>> thank you. you're a lovely audience. i probably should sit down now. i want to thank the heritage foundation for asking me to deliver the joseph story distinguished lecture. i am intimidated to be in such company. i have attended many of the other lectures. i especially want to express my gratitude to and meese, for as many kindnesses, and being such a minch. conversations would like this would not be taking place, we are all indebted because he

took seriously his oath to defend the constitution. this is -- [applause] this is where i usually offer my caveat, and tell people i am not a philosopher. i'm going to do something a little different and i'm going to speak as a conservative, and as a conservative judge. one who had the good fortune to be particularly ill educated. having escaped an ivy league education, i find myself free to think however i like.

[laughter] i suppose if i have been around when judge story was teaching at harvard i might have rethought that. as a conservative i spend most of my time thinking about the present evils of this world, unlike my liberal counterpart to spend their time thinking up new ones. [laughter] these days, frankly i find myself a little bit like gladys knight, i've really got to use my imagination to think of good reasons to keep on keeping on. for those of you too young to know gladys, youtube. [laughter] as i grow older i have developed a new appreciation for justice ash berries reform, reform great art things bad enough already? perhaps that is why of

late, conservative discussions about the constitution and american constitutional wisdom generally have had a distinctly remedial if not downright elegy tone. we speak of repairing and defending the constitution. i do not think our sense of urgency is overblown. our panic is justified. the title of this piece adds my bit to the theme of preserving the liberty. my analogy is drawn from the stonemason. i suggest they may consider re-pointing the constitution. some of you who do not live in old brick buildings may be unfamiliar with that term. when we first moved to washington dc we purchased a row house in the district and being from the valley, california, a part that has little experience of row houses world houses of any kind, we were unprepared to deal with maintenance required for structures that have been withstanding elements for more than a century.

even as we were stacking in moving boxes, our neighbors dropped by to warn us to expect strong smells, noise, and dust. they were having their home 3.2. our response was what? the value brick and mortar structures was more likely to result from the degradation of the mortar between the bricks than any other cause. the old cement must be cleaned out and replaced. it is a painstaking and labor-intensive process. as a lever and more about i became aware of the critical importance of the replacement cement having properties similar to the original mortar. nowhere and stronger cement may actually be too good. according to the author of the art of the stonemason, modern materials can hasten the deterioration of the stone by being so unyielding that over the seasons of change they actually crack the bricks,

climate enough and can repair. the result is a high love rubble. re-pointing seems the perfect point. is it not the new ingredient, the love child of the modern enlightenment and its handmaid am, postmodernism, that has impoverished our original understanding? we must ask ourselves what were the ingredients of that mortar, that binding spell, that gave us statesman like atoms, and madison, judges like marshall and story, and presidents like washington and lincoln? what made america possible, limited government conceivable? can we recapture the optimism and certitude of the founders in a world of big government and judge made right. or was a republic people by free men and naïve dream to which we

wiser, more sophisticated grown-ups should bid good riddance. america seemed a miracle. was it a product of its time destined to fail as symptoms abated from the national conscious? is there anything to be learned about constitutional re-pointing from a judge like joseph story? perhaps. a couple of examples based on two very different species of normative reasoning neighboring the issues into clearer focus. at one time the judges wrote in interpreting constitutional text was based on the anchor of a fixed constitution. joseph story was part of that tradition. he was born three years after the colonies declared independence and a year before john adams helped draft massachusetts' constitution in 1780 which reminiscent of the declaration confirm that all men are born free and equal.

while story was a toddler the high court of massachusetts held those words were incompatible with slavery. chief justice cushing admitted slavery had been an accepted usage in the colonies but he concluded whatever formally prevailed, different idea had taken place with the people of america. more favor of the natural rights of mankind into that natural innate desire of liberty, with which heaven, and i had to quote this part, "without regard to color, or shape of noses features, has inspired the whole human race." story condemned slavery previewed presti was a lover, a devoted lover of the constitution, and a friend of

the union, wrote an opinion declaring a pennsylvania statute making a substantially more difficult for slave catchers to recover you to this unconstitutional. the court heard arguments reviling the constitution as a damnable proslavery contract. he saw the constitution itself and the union it sought to perfect as the means by which the wrong would be ultimately eradicated. when story said it is a tribe for freedom he foreshadows lincoln, lincoln meant to preserve the union, which the constitution brought into being. story was prepared to exhibit

patience to support and defend that constitution. it might be said of him that when others despaired of the republic, and would have allowed it to succumb to a stern necessity, he resisted the impulse and clung to the union, and nailed its colors to the mast of the constitution. although the natural early. system was between the frame of government and personal, as we would say, natural and unalienable rights, incredibly not the same as the rights of man, they recognize the natural law as the ground of moral reasoning, but exceeding their authority under the positive law would violate the natural law in whose name they purported to act. such reasoning included concern about the preservation of the kind of governmental structure

which made liberty possible. unless the framework of limited government, the constitution of liberty was preserved through,

the project would fail. professor dorgan assumed story rejected accuracies of natural law entirely. otherwise he would have recognized american constitutionalism presupposed a conception of individual freedom, antagonism to slavery, conceptions that should have informed positive law. professor kent neumeier said story misunderstood the way in which moral choice and political informed legal doctrine. what they identify as more of reasoning has a different route than the natural law enterprise. dorgan's reasoning required judges to identify abstract reasoning's of justice. had story not accepted premises he would not have settled for the easy answer. both would deny there is any source of normative authority independent of man. in contrast to stories attention to the constitution, many modern judges see themselves as translators of the generalities of the evolving constitution. consider justin brenner's position on the death penalty. he described the constitution as a public text and a sublime oration on the dignity of man whose ambiguities judges must resolve. in the process of translating the generalities of the constitutional text justice brennan concluded capital punishment is under all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the

eighth and 14th amendment. he knowledges interpretation is wanted with me that the majority of his fellow justices nor his fellow countrymen subscribed. he ignores the fact that the text of the constitution does not forbid capital punishment. instead brennan articulates what he sees as a larger constitutional duty. the death penalty i hope to embody a community although perhaps not yet arrived striving for human dignity for all. in short he would impose his biases to force the community into being even though the believe he seeks to foster contradicted the text of the constitution. in brennan's view the task is not the patient work of re-pointing. it is renovation. much in the spirit of dorgan's insistence that the constitution licensed judges to identify and impose their own moral principles. perhaps justice story's activity cannot be described as brief pointing. the constitution was to knew. we can see ingredients of which you relied.

