghanistan. resident kahn for-- the section --ahn was a secularist modernizer not unlike the shaw of iran. he was appointed by the afghan communist to try to remodel society. up whole country rose against them and that is what the soviets had to come in. most amazing is the way that that invasion and the almost unending civil war that

followed, compounded by the u.s. intervention in 2001 and after, has completely wiped out that old afghanistan that we saw in the 1960's and 1970's. >> revolutionary as long, market a revolutions, pope visits poland. christian carol on 1979, sunday at 9 on afterwards, part of booktv on c-span-2. >> in his weekly address, the president talks about the u.s. housing market. in alabama rep martha roby gives the republican address on the worker compensation bill passed by the house this week. >> hi, everybody. our top priority as a nation is reigniting the true engine of our economic growth -- a rising, thriving middle class. and few things define what it is to be middle class in america more than owning your own cornerstone of the american dream -- a home. today, seven years after the

real estate bubble burst, triggering the worst economic crisis since the great depression and costing millions of responsible americans their jobs and their homes, our housing market is healing. sales are up. foreclosures are down. construction is expanding. and thanks to rising home prices over the past year, 1.7 million more families have been able to come up for air, because they're no longer underwater on their mortgages. from the day i took office, i've made it a priority to help responsible homeowners and prevent the kind of recklessness that helped cause this crisis in the first place. my housing plan has already helped more than two million people refinance their mortgages, and they're saving an average of $3000 per year. my new consumer watchdog agency is moving forward on protections like a simpler, shorter mortgage form that will help to keep hard-working families from getting ripped off. but we've got more work to do. we've got more responsible homeowners to help folks who have never missed a mortgage

payment, but aren't allowed to refinance, working families who have done everything right, but still owe more on their homes than they're worth. last week, i nominated a man named mel watt to take on these challenges as the head of the federal housing finance agency. mel's represented the people of north carolina in congress for 20 years, and in that time, he helped lead efforts to put in place rules of the road that protect consumers from dishonest mortgage lenders, and give responsible americans the chance to own their own home. he's the right person for the job, and that's why congress should do its job, and confirm him without delay. and they shouldn't stop there. as i said before, more than two million americans have already refinanced at today's low rates, but we can do a lot better than that. i've called on congress to give every responsible homeowner the chance to refinance, and with it, the opportunity to save $3,000 a year. that's like a $3,000 tax cut. and if you're one of the millions of americans who could take advantage of that, you should ask your representative

in congress why they won't act on it. our economy and our housing market are poised for progress -- but we could do so much more if we work together. more good jobs. greater security for middle- class families. a sense that your hard work is rewarded. that's what i'm fighting for -- and that's what i'm going to keep fighting for as long as i hold this office. thank you. and have a great weekend. >> hello, everyone, i'm martha roby. i'm proud to represent alabama's second congressional district, where my husband riley and i live and raise our two children, margaret and george. allow me to take this opportunity to wish a happy mother's day to my mom, and to all the moms out there. it is such a blessing to be a mother. raising children is an immeasurable joy, but as all moms know, it comes with unique challenges. and it can be especially tough for moms who work outside the home. talk to just about any mom or dad and they'll tell you they wish they had more time.

they wish they had just one more hour in the day to make life work. moms and dads need to find time to take their child to the doctor, attend a pta meeting or make it to the tee ball game. think about those caring for elderly parents or military families where one of the parents is about to deploy. able to we may not be legislate another hour and the day, we can help working americans better balance live by offering more flexibility for time away from work. this week the house passed my bill, the working families flexibility act, which will remove an outdated and unnecessary restriction on private sector employees precluding comp time in exchange for overtime. this bill provides options for working moms and dads who need more time to take care of family responsibilities. it also demonstrates how

applying conservative principles can help working americans in their everyday lives. what this bill does not do is change the 40 hour work week or how or time is calculated, the same protections that have been a part of labor law for decades remain. and we have added additional protections against coercion or unfair treatment. this bill also does not at government regulation to the workplace. we have enough red tape as it disappeared a more flexible workplace is not a new concept. in fact, many employees in the public sector enjoyed his benefit right now. that is because in 1985, congress passed a law allowing local and state governments to offer their employees the option of comp time. so why should the rules be any different for employees in the private sector? why should government workers have more freedom in the workplace than everybody else? and why is washington restricting employers from offering certain benefits that

government itself is free to offer? our message to the american people is this -- we want to get washington out of the way of how you use your time. i am proud to champion the working families flexibility act on behalf of working moms and dads to route the country. i join my fault house republicans in urging the democratic-run senate to take up this bill and pass it soon. and i urge the president to listen to the working parents of our country and promised them he will sign this bill into law when it reaches his desk. let's come together to a power americans with more freedom and more flexibility with their time. there are big challenges facing this country. though we have seen some improvement, slow economic growth and job creation is in danger of becoming a new normal. this bill will not solve the debt crisis or fix the president's health care law or simplify the tax code. but the fact we cannot solve the big, overarching problems overnight should not stop us

from doing a -- what we can right now to help make life a little easier for working moms and dads. the working families flexibility act does that by helping americans a better balance the demands of family and work. thank you, and may god bless our mothers, and god bless the united states of america. >> next ahead, a discussion about the history of the eighth amendment and capital punishment. after that, a look at the impact of federal funding on research. then the president of south korea addresses a joint meeting in the u.s. congress. next "washington journal", cbs investigative correspondent sharyl attkisson talks about the investigation into last year's attack in benghazi. we will look at state and federal laws with carolyn atwell-davis. later, former fbi deputy

director and cia deputy director philip mudd will talk about home-grown terrorism. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. a lot more-9/11 people care about national security issues and was the case before. and so all of a sudden, there was a market for former cia folks, former defense even theence agents, former national security agency, all of those guys used operating in the shadows. they saw a market for their services as commentators, but raiders. -- book writers. so this was a somewhat uncomfortable interaction between the agencies and the former employees. >> and at the time i felt that waterboarding was something we needed to do. as time passed, and september 11

has moved further back into history, i think i've changed my mind. and i think that waterboarding is probably something we should not be in the business of doing. >> why do say that now? >> because we are better than that. >> this is a guy who i think by all accounts meant well. he served his country well by most accounts for 15 years and some very dangerous situations, who risked his life to take on al qaeda in pakistan and to take on terrorism before that. he has gone up to prison for 30 months of leaving his young family behind. this weekend on "q&a" -- scott shane on this feature story. the story of jailed cia officer. sunday at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. law school maria

federalist society recently hosted a discussion on the supreme court and the death penalty. a professor from the university of florida law school park about the meaning behind a cruel and unusual -- unusual punishment and gave an historical perspective on the origins of the a amendments. this is an hour. >> we are going to do a chapter announcement first. welcome, everyone, to this chapter of the federalist society. we are very excited to have our guest speaker professor john stinneford with us for his remarks on the death penalty. one quick chapter announcement. for those members please remember that march 1 and 2 is the national student symposium.

the national chapter, if you are a member, will subsidize have your travel costs. if your interested, please contact a member of our officers and we will give you the information and help you get that. our meeting today, the agenda, prof. john stinneford will offer initial remarks. a meeting following that, our very own professor clifford taylor, a former chief justice of the michigan supreme court, will offer additional comments. and immediately following that, professor john stinneford will be allowed to make comments for rebuttal and other remarks. and then the remainder of the time will be for question and answer session, which professor stinneford will be in charge. raise your hands and offer any questions you have. i have thether ado, opportunity to introduce professor john stinneford to you. anfessor john stinneford is

assistant professor of law at the university of florida. the professor received his bachelor's from the university of virginia, a master's degree from harvard, and his jd from harvard law school. professor john stinneford's area of expertise include criminal law, criminal procedure, the eighth amendment, and evidence. professor john stinneford's focuses on constitutional limitations on government powers and punishment. more specifically, the professor scholarship focuses on the historical underpinnings of the amendments crew and unusual punishment clause as process.to tadue the fourth to jump -- 2009, he practiced criminal law and private practice. and then as a federal prosecutor. we are very excited to have him here with us today.

please join me in offering a professor or warm welcome -- a warm welcome. >> thank you very much. it's really nice to be here. this is a beautiful facility and a great crowd. i will try to keep this brief although like many of your professors, i tend to be a little long-winded. over the last 10 years, the supreme court has limited the death penalties in a number of ways. they have declared it is unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded, to execute minors and also to execute anyone for a non-homicide offense. will be thatay those results are largely defensible as a constitutional matter, although not for the reasons the court has given. much jump right into it.

posing a start by problem the court has faced ever since it started thinking about the cool -- cruel and unusual punishment clause. how do we determine whether it punishment is impermissibly cruel westmark the purpose of punishment is to inflict pain on criminal offenders. physical pain and/or psychological pain. how do we draw the line between pain which is justified and pain which is impermissible. withme court is divided two ways to answer this question. justice scalia took the position that if a given punishment practice was ok and 1790, it must be ok today. is simple and clear. all you have to do is look at what was done at the time of the what the viewf

today is no worse than they did then, it is ok. non-ajority has taken a originalist approach. the eighth amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. way,very day and in every we are getting kinder and gentler and as we get kinder and gentler, so too must the constitution. that is the basic idea. unfortunately, neither of these .pproaches is really workable let me play my justice scalia is not. in 1790, punishment such as whipping, bodily mutilation were considered acceptable forms of punishment. justice scalia himself in a speech he gave at the university of cincinnati said he would strike down a legislatively

authorized punishment of hand branding or mutilation. he said i would have to strike it down. i understand that under my approach to the eighth amendment, it should be considered ok and yet if i were faced with the issue, i would strike it down. so it seems and opposed a constitutional turk patient -- constitutional perpetration -- half additional interpretation is probably not the best way to go constitutional interpretation is probably not the best way to go. who decides what current standards of decency require the supreme court says we will strike down a punishment if it violates societal standards. how do we determine what current societal standards are? do we look to jury verdicts? legislative authorization, justice kennedy's guts?

where do we look to find out what current moral standards require? it will have been optimized by at least one legislature and opposed by at least one jury. very often it will be optimized by many legislatures and inflicted by many juries. if the legislatures and juries are authorizing punishment, how is it the court can come to say society somehow condemns it? it's a conundrum. the way the court has got what to find a pretending societal convention against various punishments even though the punishment themselves are rise toular and often many legislatures. if you read the current opinions the core claims -- opinion, the court claims are becoming less plausible overtime.

a standard and transparently manipulating it in a way that is not the livable. that tends to undermine respect for the judiciary. another problem is that it makes the right against cruel and unusual punishment dependent on public opinion. remember what the court says. likes of punishment, it's ok because it didn't -- it works with current societal standards. if not, then it is not ok. but individual rights and public opinion don't go together like chocolate and peanut butter. they are not too great taste that taste great together. the reason we have developed publicights is because opinion turns against people sometimes and the constitution is supposed to be there to protect them when it does. there to protect the very unpopular class of citizens, liminal offenders.

when only protect them society likes them, guess what? we will not protect them very often. is thathe assumptions societal opinion get kinder and gentler overtime. looked at the history of criminal law over the last 40 years with a public opinion has gone precisely the opposite direction because there have been a variety of public types ofout different crime. in the 1980's, drug crime. in 1990's, creditors. recently, sex offenders. whenever there is a public panic, legislators ratchet up the level of punishment. one thing legislators have done and the last 10 years is due authorize chemical castration of sex offenders. you have to understand, castration as a form of punishment was eliminated in the english tradition in the 13th century.

we were literally getting medieval on sex offenders but all meant,ecency of that's to be ok. evolution,e decency that should be ok. as perhaps nott the best way to approach the bill of rights. as a result of the court's current approach, we get an eighth amendment jurisprudence that is narrow and unprincipled. narrow and the sense that the court actually will not review most cases that, under the eighth amendment. it will look at death penalty cases. more recently, it is shown a willingness to look at long sentences imposed on juvenile offenders but europe, and don't: not sent his death, they will not review just did -- they will not review your sentence.

when they do review, they make the decision in a way that does not comply with the standards they themselves claim to apply. so it is not a good situation. what's the solution i propose? that we actually read the constitution. the eighth amendment does not read the -- does not prohibit cruel punishment but cruel and unusual punishment. both sides of the debate and "unusual" into the constitution as though it is cruelited simply punishment. my argument is the key to understanding how the eighth amendment should work if the focus once again on the word "unusual." in the context of the eighth amendment, the word unusual

does not mean rare or out of the ordinary. that's the way you think it would mean. you probably at some point thought wired only outlying rare or uncommon punishment. the warden the eighth amendment does not mean rare or out of the ordinary. it is meant contrary to law and usage or innovative. that is what it meant in the 17th century when it was first used in the english bill of rights and an 18th century when it was put put into the american bill of rights. contrary to law and usage. to understand that, you need to understand the normative power of law and usage, the moral power. this is a quote from edward cooke who many consider the greatest, mopping care and -- the greatest commonlaw thinker. he said --

what does that mean? law, manyhe common of us today think of it in the way that judges make policy from the bench and decide cases based on their own views as to what's best. that is not have a common law was thought of for most of its history. the law of custom and law of usage. if a given governmental practice were used over a long time, this was powerful evidence it was both reasonable and enjoyed the consent of the people.

