do we understand those frictions yet? no, not really. those of you who follow those meetings realize that rather than necessarily agreeing with the freshwater and saltwater approaches, there is just more truth with certain techniques used. no one has really gotten to the root of it. the financial frictions anticipate a similar trajectory where as soon as you depart from complete markets -- let us understand what we mean by what we mean by supply equals demand. you create all sorts of ad hoc issues that we have to try to better understand how to approach. i think political economy is very important in thinking about these problems.

i have worked on sovereign debt my entire life. it is a fundamental lyrical economy problem. the ability to play -- a is not the issue as much as willingness to pay or fairness as you have it. i think these are very important things. let me pick a more monday in area where perhaps -- mundane area which is measurement. we talk about were gdp is. you have to understand that we did not even have this construct until it really started this with the commission and the 30's. at 21920 ninecked and economic historians have looked at it more sense. at 1929 and economic historians have looked at it more sense. it is considered -- there is a high standard deviation around

it. there are conceptual issues you hear about like intentional investment where you reorganize offices or firms, perhaps retraining people in ways that do not show up in gdp. they are a lot like investment. we do not measure them. another issue where measurement is that it isem very, very hard to properly measure the inflation rate. the fed targets it but the truth is we don't really know at a deep, economic level what it is, especially when we are making long comparisons over long periods. the many problems. the -- commission did a wonderful job in the late 1990's. the central problem is that there are constantly new goods. you give an example of what was world ash used in the world's fair in 1899. 10% of the goods were still being used by remember that.

like the things internet, cell phones, which we just do not properly integrate into the cpi. it is very hard. when you try to make these comparisons and say what was the real way 20 years ago? what is it today? it is very sensitive to how you are measuring inflation. similarly, what is the real interest rate? we make a fact that we overstate inflation. the reason for the 2% instead of zero percent. some people think it should be four. we don't necessarily have a precise idea. let me just close with thoughts for the first -- for the next fed chairman. i think a big question on the front burner is whether in the near-term there should be a more eclectic policy towards inflation, perhaps raising be in the fed's rule for how much inflation they

won't tolerate -- they will tolerate. in europe, i think they have to more -- have to have more eclectic policies towards dealing with that rather than hoping to grow out of it. for economic researchers, i have the happy message that this crisis is going to provide a fertile ground for academic research for a long time to come. thank you. [applause] >> it is a was a great pleasure -- it is always a great pleasure to have tenure reflect and push all my buttons. i was talking to someone as i came into the meeting. how are we doing about measuring the contribution of the internet to economic welfare and throughout put? output? there was a long silence.

not very well. one other thing -- i do think this issue is a puzzle about why is it that is the cycles caused by financial crises our business -- are different? there is persuasive evidence they are different. you just look at your standard model and it is not clear why they should be different. this is another one that will outlive the career of the current graduate students. be bycond comment will emile. he is in edward eagle brown professor of finance. his research is banking, business cycles, corporate finance, my setting, and monetary policy. among his outstanding contributions is a reason one where he organized a panel of

economic experts to determine what economists think about key economic issues. check it out. it is really interesting. you know what you think, and you know what your friends inc. -- think. this is a sample of people from freshwater, no-water, salt water underwater, you name it. it's really surprising. one can mention some of the bad mentioned someen of the bad ideas, he did not mention going back to the gold standard. if you want to know what the economist think about the u.s. going back to the gold standard, you might be surprised. professordo that, kashyap. [applause]

>> ok. thank you, bill, for the kind words. and for including me in this session. it is a privilege and honor to speak with chairman bernanke. i am going to be more forward- looking in my comments. the transparency of the federal reserve means i was able to predict quite a bit but what the chairman was going to talk about. i will give some open questions about several things he discussed and at the end i am going to have a little tribute. it may get me in trouble. maybe we'll go viral, we will see. the web address appear for those of you that want to see the video i'm going to play in end. you can note that.

i will talk about four questions. three of which were directly in the chairman's remarks. one about leverage and the role that it plays in financial stability. a second one about forward guidance. guidancerd guy once -- operates. a third one about the keyword -- tapering. the events of the past summer what we should make of that. finally, the only really thoughtful thing i have to say about -- is about this last point which i think is a great, open topic that is someday going to get someone a nobel prize. i will try to play what i mean by that but in terms of deep questions that the crisis has raised, trying to figure with the social value of liquidity creation is a great thing. you can go download his remarks

on this, closely related to some of the stuff jeremy was talking about. ok, so. this first bullet could have almost been a quote from the speech. it is almost oil or plate language -- boilerplate language. they say something like we are looking for buildups and leverage. we understand how they amplify. it started as a modest shock. we look across the financial system and we see markets looking unusual but we do not see a big buildup of leverage and therefore we are somewhat confident that we are not headed down a replay. bitink -- that is a little of fighting the last war. i think we now understand much better that leverage can amplify shocks that start out small, but i think it is not yet established that if you do not

have leverage that means you cannot have financial instability. there was a nice keynote address to the sentences go fed and asia where hee in november laid out -- laid out a framework -- assett manager is managers can create a feedback loop that can be destabilizing. i listed the mechanism that is here. i don't want to get tied exactly to that mechanism. we need to be on guard for mechanisms that can bring instability that don't require leverage. a fire sales can come from forced selling and one reason debt andis because of leverage. that is not the only reason you can get it. i think trying to decide whether all we have to do is essentially keep our eyes out for leverage

is something that is a great open question. i think there will be an area -- this will be an area where there will be a lot more work. we have another mechanism were asset managers are chasing returns that gives the same kind were there can be a kind of positive feedback. they pile into certain traits, , reinforcingices itself, and then you get a moment of truth then it unwinds rapidly. that is a great open question and one we should study. it leads me directly to my second question, which is can we go by this so-called separation principle ? i don't know if lars is at the meeting, but he has talked at length about this. he is a great quote there that monetary policy should be the last line of defense of defense

-- a financial stability, not the first line. there is a notion that you often hear that says we have all these regulatory tools that we can use to constrain risk-taking in the financial system. we should apply those to financial instability. we should not burden the short- term interest rate with more work. it already has inflame and -- inflation in employment. is whatone issue happens if the kind of example i just gave you is the way the world actually works? you have asset managers interacting in markets where there is no intermediary and you can still get the cycles. in that world, if what you are going to try to do is something with the bank capital requirements or liquidity requirements or anything like that, those tools are also very second-best for confronting those types of problems. in short-term interest rate

some sense is a direct input and forward guidance is a particularly effective, may be in that if yout think about the incentives of asset managers, if you tell them you can fund this asset by rolling over short-term funding without much risk of rates rising, you're going to pull people into a trade. the question is, where they'll a moment ofhere be reckoning war that has to unwind and everything reverses? if you think that you can get this instability coming out of asset management or other mechanisms that involve fire sales that do not directly involved intermediaries, there is a real question of whether or not we are going to have the tools and want to use them. i think it is instructive to remember that it took a long time for the fed to actually have the intellectual framework and the public trust to be