respect for the positive law, prudence, patience, precise application, unshakable faith in the natural laws universal objective moral truth. if we read pointer constitution today these understandings seem to be important ingredients. justice brennan, a phrase whose meaning is undefined. he is influenced to meaning to those abstract values. both just a story and justice brennan are identified as natural law jurists. the latter would dismiss the principle to which those early judges were devoted as quaint relics of a bygone age. in 1977, left's essay identify the problem at the heart of any book on human action.

how does one tell and tell about the difference between right and wrong? a person or a society, how can one ground any statement in the form it is right to do acts in anything firmer than the quicksand of reiterated assertion? left is candid not only about the near-term implications of his conclusions about the reason for rejecting the obvious solution.

if there is no external source on which to ground normative assumptions the answer to why x will be because p believe so, where p is a person or group of persons. i call this the zip code theory of jurisprudence. left explains the real stakes. if human nature is defined as a good there can be no argument for change. in that case an intellectual like unger uphold the world would have no role at all. to escape that possibility, the good has to be not what people were now about what they are becoming or could become ever more perfectly ever more fully.

it is impossible to see this, without hearing the echo of lincoln's morning that men of ambition who thirst and burn for distinction will have it weather at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving free men. his book contains this passage, moral discourse presupposes the existence of humanity and the authority of the striving to be and to become ever more human. he goes on the first assumption that there is a unitary human nature. one that changes and develops in history. the second premise of that is that human nature constitutes the final nature of moral judgment in the absence of objective values and in the silence of revelation. in 1979 professor left it gave us the short academic tour de force on the absence of objective values. he says if we cannot believe in

a complete transcendent set of propositions about right and wrong, findable rules that are direct us to live righteously, any premise flounders on the grand says who. in other words, in order for any normative evaluation to be binding and unquestionable, the evaluator must be beyond question. the evaluator must be the unjust judge, the untold legislature, the grimace maker who rests on no premise. the great i am, god. he admits that if god is rejected the result is the total elimination of any coherent, even more than momentarily ethical or legal system dependent on authoritative premises. this is a way of saying forget about constitutionalism or a

rule of law that is more than skin deep. when man replaces god the focus is not on god but his power. it may be useful to contemplate cs lewis's rejoinder, a dogmatic belief and objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule that is not tyranny or obedience which is not slavery. it is on this idea of objective value to believe that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, the america was established. the founders believed the statement adapted by thomas jefferson on the virginia declaration of rights, edited and endorsed by those who founded this republic, we hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. jefferson's statement is the most famous single sentence, or perhaps the second most famous sentence after "coke is it." [laughter] another more recognizable choice may be "just do it," or "may the force be with you." you get the idea. as a knowledge, what seems self-evident would be patently false or meaningless to the great men who shaped our political imagination. we could add the names of american presidents like wilson and roosevelt to the list of those who argued for liberation from constitutional piety.

in favor of a real evaluation of the constitution. natural rights and its evil twin, the rights of men, seem to move in an eerie antiquity. economic rights and economic freedom grew up side-by-side with the nationalist refusal to accept objective value. this is a problem for modernity. these truths represent the principles on which this nation is founded. what future exists for a regime founded on the lex eterna if no one believes in anymore? this is where the life of a conservative judge who favors limited government becomes difficult.

a philosophy that does not realize that recognize moral norms cannot limit the state power. it is not clear that a legal philosophy that does recognize absolute moral norms can't read to divorce the government monopoly of force from conceptions of what is right and wrong is ultimately to justify tyranny in its most naked form. with cure hearts and good intentions and servitude judges, most convicted of the accuracy of the founders intuition, and anxious to reserve a constitutionalism that can limit government have instead of defending the constitution unilaterally disarmed. with high hopes and grand theories, the proponents of the living constitution have

rewritten the charter. the result is incoherent. the consequence of everyone going into business for themselves is not just the eclipse of natural law, it is the privileging of unnatural law. once skepticism, moral know was him becomes pervasive. the denial of any moral reality beyond mere convention is both callable and incoherent and leads to different but equally destructive errors. if there is no principled way to navigate competing moral claims the only option is for the proponent of judicial restraint to remain silent. i get this, his position has the virtue of being entirely consistent. i understand why that recommends itself. moral nihilism, devoid of any normative authority and range from generally excepted standards, visit code theory of

jurisprudence, and conceptions of democracy and to radically personal convictions. it is worth considering where these theories translated into styles of constitutional interpretation lead. the best example is the former chief justice of the israeli supreme court. it is safe to talk about him. [laughter] he is candid about what he believes and how he does this. he also doesn't have the constitution. it is better.

he argues that judges must defend democracy by defining ultimate values. he suggests a process of common conviction must take place among members of society regarding the truth and justice, norms and standards people cherish before we can say a general goal has been reached and that these should be binding. presumably when the consensus changes, so does the law. couples judging on abstract generalization, this approach allows judges to impose objective predispositions under the guise of an objective standard. a similar defense of judicial subjectivity can be found in justice breyer's book, active liberty. judicial quietism and adventurism are both problematic. the result is either democratic despotism or judicial supremacy. neither bode well for the

sustainability of american constitutionalism. i consider myself to be one of them. it is a principled position and there are good reasons to fear arbitrary discretion in the courts and promote what is called the morality of the jurors, a discipline that requires judges from giving desires free play. self-restraint is part of judicial prudence. the founders believed human nature provided the standard by which to judge clinical institutions. the argument for ratification marshaled in the federalist papers were framed in terms of real moral considerations and recognition of the feelings inherent in human enterprise. james mcclellan focused on the perceived inconsistencies in story's jurisprudence. he wonders of the approach owes more to the classical christian tradition.

story was a child of the american revolution. ideas about liberty, and sacred honor part of the air he breathed. he had a deep understanding of the way the first principles of moral reasoning were intercooled to the things that i find american constitutionalism. he assumed any good regime must respect the nature of the creature to be governed. the obligatory force of the law of nature is the derived with equal incidence of the will of the creator. the law of nature is that system of principles which human reason has discovered. these reflections illustrate a very on the mental distinction between a vision of natural law embraced by the founders and revered by american

conservatives, and progressive ideas of inevitable transformative progress. the progressive idea highlights the difference between progress in science and technology, which can be cumulative, and morals and politics, which must start with every generation. there is a deep paradox in the progressive insistence that the nature of history is settled in the nature of man opened to any definition that captures the imagination of the moment. to absolve this field humanity is take with precisely with the constitution sought to preserve. john adams said he always viewed the settlement of america with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in providence for the elimination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth. he was not alone in this view.