to say something is usual under the common law is to say it's probably pretty good. reasonable, practical. to say something is unusual, on the other hand, is to say it is contrary to long usage. contrary to our traditions. not the way we do things. means in thenusual context of behavior -- of the eighth amendment. an english history, the notion washat's unusual or usual very important in the development of the english constitution. the english constitution was in unwritten constitution but ours with a gun in many ways. many rights were developed in the english constitution based on long usage. the due process of law, including no imprisonment the right to,

indictment by grand jury, trial double jeopardy, the right to taxation only with consent of parliament and the right of -- and the right against cruel and unusual punishment. they were all rights developed through long usage. edward cook had something to say about unusual or innovative practices. what was his view of innovative practices? it. is a -- this is the rack. during the reign of queen elizabeth, there was an attempt to import the civil law practices of europe into england. in part because it was hard for teams to manipulate the common- law because it was a customary law. one of the key features of the civil law was the use of torture.

a confessiont from a criminal defendant. the, lawyers universally in the very beginning said this is a legal because it is unusual -- the common lawyers universally in the very beginning said this is a legaillegal because it is unusual. innovative, particularly in the realm of punishment --when the government innovates and punishment, it is usually not to be nicer. so when the government innovates, this is strong evidence it is actually cruel. .hat's why cruel and unusual the newness is evidence of the quilty of it. that is the basic idea. direct evidence about the meaning of the word unusual in english goal of rights justice scalia cap about this in

holland versus michigan -- justice scalia talked about this in a case involving a guy named titus oates. he was a bad guy. in 2005, he was voted the worst bredden of the 21st-century. here is what he did -- he was a disreputable anglican clergymen who tried to think of a way to get a fortune. he thought people don't like cap is very much so make up a story about a plot to kill the king. i will give evidence and everyone will love me and give me money, etc. so he makes up a story, an implicates 15 people, including

the queens as it should. it is really implausible in retrospect because the king at the time was charles the second, who was very friendly to cap next. catholics. to there is a bunch of tiles -- of trials. 15 people get executed. during the 15th trial, the story unravels. everyone realizes it was all made up and as you can imagine, people are none too pleased. under english law at the time, the only crime he committed was the crime of perjury so he gets tried for perjury and convicted and the judge in his case, the famous justice jeffries, said to is aecause perjury misdemeanor, we can't take your life. but we do have something special

prepared for you. this is what they had. they find him 2000 marks, a large sum of money. they ordered him to be whipped -- dragged across the city of later tohen two days alte be dragged back while being scourged. many people think the hopeless it would died -- he would die of the scourging but he did not die. he was also subject to be pilloried for times. he was sentenced to life imprisonment and he was defrocked. this all happened in 1785 or so. later, historyrs

students may note the glorious revolution happened. james ii is kicked out of england. william and mary come to england to take over the throne. as the price for the throne, parliament requires except this new english bill of rights that they agreed to have their power eliminated by it. one of the provisions of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. this is where we get the phrase from. year after the english bill of rights is adopted, who shows up in parliament with a petition but titus oates, saying the punishment inflicted on me was cruel and unusual. and we have a parliamentary debates. you can read them yourself. what's clear is that everyone agreed the punishment inflicted on titus oates was cruel and

unusual but the house weren'of warrants was not suspended judgment because they hated him so much. we wereshment, they say thinking specifically about titus oates only include the: unusual punishment laws in the english bill of rights. how is it his punishment was: unusual? that it was:be unusual because it evolved barbaric methods of punishment. every method of punishment was a traditional form of punishment under the common law. justice scalia have taken the position that only barbaric methods are covered by the cruel and unusual punishment clause. you could not say the chemo to the fact of the punishment for somehow elevated to barbarity

because there were things that were much worse. you cannot say so for somehow elevated barbarity only convicted of a misdemeanor, crime of perjury, that was too much to do to an english citizen. debates make it very clear that the source of standards is higher practice. we have never done this sort of thing before, it is unprecedented. contrary to law and ancient practice. if we permit it, that's it's a bad precedent to the future. the standard ecmaoa -- the standard we see in the oates

case is what i'm talking about here. , thate question arises is what the english thought. duty americans think the same thing a century later when they wrote the u.s. constitution? -- do the americans think the same thing a century later when they wrote the u.s. constitution? the complete lack of historical reference in that part of justice scalia's opinion. he said it would not make sense for the americans to interpret it the same way and therefore i don't think they did and let's go with my preferred method. he is one of my favorite justices but he is really not an originalist. he is a rules guy. when the original meaning does not give you certain roles, he is uncomfortable and we see a replacement of original meaning with a roll. that is what we get from him here.

thats the evidence americans thought they meant the same thing the english did? there's actually a lot. it's worth remembering the entire american revolution was, parliament that lacked the power to violate, mall rights. , mall rights -- to violate common law right. that is number one. they thought about it in the same way edward cook did. number two, what's the evidence that they interpreted the word unusual to mean the same thing the english did? if you look at the historical

record, the framers used the term unusual and a variety of contact -- of contexts when they do, they always use it to mean contrary to long usage. example, when the federal government was created, patrick henry complained the government was nothing but new and unusual experiment. that the federal government was not constrained by the common law. few complained of the anti- federalist - he complained of the anti-federalists. debated that they use the word unusual in the sense.

my argument is the amendment was meant to serve as a check on congress'ability to deviate from the common law tradition. yet the look at the long- standing prior practice to judge the punishments. t would, what effecrt adopting my reading of the word unusual have on current jurisprudence? it would precisely reversed the evolving standards analysis. if you think about it -- when you talk about evolving standards of decency, you are saying we are willing to judge this old punishment based on our current standards. good given today's standards question mark the real meaning is precisely the opposite of that. the question we should be asking is how does this new punisher compare to our prior practice -- how does this new

punishmen compared to our prior practicet? this is where we need judges to enforce rights. we don't need judges to finish off old practices that are already dying off. we need judges to stand as the guardian and legislators get out of control, respond to a public cruelby enacting new, punishments. under the current standards, that is exactly where judges disappear. this approach is distinct from justice scalia's standards. justice scalia said if it was ok in 1790, it must be ok today. there is a very old law lawciple -- old commom

principal. to paraphrase edward cook, customs of its being when usage failed. beingstom looses its when usage fails ,. . we think of something survives the test of time, it is presumptively reasonable i. if it falls out of usage, it is presumptively unreasonable. refinement of gold and a fire. awaytime, the drawl followalls and the gold remains. wemutilated egeland said -- good people but that fell out centuries ago. if the legislator wants to bring it back, it will be treated like any punishment. the only traditional punishment

that have continued to survive up until today that the source of our our standards for a point of reference. one application of this is that the court does have the power to determine whether a punishment is unconstitutional because it is disproportionate to the offense. justice scalia has taken the position reports back that power. he mainly does that because he is concerned there is no objective standard to guide judges in determining whether something is disproportionate. if you use long usage, you have a pretty good standard. in determining whether it is harsh and comparison to the pre- existing practices that we have to consider unusual. what about the death penalty? the love of the cases can be justified based on this principle -- a lots of the cases can be justified based on the current principle.

they are more profitable. in kennedy versus louisiana, the supreme court said it is unconstitutional to execute anyone for nonhomicide offense against an individual. at the time that case was decided, there had not been an execution for a nonhomicide offense in the united states for half a century. so you can make the argument that really what was happening was an attempt to bring back at practice that had fallen out of our tradition. i am not saying that is a -- that isn't necessarily result. i'm not certain that the right result but it is a plausible results. more plausible than to claim current societal standards condemn execution of for example, child rapists. if you took it public opinion

poll, i'm sure you would find a majority of citizens support the execution of such people. there is a federalism location for this as well. uses a very -- jurisdiction to jurisdiction. if you're going to define a case about cruel and unusual punishment under a state constitution as opposed to the federal constitution, you might find a given punishment is full evennusual within a state, though it is not cool and unusual on a federal level. in the 1970's, the supreme court found the death penalty for rape was cool and unusual -- was cruel and unusual. because it was a continuous fact is that survived in georgia up until that time, it was hard to justify that based on the

original meaning of the clause. at that time it was only 10 or 15 years. if a legislature in another state tried to revive the death penalty for rape, one could make a plausible argument it is unusual in our state. a justice call for state judges to enforce state constitutions in a matter that is more protective. this is an example where that would be perfectly appropriate. .ased on the original meaning justice taylor is about to talk and i do have to address. michigan is a special case. the michigan constitution was adopted in the 70's trieste -- 63. -- theer the case of

michigan constitution was adopted in the 70's -- 1963. is evolving standards distended the course should apply because presumably, the michigan legislature was aware that standard at the time it adopted the new michigan constitution. one could argue they meant to incorporate that standard into the michigan constitution. michigan is the only state in the union with the current standard is the appropriate standard. i'm done and i will let justice taylor's talk. [applause] >> thank you. that was a wonderful presentation. the federalist decide he should be commended for bringing in speakers like this. it is wonderful that at this law school, free speech is still

alive and well as i suspect it is in many places in the united states. anyone attempting to talk with the death penalty, you mess with a hostile response. that was a great talk. it's only learned about titus oates, perhaps this will be considered small by us catholics to say we for it on time have been advising people to pay no attention to anglican clergymen. [laughter] so we can't be held entirely responsible for titus. i think there is an interesting and intriguing advance and thinking on: unusual. i served at the supreme court in michigan for a number of years. inhigan was the first place the english-speaking world to learn it the death penalty in 1850.

this following and in just hanging that inflamed the people. the850, they abolished death penalty so we have had him on. most people think in michigan are immensely grateful. states that have the death we got tot do other things that were useful for the people. one modest question i have is this -- the most famous s is william brennan. i wonder if he and justice thatr would agree with you the to public opinion to determine what are the evolving standards.

-- whwe look to sophisticateda people thinkt? byd thato, i think the meme of professors. --unt is probably speaking on matters broadly speaking, the s areriginalist enthusiastically committed to the evolving standards of decency in all areas of law, not just cool and unusual. do you think it would be a problem even if your ideas are sound to get those non- originalist to come such a

position because of the compromise that would affect their advocacy of evolving standards of decency and other areas. again, thank you. [applause] >> thank you, justice taylor. those are excellent questions. let me address them in order. as a mentioned earlier on, when you talk about evolving centers of decency, one of the key questions is how do we measure current standards of decency? it is true the court has never answer this question. thatone agrees legislatures and juries are an important component because they represent the will of the .eople the legislatures because they are elected by people.

then the question is to be restricted to legislatures injury and if so, how do we count or do we look to other sources as well? there have been a number composed. it court will look to international opinion as reflected in the laws of various countries. it will sometimes look to opinions expressed by .rofessional associations justice brennan and i believe justice marshall have adopted have developed a hypothetic public opinion. they say get the public only knew what we knew, they would agree with that position. -- it's an act abstract hypothetical public opinion. i really think it is secondary.

anydeeper problem is that com beforee thes court, the stronger indicators are likely to provide at least some measure of support for the punishment practice. has been a dayen emphasis they found consensus about the punishment that was approved in 37 states. .hat has become less plausible as i has happened, the court has deemphasized it. and say we have also look to our own independent judgment to determine whether it is cool -- it is cruel and unusual punishment.

theydoes the court get authority to use his judgment without any standards. so there is a rule of law problem. inat's whyhink ewing versus california, said i am going to go along with the charge -- with the approach but we are going to restricte it. if it falls outside of that scope, we aren't really going to look at it at all. in michigan and was sentenced to life in prison under the 650 life or law.

if you were found with more than 600 50 grams of cocaine, you had a mandatory sentence of life. he had no prior record. the court said we are not going to look at proportionality when a classmate -- it is non deferential. almost anti-deferential approach. that is a long-winded way of answering your question. what's thewas likelihood of the court will adopt this approach given the commitment progressive reading of the constitution? i don't know whether they will. i feel like my paper

makes enemies on both sides. one way to think about it is this --original meaning is not bending asle ad -- and unbending. when something falls out of usage, you can say it is no longer part of our tradition. i think there is room for that. there's a secondary question -- the appropriate mechanism for change. this involves separation of powers. work undernce would

the original meaning of the eighth amendment -- legislatures century to past usage.es of the whicof case, it may fall out of usage. it is not up to judges to put things in usage. when democratic processes do that, then judges may be to recognize that change. --do see, mom concept built common lawy concepts built. at the processes are considered unacceptable and change over time, the court may be about to recognize the changes. without itself doing violence to

the original meaning. is a is some chance that proper understanding of the common log is better developed, people who are worried going back to original meaning wilmington constitution to inflexible to be useful might possibly be persuaded. other questions? >> professor, thank you for being here. i saw an interview with justice scalia where he spoke about torture. it seems his focus on the cause

[indiscernible] .e looked at the pictures i was wondering what you thought about torture, whether that falls under punishment or something else. >> that is an interesting question. i imagine justice scalia was referring to the fact that the it only applies to punishment given as a result of colonel conviction. what about pretrial torture? be tortured someone until they confess. someone untild they confess. there is one bit of historical evidence which is george mason

who was the person who -- crueld wasunusual punishment adopted into the u.s. constitution. jordan mason drafted the .irginia bill of rights during the u.s. constitution , a question debates about pretrial torture came up. ,f you look at the prohibition and combination with the prohibition against women -- against: unusual punishment -- against cruel and unusual punishment was not permitted. that is only one piece of evidence. he is a fairly authoritative figure in our history. should congress tried to

authorize something like pre- child torture as a way of getting evidence trial torture as a way of getting evidence, the eighth amendment is available. any other questions? oh, come on. thei wanted to ask about interplay between legislature and the role of the judging. from what i understand, part of the principal role of the legislature is to implement into law the popular public opinion and what people want. -- that islaborate what legislatures will try to do

if you arement arguing that as the proper way to do it but the judges are the ensure everyone's constitutional rights stantec. -- rights to stay in tact. >> it is a little more limited than that. he gets back the idea of long usage. say we talk about -- we have discussed them, we don't have that custom. back in the 1700's, you would say we use this or we don't use it. how do we know whether something is contrary to law and you should -- contrary to

long usuage? two ways a traditional practice can fall out of usage. the they eliminate punishment. the other is it simply stopped enforced even though it's still on the books. my argument would be if something like mutilation is before out of usage, able follow because the legislators debated or because securities stop imposing it. from is a case i found the the 19th century in pennsylvania were a woman was convicted of being a common scold. common it was a form of punishment to dunk someone as a public shame.