allowed to take the punch bowl away from the party with respect to inflation. weend to think that even if had known where we were headed with respect to the housing markets, it would have had to have been a very brave chairman to require something -- require raising down payments in 2007. it would say, you are hating on the poor. it is not clear to me that we have tools that we understand and we will be willing to use to maintain political independence if we use those in the wake of this crisis. we have all of these ideas and we have many examples, but we really do not have much experience doing it. there is this advantage of the short-term interest rate that it also, in this case, it could be part of a mechanism that could generate instability. what tod question is

make of the events of last summer. this is a chart one of my colleagues created that shows you the remarkable events around the potential talk of paper and the head fake in september. i think it is difficult to square why all of these markets in many other markets, that is an intermediate bond fund and inrging-market want homebuilders. spectacular returns right around the day when it looked like the fed was maybe going to taper and then maybe they weren't. why do i say this was an interesting question for research? --l, the conventional view i'm guessing because -- the chairman was going to say something about this -- you did say something about this -- you said you had tools and if we start easing back our asset purchases it does not value anything necessarily about the direction of the short-term rate.

interpretation of what was happening, that people could just not believe that it was possible. you lift your foot off the gas on the taper tool and you wouldn't do something with the short-term interest rates. there are other interpretations that are less benign and i think that involved views markets are fundamental -- fundamentally about disagreements and that we have a different worldview that many in the financial market have. part of what is going on everyday day is that you're mediating this disagreement. way it is true, the prefer to interpret what happened in june was, for a couple of years now you have been piling people into aggressive position saying, take your gamble, and then all of a sudden you raise the possibility that the accommodation is going to slow.

at that point the people that a poem -- been most optimistic prospect of easing policy are going to be the ones that have been most aggressive position and suffer the most immediate losses. rebalancings a where people take losses and the people that replace the optimists are less likely to use leverage themselves or it it will be a little bit schizophrenic. i'm tell you a leverage story, now. true, and there is anything like this, it means that when you are setting communications policy you cannot pretend that there is a representative agent. you have to be caught doesn't of the possibility that you're going to say one thing and the guys that just with your go, go, -- are going to take that guys that just want to hear a go, go, go are going to take

that and get put into a position of risk-taking. it is also safe to say that part of what we have learned is that because of the increased transparency we know a lot more about what many policymakers think. i think it is safe to say that there is not a representative foc member. there are different camps. we are reminded right now that in any given year you can lose three or four people who are governors that can just leave. when you are trying to forecast what the fed is going to be doing in 2016, you may not even know who was going to be making those decisions. i think this means we should rethink some of these models that involve an institution like the fed committing to do something in 2.5 years when you don't even know who the people will be. i am not sure what the fed can do that is institutionally feasible. that is another area.

i will close with this -- this is a little play on ed prescott's famous theory. i am struck by how little attention the public has paid to what is actually going on with the -- rules. there is an attempt at will be that will be potentially monumental in the way that we approach banking regulation that will finally pay attention as to whether or not the banks have enough assets in hand and a funding structure in hand to avoid fire sales. there are two potential tools. in of them has to do with the amount of short-term funding you can get. the other is the amount of assets you can have that you can sell and hopefully not push prices around. this is underway. it is being phased in. it is going to take a long time. there've been thousands of comments on it. you think about it, we have no

framework for thinking about liquidity at the highest level. we are greatly assisted in most aspects of corporate demands by the -- miller proposition. to tell you the precise conditions under which the structure of an organization's funding is irrelevant. we do not have anything like that for liquidity. we don't know if we have too much of it or too little of it. we don't have an idea about what banks to bead organized in the way they are organized in shadow banks be organized in the way that the shadow banks are organized. we can talk, for instance, about the right incentives for creating liquidity are different from the social incentives. -- and youis a huge cannot tell if you're moving firsts or away from the

best. it's hard to decide how to calibrate your tools. i think this is probably -- if i could solve one problem in all of economics, i would try to solve this one. i am not talented enough to figure out exactly had to do this but i think the returns to trying this are very, very high. ok, so now i am probably going to get electrocuted but i'm going to try this. i made a tribute to you. let's hope it works. you know greenspan and and -- and fisher but do you recall ♪ ♪ the most famous banker of all ♪ bernanke, the central

banker ♪ ♪ had a very shiny dome ♪ and if you ever sought ♪ you might even say it glowed ♪ ron paul and all the other gold above us ♪ ♪ used to laugh and call him names. ♪ they never let the chairman ♪ play in any policy games then, with your dome so bright ♪ ♪ won't you save the world tonight ♪ ♪ then all the economist love him ♪ ♪ and they shouted out with glee ♪ ♪ ben bernanke, the central banker ♪ ♪ you'll go down in history ♪ ♪ you'll go down in history ♪

[applause] >> chairman bernanke is a very humble guy. i think it is common when you get economist together or people the lackcan't believe of gratitude that the politicians have often showed for what they did in the crisis. i think we are very close to were depression 2.0 -- very close to great depression 2.0. if it was not for his leadership, things could have been different. it is unfortunate. i am sure that history will treat you very, very well. it is too bad that it has not been more fun as it has been going on. [laughter]

we can even give you a gift because of the giving limits. after you're out, i will offer you some tickets. [applause] >> i have to admit that when you organize this session, your nightmare is some fellow who thinks he is a comment -- comic. [laughter] is going to produce something. for the last week, we have been talking about -- well, is this really a good idea? well,t, if he goes over you will be famous, but if it goes over badly, you will be be but of jokes on saturday night live. well, that went really well.

we have some time for questions. there are two microphones over there. we don't have a lot of time, but the chairman very graciously offered to follow-up and allow you to follow-up with questions. the ground rules are the standard ground rules, which are questions and no speech is fine ying.eech-if when it crosses the line i will intervene. in 2008 the fed acted aggressively to protect money markets and mutual fund inventors -- investors from small negative returns. -- in fact, they lost between -- almost 50% between the crisis in 2009.

fed have acted equally aggressively to buy up stocks? or was it a big mistake to support the money market mutual funds? >> i will point out i have two very distinguished colleagues who are happy to take -- [laughter] up questions that might come , especially about production values. the actions to -- by the way, were led by the treasury department -- were not about protect protecting the investment of any particular individual or group. it was about avoiding precisely the issue -- one of the key ideas in a financial crisis is the idea of a fire sale. when large numbers of people are forced to sell assets at a given moment, it will drive down prices well below the sustainable price level. or not enough buyers in the short run. reducesernal feedback

the net wealth of other asset holders who in turn will be forced to sell. you get into a vicious cycle. the money market funds that were in iran were pulling cash -- pullinge in a run were cash out of other markets held by rocard dealers and others. -- broker dealers and other. it was not at all an issue of the wealth of any given group in the same sense that intervening with various companies was not an attempt. it was an attempt to try to avoid a cascade of falling asset values and fire sales. the run on the money market funds was already creating it. >> for the equity funds had to sell assets, the too.