those who pledge their lives, fortunes, sacred honor in those revolutionary times repeatedly gave credit to a beneficent providence to divine intervention to be in the hands of a good providence. even now hardly anyone who reads about the harrowing days of the revolutionary war escapes the intuition that america's success was something more than serendipity. there must be more than a frisian of awareness that something extraordinary was afoot. the hinge of history shifts radically every 500 years. 500 years back, the great reformation. the long view of history echoes a shorter time frame the mythic struggle. he invokes saint augustine, recalling how god enriches history.

there is beauty in the composition of the world history arising from the antitheses of contraries, a kind of eloquence and event instead of words. he concludes the devil often tries with great success to convert good into evil at the battle is never seated through him. god may re-forged evil, habit and instruction into instruments of his own design. the point is the reformation intended to purify christianity morphed into the enlightenment which begin by seeking to free politics from religion this law, this twisting of light into darkness has the potential to turn politics into a sheer struggle for power.

rosen says the enlightenment led to the repudiation of reason. reducing all that is not objectively verifiable to the realm of rhetoric, nationalism to perspective, and makes all prospective equal. since our choices can only be justified rhetorically that is even a quality reduced to the equal right of all desired to be satisfied. the assertion of a perspective becomes its justification. the claim is a particular perspective serves the general welfare, and what is really served is the will to power. the enlightenment provided the impetus for the french revolution. john adams contrasted reason with reason rightly understood. the american revolution rejected the idea of reason that made war on human nature. the mistake of the french revolutionaries was contempt for man.

in the words of the poet, two roads diverged in the wood, and we took the one less traveled like him and now we know ages hence that has made all the difference. at least for about 150 years it seemed like it would. [laughter] liberty is hard free government is not inevitable. it is only a possibility that can be fully realized when it is recognized by moral law. it requires self-control and self-restraint. freedom is not the power of doing what we like to the right of being able to do what we ought.

natural law cannot always produce easy answers and sometimes it cannot produce any. it is a response to a hard question. what is man that you made him a little lower than the angels. this is glory and curis, and trying to design a government of the people for the people and by the people we must relish an inherent part of humanity. we are not groups. we are not gods. before architects and structural feel to allow buildings to extend easily upwards, early builders invented a solution. flying buttress his. this made the gothic cathedrals possible. thus the building stood and the spaces reached not in spite of the tensions generated by opposing forces but because of them. human beings are similarly designed. belongings of our heart and the destiny of our souls are forever straining against each other. what left is the devastating

modern human thought. basic positions about reality that are simultaneously necessary and contradictory. the framers would easily have recognized, it did not st. paul voice the same antinomy. i have the desire to do what is good but i cannot carry it out. when i want to do good evil is right there with me. for thousands of years the idea of natural law played a dominant role in philosophy and history. calvin coolidge approved similar sentiment, a wonderful speech given in 1926 to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the declaration of independence. he lamented most of those clamoring for reform were ill-informed. america's foundation was spiritual, not material and the founders or people influenced by spiritual development required a great moral power.

only the exercise of god's providence seemed out of it to explain the declaration of independence. he did not believe it should be discarded for something more modern. he concludes that all men are created equal that is final. if they are endowed with an unalienable rights that is final. if governments derive power from the consent of the governed that is final. no progress community on these propositions. anyone wishes to deny their truth and their sound is the only direction which he can proceed is not forwards but backwards. towards a time when there was

not a quality, not rights of the individuals, no rule of the people. those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot wait claim to progress. they are reactionary. coolidge is exactly right. his insides seem counterintuitive. even after the great depression the spell had not been broken. speaking at a conference of judges, i was surprised that these were ninth circuit judges. it was in 1946. [laughter] mccann and anticipated the anti-democratic philosophies gaining ground in american universities. such teachings deny the essential elements of the regime devoted to the preservation of natural rights. he argued that denying existence of a moral law inherent in human nature which limits government coercion would be a prelude to tyranny.

if there is no higher law there are no natural rights and if there are no natural rights the bill of rights is a delusion. everything which man possesses, his life, liberty and property are held by government, and if there are no external truths, if nothing changes, we may not complain when the standard of citizenship changes from freedom to stability.

the democracy relapses into tyranny. remarkably, our regime never made the unnecessary choice between truth and reason. for a time, rejected the strict separation between what is just and what is legal. it is this thread, a conviction that there is such a thing as human nature, it is fixed and cannot be changed, and the same nature provides a standard by which to judge political institutions to unite john adams, joseph story, and calvin coolidge. to turn away from the principles of 1776, 1778, to turn back toward arbitrary government. that is why the idea of appointing the constitution is a useful analog. it suggests not only preparing but repenting and reorienting. in the early days of the republic, patriots hope for the perpetuity of the constitution. they were sensitive to the fragility of free institutions. story expressed his well-founded fear and a powerful metaphor, the centripetal force is far greater than the centrifugal. that we would fly off and orbit and never return. what he feared came to pass. the nation cannot be sustained for the civil war and the civil war amendments shifted the balance from the states to the national government. america was granted a new birth of freedom.

the declaration became an explicit part of the constitution. our time is different. in our age the sun has collapsed. becoming a dark star. a cosmic phenomenon sometimes called a black hole. a gravitational pull so strong it can bend light and hold time hostage. our peril was not that we will fly too far from the sun, rather than we are already too close. so close that liberty may be extinguished by the centrifugal force that overwhelms the idea of limits. perhaps the constitutional republic is bound by a law of laws, and can always anti-itself. instead, liberalism no longer

has anything to do with limited government. regulatory state has expanded its reach to encompass education, social welfare, and the transmission of culture. judge and legal scholars cannot distinguish between liberalism. the comprehensive doctrine is one that addresses all aspects of life, including conceptions of what is of value, ideas of personal character, and of friendship. the constitutional principles of early american history limited the weight government could conduct the public is as it did not tell citizens how they should live their lives. the first amendment followed exactly this approach. the american constitution was an attempt to create a government strong enough to keep the peas, promote prosperity, about the power to affect were of course ordinary lives. contrary to today's new vision of the state should force citizens to be neutral, tolerant, egalitarian, and

open-minded. by the way, some wisdom i learned at my grandmother's knee, it's a fine thing to have an open mind and not so open that everything in it falls out. [laughter] or as cs lewis says, if your mind is open on these ultimate questions, let your mouth be shut. [laughter] or consider the even more ominous view that government should force citizens to accept a singular secular vision of the good.