she argued this was cruel and unusual punishment. the pennsylvania supreme court said that cannot happen in more than a century. we don't don't think it was ever in pennsylvania. the pennsylvania legislature has enacted laws governing punishment that make it clear this is not a crime under pennsylvania law. the court said this was once part of our tradition. we know that because in part the legislator seems to have condition it -- seems to have it,.id and irbidden

. ins up to those who are charge of making or executing laws that used practice. judges can look at what others have done and say yes, this is .ot used anymore >> with the long usage approach, how does something become a new punishment? battlese new [indiscernible] a new, great punishment that some sort of psychotherapist can come up with. how will that be incorporated? "a clockwork orange" kind of

thing? you have to use common law reasons assessment practices do change over time. one example around 7090 is -- 1790 was there was a movement away from public shaming to imprisonment. the thought at the time was it was less cruel than public shaming. i'm not sure if that's actually true. but the thinking is it was less cruel.

if you put someone in a room alone, they tend to go crazy. whenever you have something new, you have to measure it against what came .efore i cannot claim you can answer that with mathematical precision. to think about. if there is a punishment that involves some kind of mind control, that might be more intruice and cruel. chemical castration, it is thought that if you eliminate testosterone commit persons system, they will lose the capacity to fantasize sexually. see you are changing their thought processes. for not only pedophiles but certain variety of

jurisdictions that permit. as long as my mind is free, i am free. my gut instinct if it is worse to imprison someone's mind than their body. but of course, i can't tell you it would come out that way. it's the toughest of all things under the standard of proposing i'm try to figure out. >> thank you for coming. [indiscernible] .n delaware, they had hanging -stly states have not used

have used those as a tourist but condemned. where do you see us in ten, fifteen years? >> in terms of methods of execution? >> >> will there be a point where to country will be forced choose one form over the other? parks >> they found it was not

because the chance of pain was too small. serious problem and points to a broader problem in our criminal justice is them -- justice system. lethal injection in many cases involve a three drug cocktail. one of those drugs is a bridge to it -- is a barbituate. whichis another drug paralyzes you. the third drug is a numbing agent. yous incredibly hanged for numb someone for. everyone agrees you could just babituate and it would be no pain. creates ands the problem is it

risk of excruciating pain and it's impossible to tell whether the person executed experiences that pain because it is the paralytic agent. you could be suffering terribly, no one would know because you're paralyzed. then why use it? byron parallels and people before you killed him? one answer -- why are we paralyzing people before we kill them? one answer, if you don't do it, they go through the death throws,. . they shake. drugeason we do the fre three cocktail is because we are trying to hide from ourselves what we're doing. it does not look like death if you use the three drug cocktail.

it looks like you're going to leave trade the are willing to run the risk so we don't have to feed the duckeah throws. throws.eath i'm not going to say i think is better than imprisonment but it's true that when you imprison someone, you don't see what they go through. if you can hide from yourself the effect of what you're doing, you may not feel morally responsible and you may not think is carefully about the limits you should impose on yourself when you do it. that's a troubling aspect of lethal injection. the expiration issues of little different. some of these drugs are not

manufactured in the u.s.. there bought from abroad from this reputable sources -- from disreputable sources. news is factual -- there was a factual [indiscernible] if there were a more robust finding that explore this, we might get a different result. drugdo you do if the three cocktail can be used? just use a bigger dose of barbituates. i do think of the death penalty , it won'tout of usage be for that reason but because

of the inescapable risk of a executing innocent people. we are learning more and more everyday. it's impossible to avoid even with the most care the risk of convicting innocent people. that may turn public opinion against the death penalty. >> sadly, our time has come to a close. investor, we want to express our great appreciation for you being here. we also thank professor taylor for adding commentary. it has been our pleasure to host you. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] would like a photo of the new members of our chapter. those who can stick around,

come at the front. i like mac, a look at the impact of funding micro- research -- >> next, a look at the impact of funding on microbe research. then the president of south korea and president obama and top cops.awards the vice chair of the armed services committee is our guest this week. he talks about defense issues including the response to the attack on the u.s. embassy in benghazi. syria, autonomous date of the report on sexual assault -- guantanamo bay, thebe

report on sexual assault. sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> she was called the mother of the regiment treat opposing influences herclud husband to switch. she hosts the first white house easter egg roll. wife of rutherford b. hayes. monday night live at 9:00 eastern on tuesday and seized on c-span--tuesday and c-span three. >> a discussion on the impact of federal funding for microbe research. this is about 45 minutes. host: on wednesday in our last hour, we take a look at a magazine article. this week is the recent addition of "smithsonian magazine."

inside the magazine is a cover piece by richard conniff, called "the body eclectic." let's begin there. what are microbes? guest: the fungi, the viruses, but in particular they live all around our bodies and in our bodies. we have never known before what they do and how they affect us? except for one way, we know they cause disease, so we tend to think of them as the enemy, and that has changed. host: how many do humans have? what kind of information do they hold? guest: people have started to research over the past 10 years and it is startling because it puts out what it means to be human. we have about 10 trillion cells that are certifiably human cells, but then we have 100

trillion microbial cells. we have 21,000 genes that are human genes that determine our behavior, but we have 8 million microbial genes. they do things to us. they help us digest food. they tweak the immune system. they affect us in all kinds of ways that we have never really understood before. host: yet you call it big science in your article. why is that? guest: what happened in the late 1990's is that researchers developed technology that enabled them to identify every microbe in the human body for the first time. before that, they were only able to identify the ones that happened to be happy in a petri dish that could survive there in a culture, and you are looking at thousands of species in the body all at the same time, all

of them with multiple genes, and trying to make sense of that and make sense of how they interact with each other so that the data that comes out of this is just overwhelming. it overwhelms supercomputers. it is hard to deal with. each individual is also a different, so that is a lot to digest. host: who is doing the research? what group? guest: the thing that has made the micro biome a really hot topic is that about about five years ago the national institutes of health began something called the human micro biome project, and this was an effort, a collaboration with about 80 universities and other institutions around the country, about 400 scientists, and a budget of $173 million. the idea was to study first of all 300 volunteers, healthy volunteers, to look at different parts of their bodies and find

out what microbes lived there. so they looked at five basic areas -- the nose, the skin, the gut, the genital area, and -- the skin, did i say? five areas, and then they created a baseline of what is normal in humans, and then they looked at the connections in humans to health and disease. host: so it goes beyond universities and government that studies this. capitalists got involved. why? guest: the government was hoping to, what the nih was hoping to do, was to bring the role of a microbe -- of a micro biome to the general public and the attention of the pharmaceutical injury -- the pharmaceutical insert -- the pharmaceutical industry and venture capitalists for application in everyday human medicine.

host: for what purpose? what are they trying to achieve? guest: so once you understand what these microbes do, you can tweak them in all kinds of ways and get them to perform optimally things that you want them to do and not things you don't want them to do. even if you could understand what they are, you can use them in diagnosis. a standard problem now is that a mom will take her kid to the doctor with some sort of skin rash, and the doctor would prescribe an antibiotic. the doctor basically has to guess which antibiotic is going to work. it may take two or three different antibiotics to get to the right one. meanwhile, the kid is suffering and annoyed and is -- there is often a lack of compliance because they don't trust the antibiotics.

if you can identify what are causing the problem at the start, the doctor can give the right antibiotic at the right time and get the results much more quickly. host: "interesting fact," he says, "the majority of the microbes in your body are nonhuman but other microbial species." guest: that is true. there are about 10,000 microbial species in the human body, and they are weirdly distributed, so i think there are about 140 different species that live behind the ear? why? i don't think anyone knows. i don't think anyone knows. the majority of them live in the human gut and our there for digestive purposes and to tweak the immune system. but altogether they weigh about as much as -- that is, microbes altogether weigh about as much as the human brain, about three pounds.

host: you say this will turn around 150 years of medical thinking. why is that? guest: the germ theory has dominated medical thinking since about the 1880's, and that is the idea that pathogens make us sick and that therefore all microbes are the enemy, and that we need to be antibacterial, use antibiotics liberally, and it has given us this idea of the ideal antiseptic world. now we realize that that is a mistake, that it is not just -- that microbes are not the enemy, they are also essential allies. so we have to learn how to live in balance with them and control the ones that are threats but also encourage and not destroy the ones that really help us to function. host: what is destroying the ones that help us function? what is the role of antibiotics? guest: it is not just antibiotics.

it is all of the bacterial, antibacterial things, putting on the hand lotion every time we walked down the hallway to kill microbes. but one of the most interesting things out of all of this is -- an understanding of the destructive role of antibiotics. we have seen antibiotics as our salvation for the last 60 years since they were introduced in world war ii. you can understand why we think that way because they do save our lives from incredibly destructors diseases. i remember when i was a kid that every mom worried about blood poisoning. people don't think about blood poisoning anymore. it is like it never happened. but the problem is that we have become so dependent on antibiotics and we tend to think of them as the remedy for everything, that we use them all the time, and the effect is

destructive. so the average kid in the developing country gets tens of 10 or 20 courses of antibiotics by the time they reach 18. so we used to think that that -- you went into the doctor and you asked for an antibiotic because your kid was screaming, sick, had an ear infection. we knew that that might be bad for society over the long-term because because it might encourage antibiotic resistance, but you want to have your kids feel good now. so we all wanted to get those antibiotics. what we did realize is that we might be harming the kid now. what happens with antibiotics is that they destroy the body's normal microbial life, and the microbes don't just bounce back, they actually struggled to come back. so when you get those 10 or 20 doses over the course of childhood, you may seriously impair the micro biome, and the result can be affecting our health in all kinds of ways we did not suspect before.

host: according to your article, the most recent research on microbes found that infants exposed to antibiotics in the first six months are 20% more likely to be overweight as toddlers. and then a lack of normal gut microbes early in life disturbs the central nervous system in rodents, may do the same to humans. and starving children might lack the right digestive microorganisms to fix malnutrition. guest: yes. that was a study done in africa this year in malawi. they looked at kids in the same households, with the same diet. one had a severe form of malnutrition and another did not. the kid who did not have the disease did fine, the other kid

did not. he would do fine for a little while, but then go back to being malnourished what they found was that if you manipulate the micro biome and give these kids the right microbes to digest the food, they have a much better chance of recovering from malnutrition. host: we are talking about microbe research with richard conniff, his piece in "smithsonian magazine," "the body eclectic." let's go to charlotte. caller: good morning. i was curious as to, how does the body pick up its microbes, and if we are constructed by our dna, do we carry dna to make these microbes? thank you. guest: charlotte, we picked the microbes up from the world around us right from the start.

one of the most interesting studies has to do with cesarean births. about 30% of kids in this country are born by cesarean, and they found that kids born that way have a consistently different -- have a completely different micro biome in early life, dominated by a skin bacteria. where is kids born vaginally pick up microbes from the mom's birth canal, and they turn out to be healthier as a result because that rich micro biome early on in life is essential to a lot of things, including the development of the immune system, possibly the development of the brain. so the tendency for those kids born by cesarean to have more allergies and other conditions. host: from twitter, "the lack of certain microbes, germs, is associated with allergies and probably autoimmune diseases as well." guest: that is right. in a question of this research

by the nih, they did not actually say x causes y. it is difficult to say that a group of microbes causes a condition, but they found lots of correlations, lots of cases where children lacking certain micro biome's or children who have been through certain things like cesarean birth then had a much higher incidence of things like allergies and autoimmunity, obesity, healy act disease, all those kinds of problems that have become epidemic in society over the last 20, 30 years. host: robert in tennessee, republican caller. you are up next. caller: i am overwhelmed what i hear this morning, and there are millions and trillions of them. as a young man, i thought all reality came about by chance, and this is a deeper level of reality i never thought of

before. i am coming more to the conclusion that there is a great designer of all that is out there, and i lost my atheism way back there, and it seems this is such a help to me to hear all this competition in my human body, the microbes, i cannot even grasp it. i am just so grateful for what you are saying this morning. host: richard conniff, talk about the complexity of this. guest: let me tell you how i got into this in the first place. i generally write about wildlife behavior, and i was writing a book about the discovery of species in the great age of discovery, the 19th century. i was writing about birds, butterflies, monkeys, that kind of thing. i was hearing about the micro biome at the same time, and i was describing this whole world of astonishing discovery, yet i was completely ignoring this

other microbial world, this invisible world. there was a period of discovery that has been starting in the last 10 years and i am sure will go on for quite a while that was that is as astonishing as discovering new worlds in the 19th century. it is finding these new worlds inside of us come and that is amazing and complex complex, and it changes our idea of who we are. host: richard conniff has a blog, and you can follow him on twitter as well. we will go to patricia, new york, independent caller. help me with the name of your town, patricia. caller: ticonderoga. hi, richard. i want to comment on the previous caller.