>> they were not runnable. that was the point. denita 2% more if you get your money in. >> next question. >> my question is the mechanism that -- >> can hear you. -- can't hear you. >> my question is the mechanism by which quantitative easing is seen to work. inr original statements back what was called qe1 suggest that what you're doing was targeting -- or,inflation and that avoiding deflation and the impression that that generated was that higher inflation would generate more stimulus. statementsecent suggest that quantitative easing works through reducing interest

, buying securities which reduce interest rates which is -- interest rates. >> which is the more important? >> i think you are mixing together goals and mechanisms. the goal was to avoid deflation. one of our concerns, besides the week recovery at the time of qe2, was inflation was very soft and moving down. we are concerned about deflation risk. of course, deflation is not a 0- 1 thing. even low inflation can create problems. adopted the quantitative easing policy with the objectives of raising the inflation rate to meet our target. at the same time, by doing so, we would lower interest rates and help the real economy. that was the objective. the mechanism come and of course there is a lot of debate about

how this works and so on, but the mechanism that we have focused on is based on sort of a towbin friedman kind of world in which there are imperfections between different types of assets. that is the mechanism which i discussed today which we -- which i talked about in jackson hole right before qe2 as well. that is the basic mechanism that we has argued -- have argued. >> i just want to ask if you could share with us a little bit balancehow you transparency and accountability at the central bank? and dependence, and what challenges other central bankers might face in trying to follow your example. >> why is it a question of balancing? well, ok. let me try specific

example. i think i understand where you're coming from, here. example -- iific have a long footnote in my speech, if you would like to take a look at is on the fed website. it talks about the so-called audit the fed legislation. that legislation is misnamed. it is not about auditing in any common sense at all. myi try to emphasize in spoken remarks, the fed is thoroughly audited. all of its financial operations are thoroughly audited. we have always had a good record there. moreover, the the gao, the federal government accountability office which is an arm of congress, has access to virtually everything that the fed does and can comment, criticize, report, etc.

the one exception is that there is an exemption in the law for gao auditing individual monetary policy decisions. law cannot under current come in and say give me the records of your last meeting. we want to see that and have a independent review of whether you should of razor lowered interest rates at the last meeting. -- raised or lowered interest meetings -- interest rates at the last meeting. we view that as an appropriate balance. on the one hand, the fed is very transparent and open. gao has brought access to all of our activity. monetary policy is very transparency. transcripts, the five years later. etc., etc. congress took the view in the 1970's at this was needed in order to prevent congress from

using gao audits in terms of influencing short-term decisions. with the so-called audit the fed legislation in various forms would do is remove that exemption. that is your thing you would do, basically. it does not do anything else. removing that exemption means the gao could come in the day after and second gaffe the foc -- second-guess the foc's decision. it would be inconsistent. i think the balance where it is now is appropriate. i think i would resist giving day-after authority to second-guess our policy decisions. i think it would be bad for the economy if the public and market makers, market participants, thought that essentially whatever the fed did was subject to immediate reversal or

substantial pressure by the congress. >> i asked my students if they had a question for the chairman. there were a number of them. one which i won't ask is, what about that going -- bitcoin? [laughter] i thought an interesting one was this -- if you knew in 2006 what you know now, what step or steps would you have taken then to ameliorate the financial crisis and subsequent downturn? >> that is a really unfair question. [laughter] the reality is that every policymaker -- it is the nature of policy. it has to be made in very foggy

conditions with very imperfect information. a lot of uncertainty. in order to do anything, i think i would not only have to know everything in advance, everyone would have to know that i knew everything in advance. if i went out and started saying , all the sudden, i am arbitrating ash arbitrarily raising -- by five percentage points, they would say, what? the crisis was a very complex thing. involve many, many issues. -- i want toncerns respond a little bit indirectly because of the point that anil --sed that the usefulness of preventions. can you put them in place quickly enough and responsible enough, preemptively enough? that is one of the things that the bank of england is trying to

do. they're trying to find mechanisms for more rapid response. i think that is one of the real challenges. for example, before the crisis the fed put in a new guidance on commercial real estate for banks. criteria fored the risk management and said you should not have cre ash too much cre on your balance sheet. you should not have too much cre on your balance sheet. it took two years of negotiations and discussions and sending out to the banks and they have time to implement it. in order to make it work come up the macro prudential things to work, you'll have to have a more nimble system. the answer to the question bill raised is that -- i am sure there are some things that could have been done, but unless everyone collectively knew what was going to happen and was willing to work together

cooperatively to take those necessary steps, it is not obvious that you could have avoided it. lice one more question. -- >> one more question. >> you write about the premature phase out of the stimulus at the end of 2010. you think in a future session, it might be helpful if the federal reserve were able and willing to give a cash transfer to the treasury so congress could sustain fiscal stimulus further without additional borrowing? don't think i'm going to go there, no. [laughter] all, that- first of is not going to work because -- the fed has an inflation target. let me emphasize to everyone that this is entirely hypothetical -- [laughter] even if that were to happen, and i think it is no doubt illegal,

but if there were to happen at some point in the future, the fed would have to undo that. actually would not affect the long-run debt held by the government. i am not at all sure that that is -- that that would even work in theory. it certainly sounds to me like a bad idea in any case. i think fiscal policy ought to be made by the congress and thinking, rensselaer about spending taxes and debt issues. donegal very much. -- donegal very much. -- thank you all very much. [applause] the time has come to bring this wonderful session to a close. i want to thank our two commentators for the many insights. have -- i have a few final words for ben bernanke. you have had honors and awards

for your service and i am sure there are many more to come. economic american association have our own unique award. remarked thatas for the true scholar, the only coin worth having is the applause of one's peers. so, can we offer you some applause? [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2014] >> [indiscernible] >> on the next "washington atrnal and go they look president obama's relationship with the press. then, jonathan of george washington -- george washington university law school determines criminal illegals and those apprehended at the border will be removed from the country. after that, the use of capital punishment in 2013. --shington journal, go

"watching and journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> he is our guest this weekend on "newsmakers. oh founded in 2010, he talked about his group's role and issues that he finds important. "newsmakers," at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on c-span. >> my name is kevin nelson and we are in elling ham, washington. we have been in business for nine years now. we started in 2004. primarily we use a heidelberg windmill with it -- which is a letter press which is found in most commercial print shops. they use it for diecutting and oil stamping, storage.

we use it for printing. not that many people in modern times use heidelberg's for printing. .hey are slower a lot of print shops are using his 40 foot long, six tower presses which send out tens of thousands of prints and our. hour. this is for more doing artistic printing. it is the heart of our business. i think we are buying something that is made with so much so much intention, it has more presence than if you're is sending a card to someone that has not been mass- produced to an individual. i would hope that as more meaning for the person on the receiving end. it is made with love. >> there is more from bison took binding and letter press this weekend as a key be an american history tv look at the history

and literary life of washington. 2.turday at noon at c-span in washington were given a tour recently of the u.s. capitol dome, which is undergoing a complete restoration. the cast iron outer shoal -- outer shell is more than 1000 cracks caused by aging and whether. this is about 25 minutes. >> the circular staircase was the way to the first capitol dome and continues to be the way we get to the walter dome. it was built in 1826. the original staircase it was here was wooden and it was say 1851,, i want to where there was a fire in the

library of congress. for fear that that fire would spread to the wooden dome they cut it out. walter, when he did his changes, he inserted the cast iron staircase that you see today when they were dismantling the original stone, they laid every piece so they can verify what the difference between the old and new dome was. think theout that i old dome was just under 12 million pounds. longer -- larger the walter dome is, the fact that it is only 20% only more weight is pretty amazing. it speaks to the nature of cast- iron and the ability to build as large structure with relatively little weight. to me, it is the merger of technology in the time. which allows it to be built.