this is where i think deference to the analyte and believe will take us. a secular uniform and vision of the future where we will be democrats who lack faith worth fighting for. while the earlier natural rights strengthens the charter of freedom, the newer understanding constraints, districts, and reduces. so long as we have unlimited government we may need a less limited view of the legitimate roles of judges. judges may need to intervene for the sake of individual liberty and they must sometimes do so with reference to ultimate values. western civilization's greatest achievements has been a network of principles that undergird individual liberties. somehow those sources of value

should and must inform the act of judging. the solutions offered by theorists and either in making right or in a chorus to virtue based on a natural law that seems contrary to athens and jerusalem both. to the entire network of principled individual liberty. it would take more than i possess to suggest an exhaustive answer to the question of how to define the ultimate values that inform responsible judging in a constitutional democracy. there is some usefulness in saying no to these errors. the perceived opinion among a social group and mistaking it for democratic consensus, the construction of the constitution that all the rise and limited government, positive rights, when the import of the

constitution is the creation of a government of limited powers aimed at protecting negative rights. the air of indifference to the written test of the constitution. conservative judges have vigorously resisted the importation of extra textual ideas. they have been less adept at limits that are in the text. this is the point of recent books challenging judicial education and their criticism has some validity. it is no more principle to permit remnants to be written out of the constitution than it is to insert obligations that were never there. this is a modest proposal. no theory of everything is in it. brilliance defined at new ideas that turn conventional thinking on its head should count heavily

against any legal theory. neither the reason that has destroyed authority or the untrammeled will that destroyed self-government can be endured. we must live with our attention for the true way is in the middle. politics is downstream of culture. the cultural problem will turn out to be a religious problem. rather than fleeing from the sacred perhaps we must embrace it. in the orthodox jewish tradition the world is filled with god's glory. protestant security lofty space in which to encounter god. in the city of man, the world is filled with law. the source of our differences may well be religious but a person or a nation's relationship to liberty is a spiritual matter. coolidge was right about that. we cannot have it both ways. for the promise of the

permissive cornucopia authored by the limited state we give up freedom. if the state is limitless maybe judges must be too. that is second-best. you cannot remain neutral to good. the question is whether we can read point our constitution so that we may preserve the fortress stones, rendering the legal, political, and constitutional principles that made us an exceptional nation. a wonder in the world, the land of the free. if we would be free, the unjust judge is a logical necessity. widespread consensus must exist. even high conceives the preservation of liberty requires a commitment to a narrative privileging ordered liberty.

otherwise liberty loses to expediency every time. the grand says who is not enough. if you want liberty, something more awesome, glory, worthy of reverence is required. something like the spirit that moved upon the deep, and spoke the world into being, the one who lit the sun, and later the cornerstones when the morning stones sang together. because of the logos, the great i am. [applause]

>> i think you can see from that response how much we appreciate your fine words today and the judge has agreed to take a few questions and who would like to ask the first question? yes. roger? >> thank you very much, judge. i really enjoyed that. i'm with the center for equal opportunity. let me ask you this -- would an atheist judge go about deciding the meaning of the constitution differently from a christian judge? and why or why not? >> gosh. [laughter] i thought these were going to be easy questions. hmm. that is really interesting. you know, i don't know because some of my best friends are libertarians.

and they are mostly people who do not believe in, you know, in a supernatural being but nevertheless i think they would recognize that if you're going to have limited government, something must be the source of authority. the problem with this lack of normative foundation is all you get is whatever anybody wants to do. so i would hope that if, in fact, you are atheist or christian, it wouldn't really make any difference as long as you are committed to the limited nature of the regime. >> ok. the next question. yes. >> i'm with the institute for

justice. you talked a lot about the declaration of independence this evening and its role in setting forth truths about human name and about the role of government that are true everywhere and always and you always made reference to the 14th amendment as a means of bringing the declaration into the constitution explicitly. more than one justice over the last few years, including famously justice scalia has said that the declaration of independence is not part of our law. >> i know. [laughter] >> and justice kagan during her confirmation hearing was asked and she said basically to the extent that there are rights out there, i wouldn't want you to think that i would enforce those rights. how would you respond to that and any further thoughts about the reference to the declaration

and the constitution. >> it's clear that the declaration was not part to have original constitution. there's a kind of interesting debate about that. one of the things that mclellan says that they didn't put that in the constitution because by the time they got around to drafting the constitution they were so over all that natural rights stuff, right? i mean, that was a kind of exuberant thing that they did but then when they got around to the constitution they were very sober and they did not bring that up again. my own feeling is that the reason that they did not say anything when they drafted the constitution about the declaration of independence was they understood what those words meant and just as it happened in massachusetts, it would have

meant the end of slavery, right? that language was very powerful. so i think that's why it wasn't -- because they were very careful in the constitution. they were trying to hold this together. they were trying to keep this compromise working and so they were very circumspect in all of their language about slavery. but i still think that that was a background consideration to what they were doing. i don't think it was just sort of something that happened because they were trying to justify declaring their independence. so i think that that was always in the background of what happens -- what was happening, and i think the civil war congress, the republicans clearly thought that that's what they were doing. they said so, so i don't know.