it is comforting to me as well to understand that there are complexities that we have a lot of questions about as human beings. i am not an advocate of taking antibiotics inappropriately. i have never taken many of them over my life -- a few here and there. this morning there was a report on the news about relief of lower back pain and long- standing through the use of a 100-day course of antibiotics. i don't know what antibiotics were being used, and i do think that the 100 days is an interesting figure. i think it kind of reflects the complexity of the kind of engineering or tinkering or whatever you want to call it, that we have to do with these microbes. i just wondered if you would comment on that.

guest: i have not seen that study, so i cannot comment on it. what is promising is the idea that you won't necessarily need to go to antibiotics in the future. they will understand how to encourage beneficial bacteria and bring about a balance between the good and the bad bacteria, and the good bacteria will often be able to control and minimize the effect of the bad ones, and that is going to be a much more successful and less destructive way of handling a lot of medical conditions. the example that comes to mind is an epidemic condition now called cdif, a gut microbe. when you give a person repeated doses of antibiotics, it can wipe out the normal microbial life in the gut, and this one

destructive microbe starts to take over and it causes really severe unpleasant conditions, chronic diarrhea, and they try to treat it with other antibiotics, and that often makes it worse. there is a treatment for this now that sounds incredibly disgusting, and yet it seems to work, and that is fecal transplant. what they do is, they take donor material from a relative and they injected into the person's colon and tried to introduced a more balanced microbial community to keep the cdif in check. guest: "i read autism may be a lack of good gut flora in mom, that baby inherits, and unable to recover from inoculation of salt."

assault." guest: i think we have to wait a long time before people get conclusive results about what role microbes may play in autism. it is way too soon. host: and it brings up a point that you made in the article, promising too much too soon. guest: there is a researcher at university of california at at davis. people are so excited about the discoveries and the incredible implications that they are promising all kinds of things. they are promising that microbes can prevent stroke or cure autism or do any number of things. really all we have now or -- are correlations. we have these interesting

connections between changes of micro biome and changes in a person's health, but that does not mean that x causes y. to get to that point of x causing why takes a lot of scientific work, and to get to the point where we can take that scientific work and apply it, that is a big step and it will take a while. host: what about the probiotic industry? you write that it is up 22% over last year. what is it, and what are they promising? guest: probiotics contain live bacteria, and people have taken probiotics pretty much forever. they are generally harmless. people also tend now to think that because the micro biome is good and you want to have a rich, diverse microbial community, that taking probiotics is going to be the answer to everything. they take massive doses of row thosebiotics, and

probiotics are not typically and carefully regulated by the government. the idea that as one of the scientists i talked to put it, that something is a cure-all for everything probably means it is a cure for nothing. so i think putting too much confidence in probiotics can be dangerous. on the other hand, we do get to understand how microbes work and do develop beneficial microbes that are precisely targeted to specific conditions. at some point in the future, we will have probiotics that we can apply to very specific medical conditions and make a real difference. we are not there yet. host: we are talking to richard conniff of "smithsonian magazine," about researching microbes. as he said, he writes primarily about nature and has a blog. his most recent book, "swimming

with piranas at feeding time," richard conniff. jean in ohio said, "as a medical person i am outraged and these refuse to do sputum and throat cultures before giving out antibiotics." caller: my question is this. over the years we have seen a large rise in corporate farming, and then we see the sustainable growth organic movement where the soils are filled with microbes and filled with life, quite frankly. so my question is -- is this going to lead to a more sustainable life for us with sustainable farming? guest: so let's talk about the

corporate side of farming. these large concentrated operations. they are one of the areas where antibiotics have been used most heavily and indiscriminately, so we know now that 80% of the antibiotics in this country go not to medical purposes, not to human medical purposes, but to food animals, the animals that we eat. they go to promote growth, but more particularly to enable animals to stay healthy in much more crowded conditions, and the result of that is that we have much cheaper meat than we would otherwise. on the other hand, the result is that we have antibiotic resistant bacteria on practically all the meat that we buy in the supermarket. so in addition to medical overuse of antibiotics, i think we are coming to recognize that this agricultural overuse of antibiotics is extremely

disruptive, and i think that will change pretty quickly. it is already changing because consumers are reacting so strongly against meat that is tainted with antibiotic resistant bacteria. host: what about the microbes we get from other people? we talked about it earlier, or get from what we eat? guest: it depends on how you cook your food, but there is antibiotic resistant salmonella and e. coli and bacteria on basically all of the supermarket meat that you get from standard industrial production methods, and you have to cook it thoroughly so you don't feel the consequences of that. but even handling that meet, -- meat, having it around the kitchen means that we are picking up those antibiotic resistant bacteria, and bacteria do this

weird thing. instead of passing on their capacity just to their offspring the way we do, they can swap it from side to side with the microbes around them, so they can swap antibiotic resistance within our bodies, and the consequences of that are frightening to think about. host: what are they? guest: one of the reasons that cdif is such a problem is that you have bacteria that resist treatment with antibiotics. we just cannot deal with them. you have e. coli in the standard urinary tract infection that is often untreatable or difficult to treat because they have multiple antibiotic resistance. i believe e. coli infections kill 800,000 people worldwide. you have an antibiotic resistance crisis in this country that i think the number

is 63,000 people a year die as a result of antibiotic resistant infections in this country. so those are pretty big consequences from this kind of giddiness that we have had about antibiotics over the last 60 years. host: richard conniff, author of "the body eclectic." next caller, go ahead. caller: i have a 21-month-old child, and i wonder if there is any kind of testing that can be done on this? guest: i don't think they are doing much testing in terms of treating individual patients at this point, but the one thing that people said to me repeatedly as i was doing this research is, let your kid play in the dirt. let your kid be a kid. open windows, go outside. don't try to lock a kid up in this sanitized world, because the consequences for that child's health could be more serious than you imagine. host: sonja in howard, ohio, a republican caller.

go ahead. caller: good morning. i think that is great that you are doing something very important. i had a question regarding the microbes inside the body, the way that the cells decay. i was wondering, if the cells are alive and regenerating, do they feed off of that in any way? the main question, the white blood cells, they destroy the -- i cannot think of the word and i sound like an idiot. host: you are doing fine. caller: they destroy the bad cells that make you sick, and i wonder if there is any way that they feed off of that, regenerate themselves in that

our body does. host: stay on the line and i will have richard conniff respond. guest: i am not sure i can answer that question. it seems to me if you are saying asking if the bacteria are feeding off each other in the body, and if that controls the bacteria, and honestly i just know that. -- i don't know that. when doctors try to control bacteria like cdif when they do fecal transplants, they are introducing bacteria to out- compete them, to occupy the spaces and niches in the body, not because they think the microbes will go in there and eat the cdif. i am not the one to answer the question. host: "did the pre-penicillin sulfur compounds have the same negative effects on good microbes?" guest: the first antibiotics came in in 1935, and they were the only ones available until 1944, and i don't know if they produced the same amounts of resistance.

but as soon as penicillin came in, by 1945 you are saying antibiotic resistance coming up because of the heavy use of antibiotics. it was being heavily used because it had such great effect. within world war ii, it saves tens of thousands of soldiers lives from d-day on because antibiotics prevented these horrible infections from wounds so people did not get gangrene, they did not have their limbs amputated, they did not die. so it was a great thing, and you understand it -- people discussed seriously, doctors discussed broadcasting antibiotics into the atmosphere to control microbes, to control these enemies. but in fact we realize that i -- microbes are not the enemy, they are also

our allies. host: marlene, democratic caller. caller: i was calling because when my daughter was 10, her appendix burst. she was treated with triple antibiotics. then discharged, but returns later because of infection. i have often wondered, because it took her a very long time to recover her strength, and she often still feels tired, more tired than my other daughter because of going through that. i often wonder, is there any kind of long-term effect? guest: i don't know that. sorry, i cannot help you with that. i know it is incredibly debilitating when it happens, and it is sometimes fatal, but i don't know how it affects people after that over the long term. host: robert ryan says, "what percentage of bacteria cannot be cultured, and what implications for health does this have?"

guest: it was a pretty small percentage that could survive in a petri dish and be studied. when they started to do the dna sequencing and seeing all the rest of the things going on in our body, it opened up a pretty big new world. and we are just finding out what host: richard conniff, we have about 10 minutes left ear. ?hat is next in this research what will we hear about? guest: first of all, the nih has completed that initial program. they spent $173 million on a five-year pilot program with the idea of bringing the micro biome to the attention of the general public, the industry, the medical community. they really did bring that to everybody's attention, so readers -- to research has taken off.

the nih is going to continue with a $15 million program over the next three years, and they will be looking at some of the functions of the microbio, something that specific microbes do and how we can manipulate them. so we will start to see that filtering out into our everyday lives. you will see it in doctors offices. we have drug companies that are researching microbial treatments for diabetes obesity, allergies. those things will start to come on the market, they be five years, i don't know. and you also have, in addition to the $15 million that nih is spending on the next phase of the human microbio project, you have other parts of the national institutes of health that to ramp up their research on the

microbio, and they spent $180 million a year. so that will bear fruit and show up in our lives in all kinds of ways. i think the first thing we are going to see is people are going to move away from antibiotics because they will understand how destructive they are. they will be a lot more cautious of that. it is hard to predict. host: you talk about the peace that -- you talk about in the piece that toothpaste companies are doing research on that. why is that? guest: there are 700 or so, maybe up to 1000, different microbes in the mouth. it is a question of establishing a balance within the mouth so that the ones that cause cavities are kind of outcompeted by the ones that are beneficial, and i think toothpaste companies are looking to see if they can take advantage of that to make their products more effective. host: venture capitalists are also getting into the game. do we know how much money is putting into this research on the private side?

guest: i don't know the numbers on total venture capital investment. i did talk to one company him a second genome, in california, and is looking to put a product on the market for also rate of for ulcerative colitis, and there are others. i suspect there are more that i did not run across in the course of my research. host: kevin, gaithersburg, maryland, republican caller. go ahead. caller: if we are kind of in the beginning of this process, the nih is already pulling in venture capitalists, going to want to make products and applications. is nih doing anything to detect the universal i.t. that is out there for this? guest: what the nih set out to do was to create a kind of

template for how to do this work. they wanted to create protocols for how you do sampling, order calls for how you analyze the data -- protocols for how you analyze the data onto computer programs that will handle all the data. but, you know, if you are whether people will start patenting microbes and trying to privatize them, i don't think that is the nih's -- i think that is a question for the courts and i don't know what is going to happen with that. host: bakersfield, california, on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i would like to ask if he is aware of omaha beef. they irradiate all of their beef so they don't have that problem with e. coli getting to the customer. guest: i don't know that

particular company, but most companies, and also the countries that raise their food animals by more old-fashioned means without relying on antibiotics can get away from this problem pretty easily. it is not inevitable that we have meat contaminated with antibiotic resistant bacteria. it just seems that way because that is how the industry chooses to do it at the moment. host: mark, a lego, new york, democratic caller. caller: good morning. your wildlife studies do see new species of microbes, mutating species, or are we losing species of microbes? guest: we are losing species within our own bodies. one of the things that is most alarming, they call it the

disappearing microbiota process. the overall diversity of microbes in the gut has steadily gone down over the past 60 years, and this may be having lots of negative consequences in terms of allergies and digestive disorders and those other things that we were discussing earlier. so, yes, there is a kind of possible ecological crisis within our own bodies that is a real source of concern. host: matt smith says, "can our guest link recent studies, experiments linking stomach and gut bacteria to mood and motivation?" guest: that study of rats suggested that rats that don't have a rich diverse microbio in the early stages of life --

micro biome in the early stages of life can have different serotonin levels in the brain, and that is scary stuff and stuff that needs to be studied. but, you know, what can we can do about it now, how we can change our lives, that is not known. it still needs to be researched. host: don in new mexico, independent caller. caller: good morning. mary roach has written a new book called "adventures of the alimentary canal," dealing with our digestive system and how it works. are you familiar with that particular work? guest: i have not read it. caller: my second question, there has been a recent study done on children who have pacifiers in the way mothers deal with those pacifiers -- when they drop to the ground, whether they pick them up and give them to the child or whether they put them in their

mouths and then given to the child and introduce that bacteria in their children. are you familiar with that study? guest: yes, that was a story in "the new york times" asked the other day. this is the exact split personality over microbes. the impulse to take the pacifier and put it under hot water immediately and clean it up, and yet it may be healthier to put it in your mouth and rinse it off and give it back to the baby. so this idea of the mom and the child exchanging microbes early on, and this being an important thing for the child to develop its microbial diversity, that is when i was visiting these scientists, researching the story, all of them would be talking about how important it was to have a rich and diverse microbiome, and then out of the hallways they would have those

purell dispensers for the antiseptic washing of hands. so we have this split personality would have to get past and think of microbes as a much more subtle and nuanced thing then we have thought about them in the past. host: sheila in connecticut, independent caller. caller: hello, richard and greta. i question is about roe biotic about probiotics. my doctor lets me get away with getting off of them if i can because i get all these side effects. on these probiotics, they introduce bacteria into the system. i wonder if we can protect ourselves by doing this because there are so many antibiotics out there. yours ago i came upon a book -- years ago i came upon a book and sidney wolfe was one of the contributors.