>> [indiscernible] can you briefly describe why cast-iron and why --? walter's intent that it looked like masonry. he did not intend for this to be a modern structure. he intended to be appropriate to the rest of the capital design. because of the weight it could not have been built as masonry. walter had just finished several years earlier the library of congress renovation in the capital. once it was destroyed by fire, he will in with a fireproof interior to structure which was made of elaborate cast-iron. proved the that, he resilience and the economy of cast-iron where you can make multiple elaborate pieces from a single mold. it was then able to create this cost andout excessive

enough light aspects that it was possible. >> [indiscernible] foundationsing could not have supported it sort of it was calculated what would've been. news to say it would have been considerably higher than the 14 million pounds than the dome and masonry additions were that was ultimately build. the things i like to point you here is that the walls you are leaning against are the original bulfinch drum for the original dome of the capitol. asrything that walter added this edge. this would have been originally exposed to view from the east and west front. -- happyee overhead

columns are drainage columns and the other half are ventilation columns. it would have been very odd to leave that cantilevered condition exposed to view. ironwork that of makes that transition from the cantilevered skirt out to the rest of the roof of the capital. you can see the great condition that we have been able to achieve with the restoration at this point. the skirt has been completely restored. the ironwork was repaired and the new paint system was installed. we cleaned to that, and repainted the original bulfinch stonewall. masonry that is

seven feet thick -- that is the foundation for the ironwork that extends above. these brackets -- we only see eight feet of them now very there is an additional seven feet that is embedded into the masonry work. that acts as a huge foundation that supports the weight of the dome and transfers it evenly onto the stone walls below. sense foret a good the brackets and cantilevered beyond the old stone walls of the bulfinch drum. and how alternating columns are used for drainage columns. the others just provide passive ventilation. you see on my right, you're left, that when they were installed that some of the knees of the -- some of the chimneys were captured in that footprint.

get some ofalls to the outside. i've seen photographs where you have smoke billowing out at the boilerplate level. it is the chimney smoke coming out. you can begin to really appreciate the beauty of the rotunda and the accomplishment of adding this additional height to the space. earlier --tual into interior copper dome is not much larger than what bulfinch would've had here. his would have rested on the stonework down below where you see a projecting cornice and a band of stone above it. that is where the original dome would've stood wrong -- would have sprung. we are almost at the apex of where the bulfinch don't -- dome would have ended. walter lifted that on additional drums to give height and light into the rotunda.

here you can -- everything above the sandstone is what was added as part of walter's addition. from the top of the sandstone to the ballot start their we are , it is predominately masonry with some cast-iron elements. the coffers are cast-iron. the cornice below the -- is cast-iron. cornice ised dental also cast-iron. every thing else is masonry with a plaster coating on it. about -- we are in the -- i would say close to 100 feet. at this level you can also --the national

what burr median vision for this space. it painting until 1970 and he managed to get three quarters of the way around for his death. he envisioned completing the entire work but his early death precluded him from finishing. constagini carried the work forward to the california gold rush and once you get to the california gold rush, his work and and alan cox's works continue to conclude the civil war and the birth of flight which takes us back to the discovery of america by christopher columbus where bermidi started his work. as you look across their

-- the rotunda, you can see evidence of some water leaks that have occurred over time. the streaking below the lowest band of ornamentation on the copper dome, some of the staining on the sides of the pilasters. and you can see on the balustrade some evidence. there were multiple tiers of gas jets that occurred, one above the stone cornice where you see light fixtures. one at the base of the balustrade work where you see remnants of an earlier lighting scheme, the conduit with sockets. there was a string of lights at the base of the cupola and at the underside there was a ring of gas jets. they were over 1000 gas jets

that would illiminate instantly with the click of a switch from a battery in the lower levels of the capital. you can imagine that night that must have been quite a dramatic effect to see this all eliminate -- this hall illuminate at once. as electricity was introduced to the building at the turn of the 20th century, this fixtures were replaced with electrical incandescent lighting and now we are using a more modern system. to eliminate the rotunda. one of the engineers for the project, he had all of the lower-level pieces stamped with his name. you look at some of the nuts and bolts, it will say his name. >> [indiscernible] >> i am sure you heard about the controversy between two competing egos. walter being a phenomenal engineer. they both wanted credit for creating the dome.

without either of them it could not have happened but it was the merging of their talents that allowed it to come into being. >> it is the perfect building to deal with egos. >> exactly. let me show you this while we are here. we are passing through the boilerplate plenum. we are on top of the colonnade. there is a balcony here that we do not open to the public because it is fairly large and hard to control groups on. it does offer us an opportunity to show you graphically how thin the cast iron shell of the dome really is. i will lift this coffer just enough so you can see the thin edge, 3/8 of an inch which is what the exterior shell of the dome is made of and the interior shell that you see the -- from

the rotunda floor. ironically, this is also how you would get outside to change the light fixtures on that cornice. we do not do that anymore thanks to modern lighting technology. we do not get out there. it is always impressive to me to look through this thin layer and see for the first time just how the dome is constructed. let me know when you're done. >> how heavy is that? >> very. it is supported by the hinge. i am just living it a little. please be careful when you come through this next rung of stairs. there is a window that sets into the staircase a bit and you need to watch your shoulder. you can also begin to appreciate here the structure and design of the dome with these enormous rib

trusses, 36 in total that create a conical structure and there are outriggers i go out and pick -- that go out and pick up the exterior skin. you may have noticed that when you go through that the interior shell is not matching and aligning with the superstructure. it is suspended from it and the exterior shell is projecting beyond it. >> [inaudible] >> i am not as young as i used to be. >> keep in mind when the dome was finished, this wall would not have been here. this wall and window was added in the 1940's when air- conditioning was introduced into the capital. that is why you have a second railing on the interior side.