i mean, i can't answer your question about how other judges look at this and, you know, decide that this is not there and that we should not have any concern about it. i mean, we have a court that has just, you know, refused to acknowledge that privileges and immunities is in the constitution. so we have, you know -- clearly there are currents in the jurisprudence on the supreme court that i cannot explain and won't try to. [laughter] >> thank you. manny from the reason foundation and individual rights foundation. this is a great moment for the heritage foundation and the great moment for the audience and the broadcast audience. my question to go back to your theme of reappointing the constitution, would you look for

the type of mortar that wouldn't be too strong that maybe would be preserving the bricks of the constitution. a little bit of -- in that mortar? \[laughter] >> whoa. he keeps telling me i have to speak into the mike because of the -- i forget. i'm a pacer. uh, boy. well, i'm going to take the coward's way out here. i am a sitting judge, so -- [laughter] i'm going to decide that discretion is the better part of valor and i am not going to say anything more about that. >> john? >> so i want to pose a question. did the declaration come in only via the 14th amendment privilege immunities before -- was it in the main document insist because

there's also privileged in immunities, there are principles there that seem to follow the declaration. we have compromises with those and we have to live side by side but isn't the root there first and if it is, how should a judge go about giving foist to those original claims? >> i think you make a good point and i believe that there was much in what they did. because my point in really focusing on the declaration of independence was what was it that they saw as necessary to limit government because they -- you know, this was the new thing that they thought they were seeing in terms of governance. one that consent had to come from the people, and two, that there were limits on what

government could do to coerce a certain kind of creature, right? so i think that that was very much a part of what they were doing and that there are several things in the constitution which probably reflect that. but i have to acknowledge that they were very careful. i would say even the preamble has a little flavor of that but i think they were very careful not to say that out loud. >> clark? >> thank you. i've been waiting for the easy questions. by the way, heritage promised me only softball questions. \[laughter] i think i need a little truth in advertising discussion with them. >> you have served a lot of different judges in your career. can you identify one or two

qualities that you find most admirable and desirable in judges from both sides of the aisle, but what are one or two qualities that are the hall marks of a good judge and the kind of judges we should want in our courts? >> wow. it's funny, i have been on a lot of courts and i've served with a lot of different judges and all of them are quite different but i think for me what, you know, the thing they like when i have a colleague who really is engaged, that really wants to dig into it, who's there because they love the work and it interests them, and who are willing to take the extra time to thoroughly investigate something and especially someone who -- you know, when you have a disagreement, and this is the thing about appellate courts.

if you're a trial judge, you are the king. you know, your word is law. just whatever you say, you are like yul brenner as ramses ii in "the 10 commandments." so let it be written, so let it be done. it's over. when you're on an appellate court, it's a symphony, a concerto, it's never a solo. you always have to be -- have the ability to work with the other judges. to me, one of the best characteristics of a judge is one where you have a disagreement actually goes back and thinks it through. doesn't just grudgingly put in a couple of words and say ok i've addressed your concern but goes

back and says how does that idea change the way i was approaching this opinion. i think we're done. i hope so. [applause] >> judge, one of the things that we excellent recognition both for your distinguished career as judge and the other jobs that you've done but also of your talk this evening and your excellent thoughts and kids and the thinking and research that went into your fine work for tonight's talk, this is our statue of liberty, defender of liberty award and we're happy to present this to you. >> this is gorgeous. thank you so much.

>> and also with it we have a -- >> whoa! >> we have the commentaries on the constitution of the united states in two volumes by joseph story. >> oh, this is gorgeous. beautiful. >> and also, what we call the familiar exposition of the constitution of the united states by joseph story and with all modesty, i must say it has a forward by me. [applause] >> oh, thank you so much. >> and now, if you'll join us all, and we have in the foyer, we'll have a reception where you can personally meet the judge but before we leave, i just want to thank you again personally for being with us for all that you've done for the law and particularly for being with us tonight. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> next c-span's coverage of campaign 2014 continues with the colorado governor debate. interview.an ifromthat, women of color fort lauderdale, florida. now the colorado governor debate he between john hickenlooper and bob beauprez. race is listed as a tossup. and colorado public television, this is 55 minutes. pp 12 present the

gubernatorial debate. >> thanks for joining us for this gubernatorial debate. i'm a political analyst. gentlemen, thank you both for being here for the final debate of this election season. >> john hickenlooper is running for his second term p it he ran after serving for two terms. he moved to colorado in 1981 as a geologist, but lost his job and economic downturn. in 1988 come he opened his first berew pub. he has one son. >> bob beauprez is a colorado native. he served for two terms before running for governor in 2006 pin he has managed both a bank and his family's real estate.

he is 66 and has been married to his wife for 44 years. they have four children and four grandchildren. >> you want to begin on public safety. an explosive ad suggested that governor hickenlooper is partly to blame for the murder of a state prison chief. we want to show the entire original ad. [video clip] >> with john hickenlooper as governor, is your family safe? prompted lisa clemen

-- onsend to bob beauprez several occasions this year, you have attempted to use our families tragic loss for your versatile and political gain, and we were se respectfully ask you to please stop. our colorado residents safe with john hickenlooper as governor? u for providing the form and the question. yes, i think public safety is a critical issue. i think it ought to be part of any gubernatorial debate. that is exactly the question we were raising. breaks for the family of tom clements and his widow. my intention was never to offend her or to politicize the event. my intention still raises the sears question of john

hickenlooper's failed record of public safety. that was when crystallizing onet in a whole series -- crystallizing event in a whole series where he showed failure of leadership on his watch on public safety. be hisink that needs to first responsibility to protect and defend the safety of the citizens. on my watch, that will absolutely be a priority. i never intended to offend lisa. that is why we changed out the traffic on the ad. there are plenty of other subjects. >> thank you. governor hickenlooper, your response. clements was an simpler public servant and a close friend. evoking his death for political stilles is -- i'm dumbfounded.

public servant and a close friend. evoking his death for political purposes is -- i'm still dumbfounded. i'm not sure how we could see that as a positive ad. back at all hek did. he came out here specifically to address the issues around people in solitary confinement and getting released directly to the general population. there were 1500 and solitary confinement when he first came. he worked relentlessly and cut that number down to a couple people now. the problem that was being raised has been solved. the whole thing is unfortunate and really dumbfounding. put that i, let's decided talk about your record on public safety. allow moreched them to

violent criminals to be released from the community corrections. here and -- administers implement a policy which death row inmates get four hours a day of unsupervised leisure time p appointed suggest you have been a good deal to help criminals, but little for victims. how do you respond to that? >> we will continue to work on trying to make the state safer. the issues around sentencing and parole reform, there is a science in terms of how we look at keeping our prison save and making sure we rehabilitate listeners so when they are released, the goal is they could , they have some opportunity to grade a life so they don't get -- create a

life. for violent criminals, we have major at least 85% do their full terms. often times, that four hours after someone on death row were things that seem overly lenient is trying to goad people into better behavior within the prison. we do almost all of those changes through a state andission on punishment juvenile justice. this is a good idea or this is a bad idea. we support most what comes through that commission. >> your response? >> the reality is in colorado we have one of the worst rates of going back to prison than any stay in the nation. we arm on the bottom three. the governor says he has solved the problem of solitary

confinement. return themas back. prisoner on prisoner violence is up. are paroledffenders directly into our neighborhoods without receiving any therapeutic habilitation before its they are turned back to our neighborhoods. that is not defending public safety and improving public safety. that is taking your eye off the ball and failing to lead. >> thank you. let's change the subject. you appointed a task force to set off contentious anti-fracking ballot measures. it is a polarizing issue. people will have to reach a two thirds majority vote for the legislature. isn't the task force set up to fail? >> i don't think so.