i call that my bible. i don't have access to it right now, but i have to get another one. it begins with a c, but it is causes -- it causes different things like tendinitis and different things with your bones, so i am very leery of antibiotics. i put myself on probiotics, and i wonder if that is safe to introduce into the system every day. would that be helpful on counteracting -- host: if i could add to that, there is an e-mail from maryland from maryland that says, "is there a validity that taking probiotics replaces the good bacteria in the human gut providing that the probiotic has been manufactured in -- i don't -- in my guest: in the article i describe the micro biome as being like a

symphony, different parts that are interactive playing together, and adding the probiotic is like playing the piano solo with your elbows. on the other hand, introducing an antibiotic is like laying the piano solo with a two by four. you are doing damage and destruction. avoiding that is certainly something to do if you can. when you can, you should. meanwhile, you're not going to hurt yourself with probiotics, and eventually there will be probiotics that will be a real help. host: richard conniff's piece is "the body eclectic," in the latest edition of "smithsonian magazine." thank you for talking to our viewers this morning. we appreciate it.

that does it for today's-- flex show practice and talked about the investigation last year's attack in benghazi -- attkisson talks about the investigation in last year's attack in benghazi. later, former at yet deputy director and cia deputy director will talk about homegrown terrorism. washington journal, but at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. a.m. eastern on c-span. >> next, the president of south korea addresses a joint meeting of the u.s. congress. president obama honors this year's winners of a top cop awards. then weekly addresses with president obama and martha roby. what frustrated me about the

situation was how different it was from what we face today. many things are radically different. there are no radical leftist rds are secular parties in afghanistan today. that is all pretty much wiped out. for much the 1970 .s was a secularist modernizer and he was replaced in 1978 by the afghan communists he tried to remodel society according to their own utopian designs. the whole country rose up against him. that is why the soviets had to come in. what is amazing is the way the invasion and the almost unending civil war that has followed compounded by the u.s. intervention in 2001 and after has completely wiped out the

whole of afghanistan that we saw the 1960's in 19 70's. >> revolutionary islam, up poland.sit: -- visits ,unday at 9:00 on afterwards part of the tv does begin on c- span two. -- part of book tv this weekend on c-span2. >> a discussion of the alliance between our two countries. she addressed a joint meeting of congress. south korea's president was elected in 2012, the first woman to be elected as the country's leader. this is what he minutes. -- this is 40 minutes,

[applause] >> speaker boehner, vice president biden, distinguished members of the house and the senate, ladies and gentlemen. i'm privileged to stand in this chamber, hallowed ground of freedom and democracy, to speak about our friendship and our

future together. after i arrived in washington the day before yesterday, i went to the korean war memorial near the banks of the potomac. i read the words etched in granite. our nation honors her sons and daughters who answer the call to defend our country. they never knew and a people they never met. time and again, i'm moved when i read those familiar words. [applause] >> let me express on behalf of the people of the republic of

korea our profound gratitude to america veterans. they are -- their blood, sweat and tears helped safeguard the freedom and democracy. [applause] >> i also offer my heart felt appreciation to four men in particular. they served in that war and now serve in this chamber. their names are congressman conyers. congressman rangell.

sam johnson. [applause] >> gentlemen, my country thanks you. when the guns fell silent in the

summer of 1953, koreans were surviving on $67 that year. six decades later, korea is one of the top five car producers and the eighth largest trading nation. some call this the miracle on the river. [applause] in korea, it was anything but a miracle. and it wasn't just to build from win. koreans worked tirelessly in the mines of germany, in the jungles of vietnam, in the deserts of the middle east. these are the people, the proud

korean people that i'm so honored to serve as president. [applause] >> they are the ones that made korea what it is today. together, we will rise to their stories. a second miracle on the river. this time, it will be written with our revived economy, with our people that are happy, with a flourishing culture and on a pathway to a reunified peninsula. \[applause] these are the full tenets that

guide my government. we also know that we didn't come this far on our own along our journey. we have been aided by great friends and among them, the united states is the second to none. \[applause] america, i thank you for your friendship. if the path is anything to go by, our new journey will also be filled with excitement. this year, we honor the 50th anniversary of our alliance and today, i would like to

acknowledge one iconic family that captures those years. it is the family of lieutenant colonel david morgan. \[applause] >> his grandfather, the late warren morgan fought in the korean war. the senior morgan was a commander in the u.s. naval reserve.

his father, john morgan, also served in the korean war. he was a battery commander of the artillery. colonel morgan himself has served two tours in korea, in 1992 and 2005. the morgan family is a living testimony to our 60 years together. three generations of americans helping to safeguard korea. \[applause] >> that family is here with us

today. as president of our grateful nation, i salute the morgan family and the commitment and friendship of the american people. \[applause] >> looking forward, our precious alliance is setting our sights on a better world, a better future, bound by trust, guided by shared values. we are cooperating across and beyond our own boundaries. korea has stood by the united states in iraq and afghanistan. together, we supported peace building and construction in those nations.

following was the washington conference in 2010. hosted the second nuclear security summit. there, we reafffirmed our commitment to the vision of a world without nuclear weapons. \[applause] >> our world without nuclear weapons must start on the korean peninsula. \[applause] >> for the peninsula is the home to the only divided nation state and directly faces the threat of nuclear weapons.

it is an ideal test bed for a future free of nuclear arms. if we can pull it off on the korean peninsula, then we can pull it off anywhere else. \[applause] >> korea has been pursuing the peaceful use of nuclear energy. it is also firmly committed to the principle of nonproliferation. korea and the united states are partnering to build in other countries. in this regard, we need a modernized beneficialy out mutual successor to our nuclear civil agreement.

section accord will bring huge advantages to related industries in both our countries. the united states and korea send the largest numbers of aid volunteers abroad. we work side by side to help lower-income countries. in 2011, our agencies signed a document to facilitate these efforts and korea's aid agency will soon be signing another with the u.s. peace corps. \[applause]

>> in march of last year, the free trade agreement went into effect. it adds an economic pillar to our alliance. it has moved us closer to a comprehensive and strategic alliance. we can do even more if the visas on korean nationals is passed in this congress. both our economies will benefit for it would help create many more jobs. \[applause] >> if it should show our people what the f.d.a. can do for them,

i ask congress for its understanding for its support. our f.t.a. connects east asian most america and provides a key platform for building up common asia-pacific markets. the agreement also helps underpin washington's rebalancing towards the region. collectively, these developments paint a forward-leaning alliance. the point to 21st century partnership that is both comprehensive and strategic.

ladies and gentlemen that is our present. the foundation on which we stand. i now wish to share my future together, a future that we will build together as partners. \[applause] following our meeting yesterday, president obama and i adopted a joint declaration building on the extraordinary accomplishments of the last 60 years. we determined to embark on another shared journey towards peace on the korean peninsula, towards cooperation in northeast asia and finally towards

prosperity around the world. it is my hope that as we make this journey, our partnership will be guided by three parts. the first is to laid groundwork for enduring peace on the korean peninsula and overtime for reunification. \[applause] >> that future, i know feels distant today. north korea continues to issue threats and provocations, firing long-range missiles, staging nuclear tests that undermine peace on the peninsula and far

beyond it. the korean government is reacting regularly, but calmly. we are maintaining the highest level of readiness. we are stressing our cooperation with the u.s. and other international partners. korea's economy and financial markets remain stable. companies, both domestic and foreign see this and are expanding their investments. korea's economic fundamentals are strong. its government is equal to the test. and it is backed by the might of our alliance. so long as this continues, you

may rest assured no north korean provocation can succeed. \[applause] >> i will remain sfed fast in pushing forward a trust building on the korean peninsula. i'm confident that trust is the path to peace. the path to a korea that is whole again.

the republic of korea will never september -- accept a nuclear- armed north korea. \[applause] >> pyongyang provocations will be met decisively. \[applause] >> at the same time, i will not link humanitarian aid to the north korean people such as infants and young children to the political situation. \[applause] >> and with the trust that builds up through exchange through cooperation, we will cement the ground for durable peace and eventually peaceful reunification.

but as we say in korea, it takes two hands to clap. \[laughter] >> trust is not something that can be imposed on another. the pattern is all too familiar and badly misguided. north korea provokes a crisis. the international community a certain period of sanctions. later, it tries to patch things up by offering concessions and rewards. meanwhile, pyongyang uses their time to advance its nuclear capabilities.

and uncertainty prevails. it is time to put an end to this vicious circle.[applause] >> pyongyang is pursuing a nuclear arsenal. you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. \[laughter] \[applause] >> the leadership in pyongyang must make no mistake. security does not come from

nuclear weapons. security comes when the lives of its people are improved. it comes when people are free to pursue their happiness. \[applause] >> north korea must make the right choice. it must walk the path to becoming a responsible member in the community of nations. \[applause] >> in order to induce north korea to make their choice, the international community must speak with one voice. its message must be clear and consistent.

only then will we see real progress in inter-korean relations. only then will lasting peace be brought to the korean peninsula and northeast asia. \[applause] >> 60 years ago, a stretch of earth bisecting the korean peninsula was cleared of arms. today the demill rizzed zone is the most militarized place on the planet. and the standup around the d.m.z. has the potential to endanger global peace. we must diffuse the danger, not just between north and south korea.

the world must also get involved. the demilitarized zone must live up to its zone, a zone that strengthens the peace, not undermining it. it is with this vision in mind that i hope to work towards an international park inside the d.m.z. it will be a park that sends a message of peace to all of humanity. this could be pursued with my trust building process. there, i believe, we can start to grow peace, to grow trust. it will be a zone of peace bringing together not just the koreans separated by a military

line, but also the citizens of the world. i call on america and the global community to join us in seeking the promise of a new day. \[applause] >> honorable members of congress. all of northeast asia where we must build peace and cooperation. sadly today, the nation of this region failed to fulfill all that we achieve collectively. the potential is tremendous.

the region's economy are imagining ever greater clout and becoming more and more interlinked. yet, differences stemming from history of widening. it has been said that those who are blind to the past cannot see the future. this is obvious a problem for here and now. but the larger issue is about tomorrow. for where there is failure to acknowledge honestly what happened yesterday, there can be no tomorrow. \[applause] >> asia suffers from what i call the disconnect between growing

economic interdependence on the one hand and the political cooperation on the other. how we manage this paradox, this will determine the shape of a new order in asia. together, we must meet these challenges and so i propose an initiative for peace and cooperation in northeast asia. we cannot afford to put it off. multilateral dialogue process in northeast asia. together, the united states and other northeast asian partners can start with softer issues. these includes environmental issues and disaster relief.

they include nuclear safety and counterterrorism. that will be built through this process. and that trust will propel us to expand the horizons of our cooperation. \[applause] >> the initiative will serve the cause of peace and development in the region. but it will be firmly rooted in the korea-u.s. alliance. in this sense, it could reinforce president obama's strategy of rebalancing towards the asia pacific.

of course, north korea could also be invited to join if we start where our initiatives overlap. then later on, it will be easier to find the common ground on the larger challenges, easier to find solutions through our mutual benefit. i firmly believe that korea and the united states will work hand in hand as we shape an emerging process for cooperation in the region. \[applause] >> the final leg of our journey extends even further beyond the peninsula, beyond northeast asia to the rest of the world.

it is a contribution to the happiness, the happiness of koreans on both halveses of the peninsula, the happiness of all humanity. it is what i advanced at my inauguration. the pursuit of happiness is enshrined in the american declaration of independence. it also occupies a special place in the korean constitution. i have long believed that our alliance should aim far. that it should ultimately seek a happier world guided by the spirit, we stood side by side in the frontier of peace and freedom.

we are expanding correction -- cooperation on global issues, issues like counterterrorism, nuclear nonproliferation and the global financial crisis. our efforts will not stop there. together we will spearhead the universal values of freedom, human rights and the rule of law. \[applause] we will march together to take on global challenges from fighting poverty, to tackling climate change and other environmental issues. \[applause] >> members of the house and the

senate, our journey since the korean war having led by our specific mission to respond their threats and provocations from the north and to defend the freedom and peace on the korean peninsula. today, our alliance is called upon to go beyond that, beyond just the defense of freedom and peace. we are called upon to step forward on a new journey, a journey towards a korea that is at peace that is made whole. our economic partnership must also aim higher and reach further into the future.

president obama has outlined the startup america initiative. together with my strategy for a creative economy, we can advance toward a common goal to help channel the innovative idea, the passion and the drive of -- toward brighter future. \[applause] >> koreans and americans are partnering in new ways where maybe towards hollywood films or at reconstruction sites in the middle east. together we can envision a future that is richer, that is

safer and that is happier. our chorus of freedom and peace of future hope has not ceased to resonate over the last 60 years and will not cease to go on. thank you very much. \[applause] \[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] \[captioning performed by ational captioning institute]

[applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause] >> president obama honors this year's winners of the top cop

awards. , a discussion about the history of the eighth amendment and capital punishment. on the next washington journal, the investigation into last year's attack in benghazi, libya. state and federal laws from the national center of missing and exploited children. former fbi director and cia debbie director bill mott will talk about homegrown terrorism. >> post-9/11, a whole lot more people cared about national security issues.

all of a sudden, there was a market for former cia folks, .efense intelligence agencies all of those guys who were used to operating in the shadows saw a market for their services as commentators, book writers, so there was this somewhat uncomfortable interaction between the agencies and these former employees. >> at the time, i thought it was something we needed to do. as time passed, as september 11 has moved 4 -- further back into history, i think i have changed my mind. waterboarding is something we should not be in the business of doing. because we are americans and we are better than that. >> this is a guy who by all accounts meant well, who served

his country well by most accounts for 15 years. in very dangerous situations. risk his life to take on al qaeda and pakistan. take on terrorism. he is going off to prison for 30 months, leaving his family behind. >> scott shellady's feature story from spy to source to convict. sunday at 8:00 on c-span. thissident obama honored year top cops. from the white house east room, this is about 10 minutes. [applause]