people often wonder why this balcony needs two railings. this is why. you would have that view on the backside of the shell which would have allowed much more light to come through and into this balcony level. we are a considerable distance apart. you should be able to hear me pretty clearly. i think this is an amazing space. you have to be very careful what you saying when you're up here. anyone on the opposite side can hear you. >> where is the [inaudible] >> 12 of these windows will be removed and if you look above the pavilion that we entered through you will see there is a bracket that extends out. during that phase we left that in place to be used as a lifting hoist for the 11 brackets that will be lifted. the 12 brackets will extend out over this railing and the catenary netting system will be

suspended over the rotunda. the purpose of that netting is twofold. it provides protection to the visitors so the rotunda can remain open while we are doing our work but it has a decorative drapery on the underside so that it looks appropriate for ceremonial events that can occur or for the visitors visiting the capital. we did not want it to look like an industrial safety netting. >> [inaudible]

>> rather than replacing it we will be repairing it with any proxy system much like you would repair your windshield on your car if you had a crack. you use a heat and vacuum to infuse it with anti-proxy -- an epoxy binder. our goal is to preserve as much of the material as possible. that is why the lock-and-stitch technique that we are using is so important to our restoration efforts. we want to save as much of the historic artifact as we can. >> are there any examples that you can show us? >> unfortunately, all of them that were completed as part of the project have been overpainted. that is the beauty is that you do not see them when they are complete. notice that we are over the painting and there is a tinned canopy on top acting as an umbrella to assure that if there is a leak in the exterior skin that it is caught and drained

away so it does not affect the painting. we are at the upper level. be careful as you go through. it is very low. the last thing you want to do is hit your head on this sharp edge. be careful and duck as you go through the doorway. the capital is the focal point of washington. the axis of the mall, maryland avenue, pennsylvania avenue radiating from the central point. the beauty of the city opens before you when you stand at this level. if you look at the top plate

there are a series of through bolts that hold this together. rust has developed and this railing has been pushed up by the pressure of the rust, the top plate has cracked and that is relieving the stress that is in the ironwork. what it also does is compromise the structural integrity of that particular piece. we are not concerned about it because there is a much redundancy in the ironwork design but we have put this here as a measure to ensure that until this work is repaired during this phase, we do not have any issues with any forces against the railing.

to me it is symbolic of the joining of both parties in congress to come together to fund an effort that is incredibly important to our country and preserving the capital dome is not a question for discussion. it is something that has to happen. there is no more recognizable symbol of the country than the capitol dome. it is another good example of the thinness of the shell. it tells people how the structure works. the exterior skin of the dome and cast ironwork. >> if you could put your hand there to give a sense of that? >> i can tell you that i removed

180,000 pounds of lead-based paint from the attic during our first phase so this should not weigh more than the amount of lead paint i have taken off. just as when you came out, watch your head as you come through the doorway. that is the convene light that is on at night when congress is in session. it is not one bulb that is lit but four. as you can see, no person is permitted above this platform under any circumstance. make sure there is someone in front of you. if there is someone in front of

you, you can focus on it is easier. >> how far are we going down? >> we will stop here. let's stop here. one of the things i wanted to point out to you here as you are coming down the steps, you will see that the 36 rib trusses that form the superstructure converge at this level and go to support the statue of freedom. as you can imagine trying to merge 36 items into such a small space at the top was too great so every third truss is the one that continues forward and the two that flank it merge into it for buttressing support. what you also see here is the enormous superstructure has very

slender bands that reach down to suspend the shell below. and it has a very thin element that reaches out to the shape of the exterior dome. the brilliant thing about this design is that the dome is exposed to very harsh conditions on the outside, very cold in the winter of extra my hot in the summertime under direct sun. some plates may approach 130 degrees fahrenheit. because they are held away from the superstructure, that heat dissipates in the ironwork before it gets to the superstructure. the rib trusses see very little temperature swing during the course of the year which helps to maintain the structural integrity of the dome. it does not move that much. a lot of the damage we are addressing are in the shells and that is exposed to wide temperature swings, a lot of expansion, and when the rust develops between the plates it

binds the plates removing and that creates enormous pressures in the ironwork that relieve itself by cracking. most of the work we will be doing in this phase will be addressing those cracks in the exterior shell. as a huge erector set of pieces coming from a remote foundry, they had to mark each piece of the installers knew where at what level of the dome each piece was to go. do not be surprised if you see these marks on every piece as you go down. there was a clear pattern that was made for each location and it was important that a go in at a certain spot and they use those marks to make sure the installers knew where to place it. there is the acorn finial that had cracked and had to be removed. it is on the outside of one of these windows. there are a series of bolts that go through that plate above the octagonal window. there is a large ornamental piece that crests that window.

that is where the acorn finial is from. >> [inaudible] >> the cracks? all of that will be preserved. our goal is to keep as much of the historic fabric as possible. it is going to be repaired. yes. there will be 12 of these outriggers that go out to support the netting system that is suspended above the floor. >> is it a net? >> it is a multilayered netting that is meant to capture a load of 500 pounds and more. we start with a very large net

and a layer of slightly smaller netting and a very tightknit to catch any small objects. all of that is concealed from view from the rotunda side by a decorative scrim. >> is there worry that hammering will shake something loose? >> if a nut were to fall or if there was a broken piece of iron, we want to protect the public. make sure there is ample construction barriers there to preclude anything from happening. not that we are expecting it to happen, we want to ensure that it does not. everything, the brackets, the columns, and the superstructure behind the skin plates was created in a foundry in baltimore called pool and hunt. once they finished their work up

to the balcony, from that point forward, all the work was done by james kirkland out of new york. >> what are the wires? >> the wires are part of a he defunct bird-proofing system. we will remove those as part of the work and install a netting system, passive netting system to keep smaller birds from nesting. when we started this project, there was a major water event in the fall of 1990 that deposited a large amount of water on the floor of the rotunda. it was through our investigations that we discovered bird nesting materials and debris from eating on the dome that cause the water to back up and cascade onto the rotunda. we have taken this on a series of projects to ensure that that

drainage system is never compromised again by debris. and it led to the development of the master plan and the study of the ironwork and to the project that we are getting completed in the next two years. >> on the next "washington journal" paul brandice looks at president obama's relationship with the press. then jonathan from george washington university law school will address how the u.s. addresses criminal illegals and those at the border from the country. after that, the death penalty information center on the use of capital punishment in 2013. plus in e-mail, phone calls, and tweets. "washington journal" live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span.