we were poised to lose tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars and capital investment in the state. come from the oil and gas side and some are very strong advocates for local control. the goal is to make sure all voices got hurt and that they could come together we could find country mise is to find that balance. with horizontal drilling, we have exploration and production to becoming closer to people where they live. we want to make sure if there is activity close to where someone lives, that they have -- that we are bringing everything we can to mitigate that connection and provide elected officials the opportunity to talk about setbacks and make sure that we respect that private property that someone owns the it often times we forget that the person who owns those mineral rights often owned it long before the house was built appeared

government shouldn't come and take that minimal right -- mineral right. i think they will be able to get to the point where electrical .raining could be quiet once the well is built, make sure there are gauges so that water and air is clean and we could really guarantee that there are no harmful effects. >> thank you. haveessman beauprez, you criticized that collaborative some sing it is a euphemism for -- you havecan criticize that collaboration, saying it is a euphemism for kicking the can down the road. >> this wasn't the right solution. this was a pity me of kicking the can down the road. the reason the governor did this was a political reason. it is a solution in search of a problem. when he wanted to do is get

these draconian extreme measures off the ballot so he and others didn't have to deal with them and their reelection campaigns. he was caving in and capitulating to special interest .roup contingencies his favorite constituencies, i guess. i think what should have been done especially this year was to defeat these measures soundly so we could level the playing field and create some certainty in the marketplace. that is what is driving job -- jobs out of here. this did not end anything. thank you governor, we will give you some time for rebuttal. -- hankof the most brown has spoken of in favor of it. i think there's a real chance to even though there is

significant disagreement, i think they could find a collaborative place in the middle and mitigate that. it happens. like him pick my writing me or any other from an energy producing county. who he picked was a later from -- lady from durango -- what he picked was a lady from durango. they want to ban drilling in colorado. we have to celebrate the fact that never in human history have we been able to harvest our natural resources more efficiently and cleaner and we can right now. that is something to celebrate and not too funny-ish pete great jobs in colorado and embrace opportunities and achieve that objective that we have all talked about of energy independence for north america and the united states. >> my turn to get in on the fun,

gentlemen here if the governor of another state was contemplating legalizing recreational marijuana and contacted you, what advice would you give? congressman, you go first. >> i would advise them to be cautious. i have been asked that question. i think we are in a learning phase in colorado. people's support it significant majority. when i raised my hand, that will be one of them. i think we need to enforce it as the law was passed. i think we need to be very object is an very honest about what we learn about consequences of this new law relative to our children, young people, and to employees who are seeking jobs around the state of colorado. the consequences are real. governors are very much looking at colorado. i think when i'm asked that question, i will tell them to be

cautious as i think we are being cautious. >> governor, how would you feel those phone calls? >> i get a lot of those calls. last her and was the chair of the western governors association. that is about two thirds of the sitting governors who are republicans. that is a large vote. they ask again and again -- are the tax revenues significant enough to make worth all of the challenges? we need to wait. i oppose the legislation to begin with, but when it passed, i think we had an obligation to do everything we can to create a regulatory system that could work. we are in one of the great experiment 21st century here we will do everything we can to find a framework that makes it worth it needs to make sure it stays out of the hands of his -- has the potential

to diminish her family as a ringtone growing. memory as they are still growing. >> the median household income is down about $4000 since the recession started. thosean you do to help who have all but lost hope of finding a job. >> i think the unemployment has come down significantly. if you go out onto the slopes, it is docked in the last -- last few months we have a lot of places where the recovery hasn't been as rapid as a has been. if you go to for collins and to ar,, a few goad down paso county, it is struggling. you have got to find ways to provide incentives and those places still have lagging

unemployment. through done entrepreneurs or lone ranger's. normally kneels to's who do not want to work for a company. they want to work project to project. we are trying to find one of the right incentives so that they do not does come into denver spirit lendale -- millennial's have been making it their primary destination. we want to make should have other destinations i give them a little bit of an incentive so they would go to colorado springs or grand junction. ofyou are right the best recovery has been spotty. we have had negative growth last year. the colorado springs area -- negative growth. pueblo barely stays stagnant last year. part of the reason is because there are so many opportunities that have gone to states around us. that is wrong that i have

nothing against the states, but of a big fan of colorado opportunity appeared when i ask what is wrong, people say it is government. regulationf pages of every year. almost 15,000 pages coming out of his administration of regulation every year. 2000 new regulations implemented on his watch. i will do the opposite. on day one, i will suspend new regulations. if they aren't public safety related, let's stop and on the government and a but you to join us in that audit. pro-you and your division freedom, we will get rid of it. >> candidates seem to promise during the election season you'd could you tell us one idea from the other party's platform that you support? and given a gift from your parties that form that you support. please be specific. partyhink the democrat

has been top the education opportunity for children. unfortunately on this governors watch and the democrat party being in charge of the colorado legislature, hasn't materialized. democrat and member of the state board of education. used to be a member of another board. she said based on the test scores that we got back on governor hickenlooper's watchm she said -- watch, she said, we have got to be honest. when 30% of our children cannot read at grade level, we have got a problem that we need to address. you asked about my party's platform. the strugglingy with the issue of illegal

immigration. we need to find a solution to the long-standing problem. of where youample agree and disagree with the democratic platform. >> the congressman came and was talking about cutting legislation. we embrace that from the beginning. the state government had to be focused. the whole state had to be focused. we had to find a way to cut it in hundred regulations and modify another 1500. try to take the friction out of his this. relentlesslya be pro-business, but at the same time, have high standards. it would be an example where many of my party feel the hydraulic fracturing or extraction is dangerous and should be banned. i think it is the state's obligation to make sure that we get to place where we can guarantee that the air and water

will be clean for people live. but that natural gas is a transition fuel that will get us to a cleaner future. regulation and overall government approach to business, we have tried to stay positive. >> thank you. have asked viewers to send in a question they wanted to ask each of you. >> thanks. we will give each of you 30 seconds to answer these questions. atill ask it to move along restoreth jefferson county. it is a county that has decided step -- that has decided statewide races in the past. this fall, we saw a school district in turmoil as students walked out of class and teachers called in sick and were upset aout a paper proposal and plan to possibly change the college for design curriculum .or ap u.s. history that prompted questions from several viewers.