[no audio] >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and mr. tom -- [applause] >> thank you so much. everybody, please have a seat. good morning. welcome to the white house for

what is one of my favorite events all year. i want to start by thanking a former police officer, police chief in seattle, police commissioner in buffalo, please officer in st. petersburg, florida, now serves as the head of the office of the national drug control policy. he is doing outstanding work every day helping to make sure that our young people are safe and not exposed to some of the worst drugs out there. so we very much want to give him a big round of applause. [applause] we have got napo tom wright here next to me. tom is doing an outstanding job every day. of course, we have our 2013 top cops.

as president, i get to meet and work with a lot extraordinary law-enforcement officers every single day from men and women who protect me and my family, folks in the secret service, local police who drive on motorcades and events around the country. i am incredibly grateful that all of these law-enforcement officers are doing such outstanding work. and just a few weeks ago, obviously in boston, our country stall once again the strong stuff that these men and women in uniform are made of. police officers, first responders running toward explosions, not knowing if there was something more on the way. law enforcement from different agencies in different parts of the country working together as one united team to identify suspects and bring them to justice.

and moments that few of us will ever forget -- citizens of waterton, massachusetts, light of their streets to cheer on, hi5, hug officers as they headed home after a job will done. we do not always get opportunities to stand and applaud the men and women. but they are out there. hundreds of thousands of them. by patrolling our streets everything will day. we know that when we need you most, you will be ready to protect our lives, even if it means putting your life on the line. that is what these folks are all about. that is what the men and women standing behind me have proven their hearts, their courage, their dedication. and of course, they are a humble group. they will tell you they are not heroes. they will say they were just doing their jobs.

today, we honor them as top cops because they are half right. they were just doing their jobs. from the moment they swore an oath to swore -- serve with honor, for the first time they put on a uniform and 10 on a badge, they knew they might be called upon to do some really tough stuff. i think that makes them more heroic. not less heroic. because they signed up for this, they volunteered, yet continue day in and day out to dedicate themselves, and when the moment came, they were ready to respond. i already talked about one of this year's top cops -- brian murphy -- in my state of the union address. when a gunman opened fire on a temple in wisconsin and brian was the first to arrive, he did not consider his own safety. he fought back until help arrived and ordered his fellow officers who are here today to protect the safety of the

americans worshiping inside, even though he was lying there bleeding. when he was asked how he did it, he said -- that is just the way we are made. that is what you have got to do. that is what you have got to be made of -- it takes down, side suspects in los angeles or vegas or shooters and miami, indiana, chicago, iowa. saving untold numbers of lives. that is what you have got to be made of two dodge live power lines during hurricane sandy to for your partner and down by a tree. this is their job, but it is not just about the uniform that they wear. it is about who they are, what they are made of. when a gunman entered a restaurant in pasadena, texas, it was three off-duty cops who put themselves in harms way. detective ivan marcano got out

of his girlfriend's car to stop them. they shot him in the chest. as his girlfriend was driving him to the hospital, i'm sure not very happy with them, there he is. by total coincidence, they ran into the shooter's getaway car. so what does detective marcano do? he jumps out of the car, keep pressure on his chest with his left hand, holding a service weapon with his right, runs out after the suspects. took one of them down, which led to the capture of the other. he was not on the clock when any of this happened. this was his date night. [laughter]

[applause] it is unbelievable. [applause] by the way, did you invite your girlfriend? where are you? stand up. give her a big round of applause. [applause] she deserves a really nice dinner. after putting her through that. the cabdriver who detective marcano saved said -- i will be thankful to him for the rest of my life. so today, to all of our top cops, let me say that our nation shares that sense of gratitude. you embody america at its best, it's bravest. if top cops can risk their lives to do their jobs, the rest of us should just be able to summon some tiny fraction of courage in

the same sense of responsibility, and certainly that applies to those of us for supporting law enforcement and first responders here in washington. even though in tough economic times, we have got to make sure that they have the resources that they need, whether that is supporting the cops row gram or helping you hired new officers or preventing layoffs or giving you the most advanced crime- fighting tools and critical data, all of which you need in this 21st century when it comes to crime-fighting. we also need to take some common sense steps to protect our rights come our children, protect officers in the line of duty, by making it harder for dangerous criminals to get their hands on lethal weapons. these officers represent the best of us, they deserve the best from us. that begins with being thankful for the not just today but for the rest of their lives.

and recognizing the sacrifices that not only they make but their parents, spouses, kids who watch their loved ones go off and serve every day, knowing that there is real danger out there. i ask all americans, everyone who is watching, all across the country, when you see a police officer, you meet an officer's family, let them know how much you appreciate them. it is the least we can do for the men and women who give us so much and help keep us safe. with that in mind -- [applause] with that in mind, let me give another huge thank you to our top cops of 2013, our entire law-enforcement timidity, all of the families who are here, all of the kids who were here -- thank you for being patient and listening to me. now, what we want to do is get a picture. i think we're going to -- i'm going to line up. i think there is a spot.

[inaudible] [applause] >> thank you, everybody. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> it was just how different it was from what we face today. many things are radically different. there are no radical leftist parties in afghanistan today. that has been wiped out. in the 1970s, those with the powerful forces. a secularist modernizer. he was in place in 1978 by the afghan communists who try to the model society, and they went underground with that. the whole country rose up against them. that is why the soviets had to come in.

what is amazing is the way that invasion and the almost unending civil war that is followed, compounded by the u.s. in. -- intervention has completely wiped out that how -- and that old afghanistan. it is radically. >> revolutionary islam. a pub visits poland. 1979, sundayol on at 9:00. part of book tv on c-span. >> in his weekly address, president obama talks about the u.s. housing market. alabama rivers and marco robie -- passed by the house this week. >> hi, everybody. our top priority as a nation is reigniting the true engine of our economic growth -- a rising, thriving middle class.

and few things define what it is to be middle class in america more than owning your own cornerstone of the american dream -- a home. today, seven years after the real estate bubble burst, triggering the worst economic crisis since the great depression and costing millions of responsible americans their jobs and their homes, our housing market is healing. sales are up. foreclosures are down. construction is expanding. and thanks to rising home prices over the past year, 1.7 million more families have been able to come up for air, because they're no longer underwater on their mortgages. from the day i took office, i've made it a priority to help responsible homeowners and prevent the kind of recklessness that helped cause this crisis in the first place. my housing plan has already helped more than two million people refinance their mortgages, and they're saving an average of $3000 per year. my new consumer watchdog agency is moving forward on protections like a simpler, shorter mortgage form that will help to keep hard-working families from

getting ripped off. but we've got more work to do. we've got more responsible homeowners to help folks who have never missed a mortgage payment, but aren't allowed to refinance, working families who have done everything right, but still owe more on their homes than they're worth. last week, i nominated a man named mel watt to take on these challenges as the head of the federal housing finance agency. mel's represented the people of north carolina in congress for 20 years, and in that time, he helped lead efforts to put in place rules of the road that protect consumers from dishonest mortgage lenders, and give responsible americans the chance to own their own home. he's the right person for the job, and that's why congress should do its job, and confirm him without delay. and they shouldn't stop there. as i said before, more than two million americans have already refinanced at today's low rates, but we can do a lot better than that. i've called on congress to give every responsible homeowner the chance to refinance, and with

it, the opportunity to save $3,000 a year. that's like a $3,000 tax cut. and if you're one of the millions of americans who could take advantage of that, you should ask your representative in congress why they won't act on it. our economy and our housing market are poised for progress but we could do so much more if we work together. more good jobs. greater security for middle- class families. a sense that your hard work is rewarded. that's what i'm fighting for -- and that's what i'm going to keep fighting for as long as i hold this office. thank you. and have a great weekend. >> hello, everyone, i'm martha roby. i'm proud to represent alabama's second congressional district, where my husband riley and i live and raise our two children, margaret and george. allow me to take this opportunity to wish a happy mother's day to my mom, and to all the moms out there. it is such a blessing to be a mother. raising children is an immeasurable joy, but as all moms know, it comes with unique challenges.

and it can be especially tough for moms who work outside the home. talk to just about any mom or dad and they'll tell you they wish they had more time. they wish they had just one more hour in the day to make life work. moms and dads need to find time to take their child to the doctor, attend a pta meeting or make it to the tee ball game. think about those caring for elderly parents or military families where one of the parents is about to deploy. while we may not be able to legislate another hour into the day, we can help working americans better balance life's demands by offering more flexibility for time away from work. this week the house passed my bill, the working families flexibility act, which will remove an outdated and unnecessary restriction on private sector employees accruing comp time, or paid time off, in exchange for overtime. this bill provides options for working moms and dads who need

more time to take care of family responsibilities. it also demonstrates how applying conservative principles can help working americans in their everyday lives. what this bill doesn't do is change the 40-hour work week or how overtime pay is calculated. the same protections that have been a part of labor law for decades remain, and we've added additional protections against coercion or unfair treatment. this bill also doesn't add government regulation to the workplace -- we have enough red tape as is. a more flexible workplace isn't a new concept. in fact, many employees in the public sector enjoy this benefit right now. that's because in 1985 congress passed a law allowing local and state governments to offer their employees the option of comp time. so, why should the rules be different for employees in the private sector? why should government workers have more freedom in the workplace than everybody else?

and why is washington restricting employers from offering certain benefits that government itself is free to offer? our message to the american people is this -- we want to get washington out of the way of how you use your time. i am proud to champion the working families flexibility act on behalf of working moms and dads throughout the country. i join my fellow house republicans in urging the democratic-run senate to take up this bill and pass it soon. and i urge the president to listen to the working parents of our country and promise them he'll sign this bill into law when it reaches his desk. let's come together to empower americans with more freedom and more flexibility with their time. there are big challenges facing this country. though we've seen some improvement, slow economic growth and job creation is in danger of becoming a new normal. this bill won't solve the debt crisis, or fix the president's health care law, or simplify the

tax code. but the fact that we can't solve the big, overarching problems overnight shouldn't stop us from doing what we can right now to help make life a little easier for working moms and dads. the working families flexibility act does that by helping americans better balance the demands of family and work. thank you, and may god bless our mothers, and god bless the united states of america. >> a discussion about the eighth amendment and capital punishment. after that the impact of microbe research funding. then the president of south korea addresses the congress. mac for mary is our guest on newsmakers. he talks about defense issues and the response to the attack on the u.s. embassy in benghazi,

libya. on sexualreport assault. watch newsmakers on sunday at 10:00 and 6:00 on c-span. she is the first first lady to earn a college degree. soldiers called her the mother of the regiment. opposing slavery, she employs -- husband to switch to the meet lucy hayes, wife of rutherford b. hayes. lebanon :00 eastern -- life at 9:00 eastern on c-span. that herl the maria role society hosts a discussion

on the supreme court and the defense -- death penalty. a professor talked about the meaning behind cruel and unusual punishment and gave a historical respective on the origins of the eighth amendment. this is one hour. >> briefly before we start, just one quick announcement. , march 1 andbers second is the national student symposium. the national chapter will

subsidize your travel cost. if you are interested in that, lease contact the member of our officers and we will get you the information you need and help you get set up with that. -- meeting today is immediately following initial the former chief justice will offer commentary. amy lee following that, the professor will be allowed to make any comets for a bottle. -- for rebuttal. the remaining time will be for a question and answer session. without further ado, i have the opportunity now to introduce the professor to you. assistant professor of

law at the university of florida. he received his bachelors from the university of virginia. and masters from harvard university. a jd from public law school. cruelpertise includes procedure, the eighth amendment, lawn policy, and evidence. his research focuses on constitutional limitations on the governmental powers to inflict punishment. more specifically, his scholarship focuses on the underpinnings of the eighth amendment cruel and unusual punishment clause. prior to joining the university of florida in 2009, he practiced criminal law for several years, first in private practice in chicago, and as a federal prosecutors. we are excited to have him here with us. except that our nation -- please

giving a warmo welcome. >> thank you very much. it's really nice to be here. this is a beautiful facility and a great crowd. i will try to keep this brief although like many of your professors, i tend to be a little long-winded. over the last 10 years, the supreme court has limited the death penalties in a number of ways. they have declared it is unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded, to execute minors and also to execute anyone for a non-homicide offense. my thesis today will be that those results are largely defensible as a constitutional matter, although not for the reasons the court has given. much jump right into it. i want to start by posing a

problem the court has faced ever since it started thinking about the cool -- cruel and unusual punishment clause. how do we determine whether it punishment is impermissibly cruel westmark the purpose of punishment is to inflict pain on criminal offenders. physical pain and/or psychological pain. how do we draw the line between pain which is justified and pain which is impermissible. supreme court is divided with two ways to answer this question. justice scalia took the position that if a given punishment practice was ok and 1790, it must be ok today. his answer is simple and clear. all you have to do is look at what was done at the time of the founding and if what the view today is no worse than they did then, it is ok.

the majority has taken a non- originalist approach. the eighth amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. but every day and in every way, we are getting kinder and gentler and as we get kinder and gentler, so too must the constitution. that is the basic idea. unfortunately, neither of these approaches is really workable. let me play my justice scalia is not. in 1790, punishment such as whipping, bodily mutilation were considered acceptable forms of punishment. justice scalia himself in a speech he gave at the university of cincinnati said he would strike down a legislatively authorized punishment of hand branding or mutilation. he said i would have to strike

it down. i understand that under my approach to the eighth amendment, it should be considered ok and yet if i were faced with the issue, i would strike it down. so it seems and opposed a constitutional turk patient -- constitutional interpretation is probably not the best way to go. who decides what current standards of decency require the supreme court says we will strike down a punishment if it violates societal standards. how do we determine what current societal standards are? do we look to jury verdicts? legislative authorization, justice kennedy's guts? where do we look to find out what current moral standards require?