michael needham is the ceo of heritage action, linked with the heritage foundation. he is our guest this weekend on "newsmakers." he talks about his group's role in the issues that find importance, as well as topics in fighting can furnace -- inviting conservatives. watch "newsmakers" on c-span. i think it is really interesting to sit here and talk about how the republican party is less unified than the democratic party when we think about this historically. it is an interesting time to be studying this. for the first time in recent years, we are seeing a republican party that is facing many struggles that the democratic party faced 20, 30 years ago when they were tinkering with the reform process every four years. >> this interplay of what happened, how candidates deal with it, and the context in which they are running really matter, more than to undermine the scandal that happened, and

especially if you are running in a context in which you can present yourself as an abused -- part of an abused group, abused by the system, you can really play that well. whether that is the case that jeff talked about or whether it the 10ama, using commandments controversy very effectively in terms of an attack on christian conservatives. i think that is very much the case. weekend, the state of the national parties and a look at the political scandals and the politics of recovery. saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. live sunday on c-span2, your calls and comments for talk radio host mark levin. tv" in at noon on "book depth. history"3, "american

tv looks back at the impeachment of william jefferson clinton. that is sunday at noon eastern. review of the u.s. supreme court key decisions in 2013 and a preview of the 2014 term, followed by the oral argument of northwest against ginsburg, dealing with airline frequent flyer programs. then they look at immigration policy. later, remarks from the outgoing federal reserve chair ben bernanke. host: we are joined now by scholar of all things supreme court mark tushnet. what are the two forces that are in the balance in this book? balance in this book? guest: guest: the easiest way to describe them is they are divided now between five

appointees of republican presidents who are quite conservative and four appointees of democratic presidents who are more liberal. democratic presidents who are more liberal. and the balance is between those two, and in particular the future of the court depends on what the next appointment is going to be. in the book you talk about the difference between the roberts court and a kagan court. explain that. guest: usually we talk about the chief justice, but the chief justice is not always the leader of the court. brennan, under all warren, was probably the leader of the court in terms of organizing the thinking of the

court and writing the most important opinions. a chance if the next appointee is a democratic appointee that justice kagan will emerge as the court's leader, displacing chief justice , leaving a more or less liberal majority against the conservative majority he is leaving. you write in your book that the future of the court will be shaped by not only the nominations that obama and his successors will make, but the competition between roberts and kagan for the intellectual leadership of the court, as each forcefully articulates differing views about the balance between law and politics. when the justices are looking at cases, how much are they taking the long view, the competing balances you are talking about, and how much our cases decided in a vacuum? thet: each justice comes to

court with a relatively well shaped judicial philosophy or ideology that he or she deploys in a particular case. of course each case presents different issues, and those issues are legal and limited to particular problems. so in some cases, every case is a combination of applying your theral legal philosophy to particular problem at hand. the balance will shift depending on how significant the case is, whether it is a question of interpreting federal statute, where the judicial philosophy will have a relatively smaller part as compared to an issue like the constitutionality of a major federal statute where the

judicial philosophy will have a much larger role. with markre talking tushnet, the william lawson cromwell professor at harvard law school, who divides his time d.c. n boston and if you want to talk about all things supreme court or his book "in the balance," our phone lines are open. for republicans, 202-585-3881. 202-585-3880. , 202-5ependents 85-3882." how long have you been studying the supreme court? have been teaching for 42 years. before i started teaching, i was a law clerk for justice thurgood saw how the court

operated inside the court. things have changed a lot in the way the court operates, but i have been paying attention to the supreme court basically for my entire professional career. host: you say things have changed. the 2012-2013 term of the supreme court -- how demonstrated is the balance between law and politics? guest: i actually think the dates of decisions begin to blur and you have been studying the court as long as i have, but obviously the decision in the affordable care act or obamacare case was a central feature of the court's most recent recordns, and there the -- the court divided oddly in a many issued case, ultimately upholding the constitutionality of the affordable care act, but really structuring it in a way that contributes to some of the problems we have been seeing as

it is coming into force. the five justices held the constitution did not allow congress to enact a statute under its power to regulate interstate commerce, but five justices did say that congress had the power to do this as an exercise of its power to tax, so we have an individual mandate coming into effect over the next couple of weeks. in addition, there is the decision last term in the united , a lateral but important issue in connection with the issue of gay marriage. a decision striking down an important provision of the voting rights act of 1965. all of these are changes where the traditional philosophies of

liberals and conservatives divide them and lead to different outcomes, lead to the divisions that we see in the court's interpretation of the constitution. host: you write in your book that some of the 2013 cases from this past summer might demonstrate that the court is still justice kennedy's court. explain that. right now justice kennedy is what everybody would describe as the swing justice. now, he is quite conservative, but he is not consistently conservative or does not go along with all aspects of what the current conservative ideology is. he has been on the court for a relatively long time. he was appointed when conservatives were somewhat different from what it is now will stop and he has a libertarian streak that comes out particularly in gay rights

cases. the alignment is right, when the issues are ones that particularly appeal to his distinctive way of being a conservative, he will be the dispositive vote." that will not last forever. there will be new appointees, and justice kennedy may not be, as the political science calls them, the median justice in the middle of the court. for more than a few more years. host: we are talking about the supreme court with mark tushnet. scholar of all things supreme court. if you have questions for him, comments and phone lines are open some of the books that you have written -- we will start with randy from citrus heights, california, on our line for republicans.

randy, good morning. good morning. i would like to dispute's your .uest's assertion that justice roberts is the strong conservative leader of the court. i would disagree. i would say just as thomas is the intellectual leader of the group. if not him, maybe scalia. but i understand the inclination an any harvard academia --they want to basically prop up roberts as a hero because of his vote on the health care law, each, in my opinion and the opinion of millions of us, is a stain on his tenure. tushnetet's let mr. krishna

explained that. guest: i don't want to dispute the claim that justice scalia and justice thomas are powerful influences on the conservative side. justice scalia has articulated a philosophy or judicial approach of interpreting the constitution according to its original understanding. estes thomas is even more so unoriginal honest -- an originalist. but leadership on the court involves a combination of intellectual chops, the ability of -- the ability to articulate a visionnd forcefully of the constitution, a combination of that with kind of a marshaling of the forces, ,eing able to go along with you

and justice thomas in particular is largely -- he is not all that interested in making sure that he puts things in ways that other people will be able to sign on to. does haveice roberts this sort of -- i would call it a sort of social facility, and being the leader -- not nearly intellectually, but in combination with the sort of social skills that allow him to assemble a majority. bill king writes in on twitter -- guest: i think it is quite unlikely that any of the current

justices will depart the court voluntarily before the next presidential election. i put it that way because several of the justices are getting up there in years, and you never can predict things about health issues. but at the moment all of them appeared to be perfectly healthy and likely to stay on through , because it ison a good job and they like what they are doing. host: how much is the idea of who takes over there see important to justices when they look at the timing of their from twitter -- there are some scholarly studies about the timing of departures from the court, and reasons a sort of modest

that you can see for justices to to stealhe court, and a president from the arty whose president appointed then controls the presidency. it is a modest tendency, not universally true. on,e is some of that going or some of that affects some of the way the justices think. and sort of understandably so. justice scalia has said he does not want to leave the court, preventing an opportunity for -- presenting an opportunity for a them a credit president that would undo all the work justice scalia has been doing over the course of his career. that three ofting the conservative justices are