what is your opinion of the action of the school board endeavor singh, county relative to the teaching of american history? >> if you're talking about ap tests, there will be standard test given the students all over our completed. history.o all american i think a small number of people are trying to change the individual parts -- it doesn't make sense. if you judge, you are trying to -- you are putting your kids at a tremendous disadvantage. >> it is perfectly appropriate for an electrical board to debate the issues such as curriculum. i think it needs to be open and transparent. certainly parents and teachers

need to be involved. what offended me was that the kids were hurt, the students were hurt. we lost class instruction time. we shouldn't take kids out of classrooms, as well as teachers. this is a labor dispute more than a curriculum dispute. i think the tragedy was unfortunately the children. >> we had another school shooting in america, this time in washington state. scott lee wanted to talk about gun control. what is your stance on gun control moving forward? >> berry good question an appropriate question given my opponent in this race. our share of tried to tell him that the gun bills you signed in 2013 would neither improve public safety or be enforced.

he didn't listen to our shares -- very county he told the sheriff's that he didn't do that. i do not think the problem is that we need more laws. i think the problem is we need more mental health intervention. that is an issue that has gone on wanting on his watch. i think we need to be proactive about solving problems before they happen. >> governor hickenlooper? >> we did at $30 million to the mental health budget two years ago. it is the largest increase in the history of the state. he might've missed your attention. i do not see new gun regulations but i down the road,

think that the universal background checks where we were trying to make sure that guns didn't get into the hands of dangerous people made a lot of sense. universal -- if you look at gun purchases and the gun safety checks, 38 people who were guilty of homicide, try to buy a gun and we stop them. 420 people who had a judicial restraining order. we stop them. people have said, crooks aren't stupid good they will not get a background check when buying a gun. 236 people when they came to pick up the gun, we arrested them for an outstanding warrant. that legislation was not intended to take guns away from people, just keep them out of the hands of dangerous

individuals. >> this is a scene we have seen too many times. back up that people head home and stuck in traffic for hours at a time. what do you feel is the best way to address the i-70 congestion? >> great question. there have been very few questions about transportation in this entire campaign. let's renew the trans bonds that are about to be paid off. if we did that, i talked to a public finance expert on this. we didn't exactly at the same ratio we have been doing since 1999. that is not a link fixed i-25, t-rex project, but many other projects around the state. instead of band-aids and onchwork, let's get serious

improving the opportunities and do some serious public finance. our state doesn't even have a cfo. we have some good budget will. don't get me wrong. but we do not have a chief financial officer to tell us how to best utilize the -- utilize the resources we have available. >> governor hickenlooper? >> we do have a cfo. >> nine your office. -- not in your office. [talking over each other] >> please let me answer. if you did renew those trans bonds, there wouldn't be any big projects. we focus on the short-term on making sure that by spanning the , we could go

forward and hard in the shoulders and during rush hour, we could let that become a third lane. friday afternoons and saturday and the going westbound cutting back eastbound, there will be that extra lane. that is a short-term resolution. we would have to look at managing lanes with a new shoulder that will be used for buses and mass transit people could create a toll. key to the the future though is recognizing that the new vehicle that is coming out -- new vehicles and trucks that are coming are using less fuel. where are the new revenues going to come from? >> i have got to have a rebuttal on that. [laughter] he office he does understand what the trans bonds are about. is the're talking about

federal guest tasks that comes to colorado anyway and using that to calculate how much we can finance. that work did marcy will for the last 15 years. public finance experts tell us that we could access $3.5 billion with a "b" money. that is serious money. >> go ahead. >> there is money left of that and you would need a vote from the people to get it. then you'd be taking a diminishing revenue source because of the less amount of ghastly we would be selling to pay for this new amount of construction. you're going out on a very risky endeavor pyramid if he did have a good cfo, i could guarantee they would recommend it. >> yes they would. >> gentlemen, we will move on. more than $6 million has been

set -- much of it is from the democratic and republican association did i gave several adds a reality check and sound claims that didn't always hold up under screw any. the listen to a clip from and at a give each 45 seconds to respond here it we begin with an ad by governor hickenlooper in which you tell your mediator skills. ♪ [video clip] >> if you want to know what it is like to be in the hot seat with the governor, there's always someone to talk about something. if you listen, you could even the middle. >> you have taken heat for trying to straddle the middle on several issues, especially the death penalty it is your opponent makes it an issue and you lose, you might get -- your critics say this shows a lack of leadership. how do you respond? >> and terms of the death penalty -- i was and try to straddle the middle ear and looked at a situation and have

than very consistent. i do not think government should be taking life. we all have our relationship with god. in the end, rick has a lot of people disagree with that. i didn't want to pull the rug out from the entire legal system . i think you asking the question. it is certainly a difficult one. i look at each one of these situations and in the end, when contacted capital punishment, my next -- is that the don't believe the government should take a lifetime of the next governor might. your rants of negative ads. list take a look at one of them. -- let's take a look at one of them. [video clip] says hehickenlooper opposes negative ads, but that is hickenlooper hypocrisy. true, it could have

denounce them. congressman, aren't you being hypocritical? >> i don't think so good as you iinted out in your fact check think that that is still running . it is false and misleading and untrue. question thathat you put up, that gimmick that he told in the debate was a question asking him if he wasn't being a bit hypocritical, thing a member of the democratic association of former vice chairman of the democratic governors association and having to raise money for the association to not call that was toying obvious and he knows be a false attack against me. if it is true and based on a

vote that summit has taken a bill that someone signed a statement that they have made, i do not think that is a negative attack at. i think that is a contrast that needs to be drawn out in the course of a political debate. >> in the fact check, they could not coordinate -- >> he lost his first amendment rights to speak out. that is what is really behind this. at least end up and say that is false. calling foul. he could at least do that. but he hasn't. maybe tonight. >> i would be happy to take all of the negative ads stamp you that is what we agreed to. you said i will only run positive at. your ads -- you broke the promise before. >> the campaign has never -- >> our campaign has never run but positive ads. i denounce all the negative ads. i'm happy to do it.