it will have been optimized by at least one legislature and opposed by at least one jury. very often it will be optimized by many legislatures and inflicted by many juries. if the legislatures and juries are authorizing punishment, how is it the court can come to say society somehow condemns it? it's a conundrum. the way the court has got what that is by pretending to find a societal convention against various punishments even though the punishment themselves are very popular and often rise to many legislatures. if you read the current opinion, the court claims are becoming less plausible overtime. using a standard and transparently manipulating it in a way that is not the livable.

that tends to undermine respect for the judiciary. another problem is that it makes the right against cruel and unusual punishment dependent on public opinion. remember what the court says. if society likes of punishment, it's ok because it didn't -- it works with current societal standards. if not, then it is not ok. but individual rights and public opinion don't go together like chocolate and peanut butter. they are not two great tastes that taste great together. the reason we have developed those rights is because public opinion turns against people sometimes and the constitution is supposed to be there to protect them when it does. the clause is there to protect the very unpopular class of citizens, criminal offenders. if we only protect them when society likes them, guess what? we will not protect them very

often. one of the assumptions is that societal opinion get kinder and gentler overtime. anyone who looked at the history of criminal law over the last 40 years with a public opinion has gone precisely the opposite direction because there have been a variety of public panics about different types of crime. in the 1980's, drug crime. in 1990's, creditors. recently, sex offenders. whenever there is a public panic, legislators ratchet up the level of punishment. one thing legislators have done in the last 10 years is due authorize chemical castration of sex offenders. you have to understand, castration as a form of punishment was eliminated in the english tradition in the 13th

century. we were literally getting medieval on sex offenders but under the decency evolution, that should be ok. but i think that as perhaps not the best way to approach the bill of rights. as a result of the court's current approach, we get an eighth amendment jurisprudence that is narrow and unprincipled. narrow and the sense that the court actually will not review most cases that, under the eighth amendment. it will look at death penalty cases. more recently, it has shown a willingness to look at long sentences imposed on juvenile offenders but they will not review your sentence. when they do review, they make the decision in a way that does

not comply with the standards they themselves claim to apply. so it is not a good situation. what's the solution i propose? that we actually read the constitution. the eighth amendment does not prohibit cruel punishment but cruel and unusual punishment. both sides of the debate and ignore the word "unusual" into the constitution as though it is prohibited simply cruel punishment. my argument is the key to understanding how the eighth amendment should work if the focus once again on the word "unusual.? my argument is the key to understanding how the eighth amendment should work if the focus once again on the word "unusual." in the context of the eighth amendment, the word unusual does not mean rare or out of the ordinary. that's the way you think it

would mean. you probably at some point thought why are we only outlying rare or uncommon punishment. the warden the eighth amendment does not mean rare or out of the ordinary. it is meant contrary to law and usage or innovative. that is what it meant in the 17th century when it was first used in the english bill of rights and an 18th century when it was put put into the american bill of rights. contrary to law and usage. to understand that, you need to understand the normative power of law and usage, the moral power. this is a quote from edward cooke who many consider the greatest commonlaw thinker. he said -- what does that mean?

what does that mean? it means the common law, many of us today think of it in the way that judges make policy from the bench and decide cases based on their own views as to what's best. that is not have a common law was thought of for most of its history. the law of custom and law of usage. if a given governmental practice were used over a long time, this was powerful evidence it was both reasonable and enjoyed the consent of the people.

to say something is usual under the common law is to say it's probably pretty good. probably reasonable, practical. to say something is unusual, on the other hand, is to say it is contrary to long usage. contrary to our traditions. not the way we do things. that's what unusual means in the context of the eighth amendment. in english history, the notion of what's unusual or usual was very important in the development of the english constitution. the english constitution was in unwritten constitution but ours with a gun in many ways. many ways.d in many rights were developed in the english constitution based on long usage. the due process of law, including no imprisonment without cause, the right to

indictment by grand jury, trial by jury, double jeopardy, the right to taxation only with consent of parliament and the right of -- and the right against cruel and unusual punishment. they were all rights developed through long usage. edward cook had something to say about unusual or innovative practices. what was his view of innovative practices? this is it. the rack. during the reign of queen elizabeth, there was an attempt to import the civil law practices of europe into england. in part because it was hard for teams to manipulate the common- law because it was a customary law. one of the key features of the civil law was the use of torture. torture to get a confession from a criminal defendant. the, lawyers universally in the

very beginning said this is a legal because it is unusual -- the common lawyers universally in the very beginning said this is illegal because it is unusual. if it's new, innovative, particularly in the realm of punishment --when the government innovates and punishment, it is usually not to be nicer. so when the government innovates, this is strong evidence it is actually cruel. that's why cruel and unusual. the newness is evidence of the cruelty of it. that is the basic idea. there is direct evidence about the meaning of the word unusual in english goal of rights -- in the english bill of

rights. justice scalia talked about this in holland versus michigan -- involving a guy named titus oates. he was a bad guy. in 2005, he was voted the worst of the 21st-century. not a nice guy. here is what he did -- he was a disreputable anglican clergymen who tried to think of a way to get a fortune. he thought people don't like cap - catholics verymuch. -- very much. i will make up a story about a plot to kill the king. i will give evidence and everyone will love me and give me money, etc. so he makes up a story, implicates 15 people, including the queens as it should.

it is really implausible in retrospect because the king at the time was charles ii, who was very friendly to catholics. there is a bunch of trials. 15 people get executed. during the 15th trial, the story unravels. everyone realizes it was all made up and as you can imagine, people are none too pleased. under english law at the time, the only crime he committed was the crime of perjury so he gets tried for perjury and convicted and the judge in his case, the famous justice jeffries, said to him because perjury is a misdemeanor, we can't take your life. but we do have something special prepared for you. this is what they had.

they find him 2000 marks, a large sum of money. they ordered him to be whipped, dragged across the city of london then two days later to be dragged back while being scourged. many people thought he would die of the scourging but he did not die. he was also subject to be pilloried for times. he was sentenced to life imprisonment and he was defrocked. this all happened in 1785 or so. and about 5 years later, history students may note the glorious revolution happened.

james ii is kicked out of england. william and mary come to england to take over the throne. as the price for the throne, parliament requires except this -- accept this new english bill of rights that they agreed to have their power eliminated by it. one of the provisions of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. this is where we get the phrase from. in the very year after the english bill of rights is adopted, who shows up in parliament with a petition but titus oates, saying the punishment inflicted on me was cruel and unusual. and we have parliamentary debates. you can read them yourself. what's clear is that everyone agreed the punishment inflicted on titus oates was cruel and unusual but the house of

lords was not suspended judgment because they hated him so much. his punishment, they say we were thinking specifically about titus oates only include the: -- the cruel and unusual punishment laws in the english bill of rights. how is it his punishment was: -- was cruel and unusual? it could not be that it was cruel and unusual because it involved barbaric methods of punishment. every method of punishment was a traditional form of punishment under the common law. justice scalia have taken the position that only barbaric methods are covered by the cruel and unusual punishment clause. you could not say the chemo to the fact of the punishment for somehow elevated to barbarity because there were things that were much worse.

treason involved quartering. because he was only convicted of a misdemeanor, crime of perjury, that was too much to do to an english citizen. debates make it very clear that the source of standards is higher practice. we have never done this sort of thing before, it is unprecedented. contrary to law and ancient practice. if we permit it, that's it's a bad precedent to the future. the standard we see in the oates case is what i'm talking about here.

now the question arises, that is what the english thought. do the americans think the same thing a century later when they wrote the u.s. constitution? the complete lack of historical reference in that part of justice scalia's opinion. he said it would not make sense for the americans to interpret it the same way and therefore i don't think they did and let's go with my preferred method. he is one of my favorite justices but he is really not an originalist. he is a rules guy. when the original meaning does not give you certain roles, he is uncomfortable and we see a replacement of original meaning with a roll. -- rule. that is what we get from him here. what's the evidence that

americans thought they meant the same thing the english did? there's actually a lot. it's worth remembering the entire american revolution was, on the idea that parliament lacked the power to violate common law right. that is number one. they thought about it in the same way edward cook did. number two, what's the evidence that they interpreted the word unusual to mean the same thing the english did? if you look at the historical record, the framers used the term unusual in a variety of

contexts. when they do, they always use it to mean contrary to long usage. to take one example, when the federal government was created, patrick henry complained the government was nothing but new and unusual experiment. he meant that the federal government was not constrained by the common law. few complained of the anti- federalist he complained of the anti- federalists. so when they debated that they use the word unusual in the sense. and usage. long law

my argument is the amendment was meant to serve as a check on congress' ability to deviate from the common law tradition. yet the look at the long- standing prior practice to judge the punishments. finally, what effect would adopting my reading of the word unusual have on current jurisprudence? it would precisely reversed the evolving standards analysis. if you think about it -- when you talk about evolving standards of decency, you are saying we are willing to judge this old punishment based on our current standards. is this still good given today's standards question mark the real -- standards? the real meaning is precisely the opposite of that. the question we should be asking is how does this new punisher compare to our prior practice -- how does this new punishment compared to our prior practice?

this is where we need judges to enforce rights. we don't need judges to finish off old practices that are already dying off. we need judges to stand as the guardian and legislators get out of control, respond to a public panic by enacting new, cruel punishments. under the current standards, that is exactly where judges disappear. this approach is distinct from justice scalia's standards. justice scalia said if it was ok in 1790, it must be ok today. there is a very old commom law principal. to paraphrase edward cook, custom looses its being when usage fails.

we think of something survives the test of time, it is presumptively reasonable. if it falls out of usage, it is presumptively unreasonable. the refinement of gold and a fire. over time, the draw falls away and the gold remains. but that fell out centuries ago. if the legislator wants to bring it back, it will be treated like any punishment. the only traditional punishment that have continued to survive up until today that the source of our standards for a point of

reference. one application of this is that the court does have the power to determine whether a punishment is unconstitutional because it is disproportionate to the offense. justice scalia has taken the position reports back that power. he mainly does that because he is concerned there is no objective standard to guide judges in determining whether something is disproportionate. if you use long usage, you have a pretty good standard.

what about the death penalty? the love of the cases can be justified based on this principle -- a lots of the cases can be justified based on the current principle. they are more profitable. in kennedy versus louisiana, the supreme court said it is unconstitutional to execute anyone for nonhomicide offense against an individual. at the time that case was decided, there had not been an execution for a nonhomicide offense in the united states for half a century. so you can make the argument that really what was happening was an attempt to bring back at practice that had fallen out of our tradition. i am not saying that isn't a necessary result. i'm not certain that the right result but it is a plausible results. more plausible than to claim current societal standards condemn execution of for example, child rapists. if you took it public opinion poll, i'm sure you would find a majority of citizens support the execution of such people. there is a federalism location

for this as well. -- implication for this as well. that uses a very jurisdiction to jurisdiction. if you're going to define a case about cruel and unusual punishment under a state constitution as opposed to the federal constitution, you might find a given punishment is full and unusual within a state, even though it is not cool and unusual on a federal level. in the 1970's, the supreme court found the death penalty for rape was cruel and unusual. because it was a continuous fact is that survived in georgia up until that time, it was hard to justify that based on the original meaning of the clause.

at that time it was only 10 or 15 years. if a legislature in another state tried to revive the death penalty for rape, one could make a plausible argument it is unusual in our state. a justice call for state judges to enforce state constitutions in a matter that is more protective. this is an example where that would be perfectly appropriate. based on the original meaning. justice taylor is about to talk and i do have to address. michigan is a special case. the michigan constitution was adopted in the 70's -- 1963. the evolving standards is distended the course should apply because presumably, the

michigan legislature was aware that standard at the time it adopted the new michigan constitution. one could argue they meant to incorporate that standard into the michigan constitution. michigan is the only state in the union with the current standard is the appropriate standard. i'm done and i will let justice taylor talk. [applause] >> thank you. that was a wonderful presentation. the federalist decide he should be commended for bringing in speakers like this. it is wonderful that at this law

school, free speech is still alive and well as i suspect it is in many places in the united states. anyone attempting to talk with the death penalty, you mess with a hostile response. that was a great talk. if only you learned about titus oates, perhaps this will be considered small by us catholics to say we for it on time have been advising people to pay no attention to anglican clergymen. [laughter] so we can't be held entirely responsible for titus. i think there is an interesting and intriguing advance and thinking on cruel and unusual. i served at the supreme court in michigan for a number of years. michigan was the first place in the english-speaking world to learn it the death penalty in 1850.

this following and in just hanging that inflamed the people. in 1850, they abolished the death penalty so we have had him on. that which i think most people in michigan are immensely grateful. we got to do other things that were useful for the people. one modest question i have is this -- the most famous champion is william brennan. i wonder if he and justice breyer would agree with you that public opinion to determine what are the evolving standards. or do we look at what sophisticated people think ?