, as supremeoung court ages go. kennedy arelia and the most senior in age, but they have expressed no interest in leaving not just -- well, justice scalia because he does not want to see his work undone. justice kennedy, because he likes being the focus of attention as the median justice. host: we are talking to mark previously he georgetown law university. he is here to take your questions and comments. herb is up next from springville, new york, on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: yes, good morning, professor. my question relates to a subject

that, as far as i know, has never been heard or considered by the supreme court. let's go back just a little bit in history. in 1945, as you well know, we were a signatory to the united nations charter. in fact, we were a charter member, you might say. as at only signed signatory to the united nations charter, but it was then ratified, as you also well know, by our senate. that, to me, makes it the law of the land. the united nations codifies international law. hasn't, sincewhy it has been the law of the land, why hasn't the united states been required to follow international law as codified by

the united nations charter? the constitution does say that treaties that the united states find are the law of the land, the supreme law of the land, and the u.s. is required to follow international law, the supreme court has said so and has enforced some aspect of international law, even cases that get to the court. now, a lot of issues involving international law, those get to the supreme court or to the federal courts at all, partly because they are largely political issues. but it is also partly because the court has developed a series of doctrines that screen out the , these doctrines including the idea that the person bringing a constitutional

talent has to be injured by the illegality that is alleged. the issue cannot be, as the court puts it, a political question which is left to the congress or the president to resolve. those devices keep a fair number of important issues of international law away from the supreme court. host: john is from owings, maryland, on our line for independents this morning. you are on with mark tushnet. gentlemen.d morning, i have a question about comparing and contrasting juryial activism, nullification, and the role of the supreme court in these issues. guest: ok, so -- i am pausing because i want to make sure i can get the analogy

correct. i guess the idea is that when a jury engages in jury nullification, it is setting its judgment about what is right against or over the judgment of the legislature with an active statute, there being -- and the analogy is that the supreme court, when it finds a statute unconstitutional, is also setting its judgment against what the legislature did when it enacted the statute. i think there is a certain kind of parallel, but it is worth emphasizing that when juries nullify, they don't have to use plain what they are doing. whereas when the supreme court the statuted unconstitutional, they have the right an opinion of explaining why in their judgment the

statute is inconsistent with the constitution as properly construed. is just a maybe this professional interest of mine as a law professor, but i think there is a difference between actions that are made, that are explanation, and those that come accompanied with an next donation. although there is some parallel -- i don't want to deny that -- i think the president host: talking about the all supreme court with professor tushnet. the case before the court. ifonder if we'll ever know roberts was threatened over the obamacare and what made him change the law to a tax? a chapter in the

book about the affordable care act. i take the position that nobody agrees with, i think as i put he there were stories that changed his mind sometime between the time when of the case was argued and the time it came down. outset, he said he thought it was unconstitutional. he ended up -- as a couple of yours have suggested, upholding the statute on one ground while striking on a mother. in between, he changed his mind. my own view is that he actually did not change his mind -- he made up his mind on issues he had not thought very much about. given the attention on whether congress

has the power to require people to buy insurance because of his power to regulate interstate commerce. the chief justice said, no, the congress does not have the power. they been thinking about this. once they had a majority saying it was unconstitutional on grounds, he had to see if it was unconstitutional or not on whether to impose taxes. i do not think he devoted a lot attention to that before hand. when he sat down and tried to write out an opinion, he concluded that given other aspects of his judicial philosophy the statute was constitutionally permissible as a tax. colleagues but it is important to understand the

processes. they hear the arguments and they gather for a conference which is an hour or two discussion, but there are nine of them. the affordable care act had a lot of issues involved. my guess is if the conference is , ite -- vaguely indicated was probably unconstitutional and not focus in on a particular issue about the tax aspect and he ended up having to write about. , nobody agrees with me, conservatives inc. he was threatened in some way. there were comments after the oral argument about a vice president biden and senator reid and president obama about their expectations that the court would do the right thing. justice think a chief

would be intimidated by that. there records of the conference that you talk about that we might see that might prove one way or another your thoughts here? will not include me. there are records. the justices keynotes. i can say that congress is closed to outsiders, just the justices. one of the traditions is if it's a message that has to be out, somebody knocks on the door and a junior justice gets up. i guess justice kagan and goes to the door and opens it and get the message and brings it back in and gives it to have her messages for. no cell phones. no conversations thousand records. -- outside of the courts. it will be really improper to

answer a message. they are taking notes. they will going to their files. now, 70 years from somebody will be able to see what thosesay. host: justice roberts famously said he had the job -- his job was to be like an umpire calling balls and strikes without did the affordable care act the decision go with that philosophy that he outlined? emphasize, heto said people have probably made too much of the metaphor. he may have emphasized it too much because it does suggest a kind of mechanical aspects of judging which nobody really agree is there. i do think, as i put in the book, if you wanted to apply the did sort ofhor, he

call of one strike and one ball. know note -- i do not which is the striker which is the bald. one way it was unconstitutional at it was constitutional. result not ofas a a neutral umpire but in the the chiefn that justice brought to the job. -- the realr tragedy is judges bring their political ideology to the court. hard -- ass very justice thompson put it in his confirmation hearing, stripped down like a runner and approach every case as if you have never thought about the underlying issues for the deep issues that are implicated in the case. after all, these people have

been experienced lawyers and have handledey cases. they have thought about these issues. it seems to me, it is a realistic to expect they will simply discarded them once they get to the court. in addition, they are chosen, partated, and confirmed in because of some sense of the parts of the president of how they are going to approach cases. i have tried to characterize as judicial philosophy. it is not realistic to think that judges cannot -- will not have these views and that they bring on specific cases. oe on the line for republicans. you are on with professor tushnet, the author of the book "in the balance."

goldberg said of the constitution is not a suicide pact. i think the problem -- in the opposite direction from where -- the supreme court justices think very little -- have very little working knowledge of technological bomb waske atomic developed during world war ii. one man lost his security clearance. there is lots more. there are genetically modified foods, technology, and other technology that the court is simply unprepared to deal with. it shows over and over like this tax issue.

justice roberts opinion that it was a tax, if god don't any scenario work -- he is not doing any scenario work. these things move around. with regard to technology issues, what about peer-reviewed , qualified technologists for supreme court justices? and polygraph examiners on live tv to see if that been improperly influenced? make twowant to points. act, onceable care you characterize it as a tax, there are other issues that arise. several of them are continuing to be litigated in the lower carts. so far, none of them have advanced very far.

still rattling around. the issue about technological change, he is clearly right. justice kagan, the court heard a case about regulation of violent video games. she made a comment about how amusing it was to see the talking abouterks how you play a videogame. of a combination of two things. appointedes are toward life terms. or forced totire leave the bench because of illness or death. they are there for a long time. in combination, there is rapid technological change. inebody was appointed now

2017 a let's say will be facing issues in 2057 that we cannot imagine. i do not know -- we have to go to science fiction to be robots to sit that have constitutional rights. i do not know what the issues will be. whenbly reasonably clear justice kennedy was appointed in the mid-1980's, i do not think anybody would've expected him to have any knowledge about genetic technology and patents on human genes. these have come to the court during his tenure. i have a colleague who suggested that one way to deal with these issues as to get away with the idea that all of the justices and every one of them can only be a lawyer. maybe he said, there should be

people with other specialties. people with backgrounds in engineering, for example. host: technological changes comic. your thoughts on putting cameras in the courtroom. guest: this is an issue i do not have any influence on. their minds have unfairly stacked against it at this point. i do not think their fear that if they express are realistic. i think it would be a benefit for the court and the public more importantly to see and for people to think to see what is going on during these arguments. right now, we have the sketch artist who puts up snippets and -- excerptho accept snippets. releasedsions are

within the week of the argument. host: same-day audio now. guest: on important cases like the affordable care act. i do not see what the loss would be of having cameras in there. checkif viewers want to out more about these bands work on cameras in the courtroom, you can check out that at www.c- span.org. up next on the phone is larry from mississippi on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning, repressor. professor, -- good morning, professor. professor, they voted foolishly. i just do not understand.

this is interesting fact that i want to mention. how -- fromt to say an overall perspective. the perspective as a lawyer, the blitz. decision is a not significant or constitutional law, but there are two cases that are always mentioned when i give talks about the court. one is bush versus gore. the reason for the latter is the view not unrealistic that an important reason for the presidency of george w. bush was the vote of the supreme court. a very close election.

a lot of people voted for george w. bush. are thes that matter five votes on the supreme court that resolved the controversy. from a constitutional point of , bush versus gore is not that interesting. from somebody interested and constitutional politics, the fact that the supreme court had a decisive role in making george w. bush president is extremely important. it is not something that i, at the constitutional lawyer, would think very much about. twitter, it was the worst ruling of our time and that includes the bush versus gore will link which we all regret. we are taking comments on twitter and facebook page is open. our phone lines are open. robert daniels had a trivia question.

what is the shortest supreme court decision? some areell -- extremely short. there are these things called procuring opinions that were issued by the court. of anypically dispose did not a very brief order narrowly -- order narrowly way. y- order near he -- ordinaril way. i do not know what the candidates would be. deadlinesuced under of 24 hours. maybe that would be a candidate. i would want to look. brown versus board of education

was seven or eight pages long. not a long opinion. that's the shortest really important decision. i do not know. i would have to look. next on thes up line for independence. your own. -- you are on. caller: good morning. -- i considery all day talking with a constitutional lawyer. i want to get your opinion, a lot of people in d.c. do not follow the constitution is money taken old. i like to ask you -- even though they took an oath. you, what gives obama the 40 to remove a private -- to remove a private industry ceo?

and was a lot has been made in the past and is signed by him, that he cannot change and congress can only make amendments to the loss -- laws? i believe obama has overreached his authority much too much. an ideology of progressivism. he said he stands for change because that is what has taken over the party. thank you, professor. guest: i am not entirely sure about the removal of ceos, i think it has to do with the powers under recent financial reform legislation, the dodd frank statute. the other issue is the suspension of various provisions of the law. in both of those instances, the say -- his actions

lawyers say it is authorized by provisions or general authority of the executive branch to make decisions about what issues to pursue through enforcement actions called discretion. everybody agrees that the not have to use -- theyatute to the have discretion. let's give this one a pass. it is not important to devote the energy and well more important antiterrorist issues. everybody agrees there is that type of discretion. there is an argument that presidents do not have the power to exempt matters by category

from enforcement. there is litigation going on now. it is very hard distinction between ordinary not to enforce a law and larger ones that the president has been engaged in. we will eventually weigh in on that issue. my view will become insignificant. host: cases moving through now. what your out about the new challenges to the affordable care act which would've been talking about a lot this morning? what are going to be the things to watch in the coming year? guest: the supreme court had already granted review with a contraceptive mandate. the issue there is whether private for-profit operations whose owners have religious objection to providing access to

contraceptives for insurance tons can be required purchase those plans for their employees. that issue is going to turn not on the constitution but on a federal statute called the religious freedom act that said congress cannot impose substantial burdens on a religious exercise of individuals unless there's a substantial justification for it. whetherhe issues is these private conversation -- corporations are covered by the constitution or the religious restoration act with respect to religious conscience. ofre is resonance of united what people are saying. the opponents and supporters of the mandate are saying, how can corporations have religious conscience if they support

speech but conscience is something internal to their head? the court will decided that by the end of this year. the other issue that is still in the lower courts is a competent question about whether there can be subsidies for people who purchase insurance on the federal exchange and states over the states have not put out the exchanges. gethe texas, if you want to , purchase insurance, you have to go to the federal exchange. that itute is written provides subsidies to people who .uy them all state exchanges it is not clear it will provide subsidies to people who buy them on the federal exchanges. there is litigation about that going on in the lower court. on the latter when i would

expect it eventually the federal changes will get the subsidies as well. host: victor is next on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. merry christmas. i have two questions. is the -- the one that -- [indiscernible] me, it says that corporations being a person is an instrument by attorneys and makes them dots basically.- gods i do know that there has been a case or situation and the

supreme court with a person with the oldest or the longest on the in the courts automatically placed -- [indiscernible] and "-- opened up -- [indiscernible] guest: on the first question is important to emphasize that asking the question, are corporations people or persons is probably not the right way to frame the question. i want to emphasize from a constitutional lore yours point of view. there are prosecutions for engaging. -- constitutional lawyer's point of view.

rightsve constitutional to a fair trial whether prosecuted for unlawful pollution. the real question is, do corporations have constitutional force in a specific setting? and the contraceptive mandate, the issue is does a corporation have a right of freedom of conscience? was doesn'the issue have a right to free -- does it have a right to free speech? the answer will vary. underlyingn what the constitutional issue is. i should say that -- i have a chapter on united in the book as well and i say the bro problem is not as the corporation are persons part, straightforward to

explain why corporations actually do have rights of freedom of expression. rather than the supreme court doctrine that makes it extremely hard to limit the expenditures by anybody. if you're concerned about campaigns, the finance issues, that is the place to focus not on corporations. the court doctrine saying that again, it is really hard to justify restrictions on campaign expenditures. on seniority issue, the chief justice as nominated for the particular position. not to the seniormost member of the court. there are constitutional courts around the world that the chief justice is basically the most senior justice. therestem is one in which is a difference between the age of the chief justice and the most senior justice on the

court. host: you talk about how justice roberts was originally going to be nominated with the intent of moving into the chief justice spot. if you do talk about the history. guest: what happened was chief rehnquist was quite ill, had a certain kind of throat cancer. knew he was going to leave the court relatively soon. court.ed to stay on the justice o'connor had a husband who was quite ill and she wanted to leave the court, so that she could be with him and take care of him. she went to chief justice rehnquist and asked -- none of wanted to be two

vacancies at the same time. they try to tame and dash time of their departures -- time their departures. she asked if he planned to retire in in the coming year. he said, no, he planned to stay on. she announced her retirement. justice roberts was the on the court of appeals and was nominated initially to fill justice o'connor's position. justiceat, chief rehnquist passed away from his illness. that left two vacancies. been whenad always chief rehnquist left, roberts promotionme chief by or as it turned out directly. his nomination