lawhat i think they mean professors. [laughter] on matters broadly speaking, the non-originalists are enthusiastically committed to the evolving standards of decency in all areas of law, not just cool and unusual. do you think it would be a problem even if your ideas are sound to get those non- originalist to come such a position because of the compromise that would affect their advocacy of evolving standards of decency and other

areas. again, thank you. [applause] >> thank you, justice taylor. those are excellent questions. let me address them in order. as a mentioned earlier on, when you talk about evolving centers of decency, one of the key questions is how do we measure current standards of decency? it is true the court has never answer this question. everyone agrees that legislatures and juries are an important component because they represent the will of the people. the legislatures because they

are elected by people. then the question is to be restricted to legislatures injury and if so, how do we count or do we look to other sources as well? there have been a number composed. it court will look to international opinion as reflected in the laws of various countries. it will sometimes look to opinions expressed by professional associations. justice brennan and i believe justice marshall have adopted have developed a hypothetic public opinion. they say get the public only knew what we knew, they would agree with that position. it's an abstract hypothetical public opinion. i really think it is secondary. the deeper problem is that any time a case come before the court, the stronger indicators are likely to provide at least some measure of support for the punishment practice.

they found consensus about the punishment that was approved in 37 states. that has become less plausible. as that has happened, the court has deemphasized it. and say we have also look to our own independent judgment to determine whether it is cool -- it is cruel and unusual punishment. there are no binding

standards. where does the court get they authority to use his judgment without any standards. so there is a rule of law problem. i think that's why in ewing versus california, said i am going to go along with the approach but we are going to restrict it. if it falls outside of that scope, we aren't really going to look at it at all. in michigan and was sentenced to -- a man was sentenced to life in prison under the 650 life or law. if you were found with more than

650 grams of cocaine, you had a mandatory sentence of life. he had no prior record. gotten ridhigan has law.0 life the court said we are not going to look at -- it is non deferential. almost anti-deferential approach. that is a long-winded way of answering your question. the second was, what's the likelihood of the court will adopt this approach given the commitment progressive reading of the constitution? i don't know whether they will. i feel like my paper makes enemies on both sides.

one way to think about it is this -- original meaning is not as inflexible and unbending. when something falls out of usage, you can say it is no longer part of our tradition. i think there is room for that. there's a secondary question -- the appropriate mechanism for change. this involves separation of powers. the way change would work under the original meaning of the

eighth amendment -- legislatures to pass practices of usage. if that's the case, it may fall out of usage. it is not up to judges to put things in usage. when democratic processes do that, then judges may be empowered to recognize that change. we do see common law concepts built. if the processes are considered unacceptable and change over time, the court may be about to recognize the changes. without itself doing violence to the original meaning. there is some chance that is a

proper understanding of the common law is better developed, people who are worried going back to original meaning constitution to inflexible to be useful might possibly be persuaded. other questions? >> professor, thank you for being here. i saw an interview with justice scalia where he spoke about torture. it seems his focus on the cause "punishment" --

we looked at the pictures. i was wondering what you thought about torture, whether that falls under punishment or something else. >> that is an interesting question. i imagine justice scalia was referring to the fact that the supreme court, it only applies to punishment given as a result of colonel conviction. conviction. what about pre-trial torture? you tortured someone until they confess. there is one bit of historical evidence which is george mason

who was the person who -- cruel and unusual punishment was adopted into the u.s. constitution. jordan mason drafted the virginia bill of rights. during the u.s. constitution ratification debates, a question about pretrial torture came up. if you look at the prohibition, and combination with the prohibition against women -- against: unusual punishment -- against cruel and unusual punishment was not permitted. that is only one piece of evidence. he is a fairly authoritative figure in our history. should congress tried to authorize something like pre- trial torture as a way of getting evidence, the eighth amendment is available.

any other questions? oh, come on. >> i wanted to ask about the interplay between legislature and the role of the judging. from what i understand, part of the principal role of the legislature is to implement into law the popular public opinion and what people want.

could you elaborate more on what legislatures will try to do with punishment if you are arguing that as the proper way to do it but the judges are the gatekeepers to ensure everyone's constitutional rights to stay in tact. >> it is a little more limited than that. he gets back the idea of long usage. we say we have discussed them, we don't have that custom. back in the 1700's, you would say we use this or we don't use it. how do we know whether something is contrary to long usuage? there are two ways a traditional practice can fall out of usage.

one, they eliminate the punishment. we shall not use this anymore. the other is it simply stopped getting enforced even though it's still on the books. my argument would be if something like mutilation is before out of usage, able follow because the legislators debated -- forbid it or because securities stop imposing it. there is a case i found from the 19th century in pennsylvania where a woman was convicted of being a common scold. it was a form of punishment to dunk someone as a public shame. she argued this was cruel and unusual punishment.

the pennsylvania supreme court said that cannot happen in more than a century. we don't think it was ever done in pennsylvania. witch done in england at trials. the pennsylvania legislature has enacted laws governing punishment that make it clear this is not a crime under pennsylvania law. the court said this was once part of our tradition. we know that because in part the legislator seems to have forbidden it. it's up to those who are in charge of making or executing laws that used practice. judges can look at what others have done and say yes, this is

not used anymore. yes? >> with the long usage approach, how does something become a new punishment? there are new battles [indiscernible] a new, great punishment that some sort of psychotherapist can come up with. how will that be incorporated? >> "a clockwork orange" kind of thing?

>> yeah. >> you have to use common law reasons assessment practices do change over time. one example around 1790 was there was a movement away from public shaming to imprisonment. prison was a new form of punishment. the thought at the time was it was less cruel than public shaming. i'm not sure if that's actually true. or put in agged hole for five years, they might pick the flogging. but the thinking is it was less cruel. if you put someone in a room alone, they tend to go crazy.

so whenever you have something new, you have to measure it against what came before. i cannot claim you can answer that with mathematical precision. it's not hard to think about. if there is a punishment that involves some kind of mind control, that might be more cruel. chemical castration, it is thought that if you eliminate --rsons system, they will lose eliminate testosterone from a person's system, they will lose the capacity to fantasize sexually.

see you are changing their thought processes. for not only pedophiles but anyone in a certain variety of jurisdictions that permit. as long as my mind is free, i am free. my gut instinct if it is worse to imprison someone's mind than their body. but of course, i can't tell you it would come out that way. it's the toughest of all things under the standard of proposing i'm try to figure out. -- i'm trying to figure out. >> thank you for coming. [indiscernible] in delaware, they had hanging. --stly states have not used

have a choice for the condemned. where do you see us in ten, fifteen years? >> in terms of methods of execution? >> will there be a point where the country will be forced to choose one form over the other? >> they found it was not because the chance of pain was too small. it is a serious problem and points to a broader problem in

our criminal justice system. lethal injection in many cases involve a three drug cocktail. one of those drugs is a barbituate. there is another drug which paralyzes you. the third drug is a numbing agent. numb painful unless you someone first. everyone agrees you could just use the barbituate and it would be no pain. the problem is it creates and

risk of excruciating pain and it's impossible to tell whether the person executed experiences that pain because it is the paralytic agent. you could be suffering terribly, but no one would know because you're paralyzed. then why use it? if you do not use it, guess what happens when the person dies? they go through the death throes. they shake. it is not something pretty to look at. the reason we do the three drug cocktail is because we are trying to hide from ourselves what we're doing. it does not look like death if you use the three drug cocktail. it looks like you're going to

sleep. we are willing to run the risk so we don't have to feed the the -- see the death throes. i'm not going to say i think is better than imprisonment but it's true that when you imprison someone, you don't see what they go through. if you can hide from yourself the effect of what you're doing, you may not feel morally responsible and you may not think is carefully about the limits you should impose on yourself when you do it. that's a troubling aspect of lethal injection. the expiration issues of little different.

some of these drugs are not manufactured in the u.s. they are bought from abroad from disreputable sources. if there were a more robust finding that explore this, we might get a different result. what do you do if the three drug cocktail can be used? -- can't be used? just use a bigger dose of barbituates. deathld have to watch the throes. i do think if the death penalty does fall out of usage, it won't be for that reason but because of the inescapable risk of

executing innocent people. we are learning more and more everyday. it's impossible to avoid even with the most care the risk of convicting innocent people. that may turn public opinion against the death penalty. >> sadly, our time has come to a close. we want to express our great appreciation for you being here. we also thank professor taylor for adding commentary. it has been our pleasure to host you. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] we would like to have members of our chapter with the professor.

nearly like to have a new picture. -- we would like to have a group picture. >> next, he looked at the impact of federal funding on microbe research. and the president of south korea. after that, the iran nuclear program. >> the situation was different from what it is today. many things are radically different. there are no radical leftists parties in afghanistan today. that has been pretty much wiped out. 1970's, those were the powerful forces in afghanistan.

he was replaced by the afghan communist. again trying to remodel society. the whole country rose up against them. is what thatng invasion and the almost unending civil war that has followed compounded by the u.s. intervention in 2001 and after has completely wiped out in afghanistan we saw in the 1960's in 1970's. christian caryl a 1979, sunday at 9 p.m. on after words on c-span 2. next is a discussion on the impact of fertile funding for microbe research. this is about

45 minutes. host: on wednesday in our last hour, we take a look at a magazine article. this week is the recent addition of "smithsonian magazine." inside the magazine is a cover piece by richard conniff, called "the body eclectic." let's begin there. what are microbes? guest: the fungi, the viruses, but in particular they live all around our bodies and in our bodies. we have never known before what they do and how they affect us? except for one way, we know they cause disease, so we tend to think of them as the enemy, and that has changed. host: how many do humans have?

what kind of information do they hold? guest: people have started to research over the past 10 years and it is startling because it puts out what it means to be human. we have about 10 trillion cells that are certifiably human cells, but then we have 100 trillion microbial cells. we have 21,000 genes that are human genes that determine our behavior, but we have 8 million microbial genes. they do things to us. they help us digest food. they tweak the immune system. they affect us in all kinds of ways that we have never really understood before. host: yet you call it big science in your article. why is that? guest: what happened in the late 1990's is that researchers developed technology that enabled them to identify every

microbe in the human body for the first time. before that, they were only able to identify the ones that happened to be happy in a petri dish that could survive there in a culture, and you are looking at thousands of species in the body all at the same time, all of them with multiple genes, and trying to make sense of that and make sense of how they interact with each other so that the data that comes out of this is just overwhelming. it overwhelms supercomputers. it is hard to deal with. each individual is also different, so that is a lot to digest. host: who is doing the research? what group? guest: the thing that has made the micro biome a really hot topic is that about about five years ago the national institutes of health began something called the human micro

biome project, and this was an effort, a collaboration with about 80 universities and other institutions around the country, about 400 scientists, and a budget of $173 million. the idea was to study first of all 300 volunteers, healthy volunteers, to look at different parts of their bodies and find out what microbes lived there. so they looked at five basic areas -- the nose, the skin, the gut, the genital area, and -- the skin, did i say? five areas, and then they created a baseline of what is normal in humans, and then they looked at the connections in humans to health and disease. host: so it goes beyond universities and government that studies this. venture capitalists got involved. why? guest: the government was hoping

to do, what the nih was hoping to do, was to bring the role of a microbe -- of a micro biome to the general public and the attention of the pharmaceutical injury -- the pharmaceutical insert -- the pharmaceutical industry and venture capitalists for application in everyday human medicine. host: for what purpose? what are they trying to achieve? guest: so once you understand what these microbes do, you can tweak them in all kinds of ways and get them to perform optimally things that you want them to do and not things you don't want them to do. even if you could understand what they are, you can use them in diagnosis. a standard problem now is that a mom will take her kid to the doctor with some sort of skin rash, and the doctor would prescribe an antibiotic. the doctor basically has to

guess which antibiotic is going to work. it may take two or three different antibiotics to get to the right one. meanwhile, the kid is suffering and annoyed and is -- there is often a lack of compliance because they don't trust the antibiotics. if you can identify what are causing the problem at the start, the doctor can give the right antibiotic at the right time and get the results much more quickly. host: "interesting fact," he says, "the majority of the microbes in your body are nonhuman but other microbial species." guest: that is true. there are about 10,000 microbial species in the human body, and they are weirdly distributed, so i think there are about 140 different species that live behind the ear? why? i don't think anyone knows. i don't think anyone knows. the majority of them live in the human gut and our there for digestive purposes and to tweak the immune system.

but altogether they weigh about as much as -- that is, microbes altogether weigh about as much as the human brain, about three pounds. host: you say this will turn around 150 years of medical thinking. why is that? guest: the germ theory has dominated medical thinking since about the 1880's, and that is the idea that pathogens make us sick and that therefore all microbes are the enemy, and that we need to be antibacterial, use antibiotics liberally, and it has given us this idea of the ideal antiseptic world. now we realize that that is a mistake, that it is not just -- that microbes are not the enemy, they are also essential allies. so we have to learn how to live in balance with them and control the ones that are threats but

also encourage and not destroy the ones that really help us to function. host: what is destroying the ones that help us function? what is the role of antibiotics? guest: it is not just antibiotics. it is all of the bacterial, antibacterial things, putting on the hand lotion every time we walked down the hallway to kill microbes. but one of the most interesting things out of all of this is -- an understanding of the destructive role of antibiotics. we have seen antibiotics as our salvation for the last 60 years since they were introduced in world war ii. you can understand why we think that way because they do save our lives from incredibly destructors diseases. i remember when i was a kid that every mom worried about blood poisoning. people don't think about blood

poisoning anymore. it is like it never happened. but the problem is that we have become so dependent on antibiotics and we tend to think of them as the remedy for everything, that we use them all the time, and the effect is destructive. developing country gets tens of -- 10 or 20 courses of antibiotics by the time they reach 18. so we used to think that that -- you went into the doctor and you asked for an antibiotic because your kid was screaming, sick, had an ear infection. we knew that that might be bad for society over the long-term because because it might encourage antibiotic resistance, but you want to have your kids feel good now. so we all wanted to get those antibiotics. what we did realize is that we might be harming the kid now. what happens with antibiotics is that they destroy the body's