>> you're also happy to let other people do your dirty work for you. down.ase, take them .he silence is thinning -- > >> where was your voice back then? >> we will move along. an association invested heavily in this race. let's take a look at one of the ads. [video clip] guy to shoot pool with pit when it comes to tough decisions, he won't step up to the table. he dropped the ball on a mass murderer, nathan dunlap, and flip-flopped on gun rights. control.take up gun he told a group of shares you do not have all of facts when you sign the bill appeared should you have signed it then? the sheriffs, "as

you point out, how important really was it? how much difference will it make? how is this not a. flip flop?" >> he will die in prison in terms of the controversy. there are so many out there that it will take a long time to have an effect. long-term, you will move toward a safer future. euro is trying to measure how to get things to change were rapidly. i still stand behind that law that that is what made sense. we have a great many factors and have got more facts in you'd we will change things. i think we should've spent more time and have more of an open discussion over the entire gun law issue. >> how important really was it to the sheriff? >> i was trying to recognize

that it would take years for that legislation or to have a significant, material affect. the high-capacity magazines of more than 15 rounds are not necessary to defend your home it in most cases, it is illegal for hunting. a majority of them have had magazines more than 15 rounds. officers to have been killed all use magazines the had more than 15 rounds. >> thank you, governor. this ad addresses your position on abortion. [video clip] the race that matters. the one colorado women cannot afford to lose. banprez threaten to abortion come even in cases of rape and incensed pit if elected governor, he would oppose ending planned parenthood. >> you did say in 2000 six that

you would sign a bill banning abortion except in cases where the mother's life was at risk. you told me it is impossible what you say you would do until you saw the bill. you said you would also oppose textiles for plant parenthood, now you say you wouldn't oppose all tax dollars, just those for abortion. you said you wouldn't sign a bill banning abortion even if it wouldn't strip planned parenthood given the opportunity? >> if i understand the state budget correctly in a think i do, plant and what isn't getting funding from the state because they haven't applied for it. that is taking care of already under the governor's watch. i will be clear on this. the candidate to infringe on anyone's rights. i know what the law is. thehere to bolster that

economy to protect and depend -- includingple's women women's rights. i do not think taxpayers ought to be pay for you to that is a big differentiation. i will defend your rights. i happen to have male principles and my own beliefs, but i will defend your freedom to choose as you see fit. you run a couple of ads touting your expense as a restaurant owner appeared the suggestion you are pro-business. unnecessaryd of regulation focused on job creation. we are first in the nation for economic growth. >> is a website that ranked us -- this dayanked us has repealed more than 1200 rules and regulations. has added more than 2000 rules since you took office. governor, are you cherry picking numbers here? [laughter] >> no, we're not cherry picking

numbers here. we look at the methane regulations. the first state to regulate methane. our natural gas will have to go out with the infrared gun and make sure there are no leaks and every well every month. was formed byn the industry working in partnership with environmental community and the government working as a mediator. a quest we create a more regulations to make that happen, make sure that everyone played at the same level. but is a mean all regulations are bad. we are at the moment of having the cleanest air in the cleanest water that produces hydrocarbon now that we ever have had. that is true -- because of regulation. the key is to have appropriate regulation. is $80 a barrel instead of $100. a lot have jobs that come back.

>> thank you pete we want to give you an opportunity to ask your opponent a question here to you need to have 30 seconds. your point has a minute to answer. you each have two questions. , on your official website, there's something called the colorado violation decision-making process users guide should i downloaded printed one right here. did you even know that according to your own standards that were adopted in march of 2011, a sex offender could volunteer in child related locations? that is directly from the linkage of the document -- and not have their parole revoked? >> at a how the document front of me and i haven't read it. >> but you approved it? it has been approved on your watch. march 2011. >> what are the details?

what is the context? there are of issues around sexual offenders. a 17-year-old is dating a young woman who is under aged. somebody files a case against that. he becomes a sex offender. i'm not sure if that is fairer not fair. that is what sometimes happens. i don't know if that is what you are referring to are not. maybe there's some way that they are allowed to do that. >> this is why public safety is an important issue. >> i will take a look at that later. what is your first question? >> in colorado, handshake still mean something it when we shook hands, we agreed to run positive ads. we didn't say that we were going to try to denounce the other sides ads could we looked at each other and said that we would run positive ads. i have been in business most of

my life i live by handshakes. every time i shook a hand, i was giving them my word. you said we will only run positive ads. what did you mean by we will only run positive ads. must've forgotten the context of the question. the reporter asked you if you governorse democrat association ad was in a negative ad and then invited you to speak out against it. when you stepped across and said, let's run a .ositive campaign before he finished answering his question, you failed and he invited you and i invited you to denounce that add as false and you wouldn't do it. you broker on pledge. made a lot of deals as a banker on handshake i'm still making deals on handshake. you violated the gimmick that

you put forward and then you let other people do your dirty work. me of doing what you did before you stopped answering the question. >> now to your second question. itgovernor, you like to call pipeline orystone try to keep the federal government out of our cautions are to stand up to the federal government on behalf of colorado natural resources. instead of standing up for rights in the interest of colorado residents, how come you are quick and willing to stand alongside barack obama in washington, d.c.? >> the bottom line is you are missed seeing the reality of the fact. -- mis-seeing the reality of the fact.

>> you or three years late getting to the table on that. >> i began cochairing that 2012.tee in that is not three years late. >> that is not what they think a northwest colorado. >> ibec to differ. >> -- i beg to differ. >> would you let me answer? >> please. >> we have looked at all the ways that colorado ranchers and technology,ovation fencing, it are action proving that habitat. we now look at this as a way that we are building republicans and democrats from all kinds of western states, from both parties come a framework where .e could push back we are doing a better job than the government.

that is one of many examples. >> thank you. you have the final question. >> you have criticized the need for what you call failed leadership appeared when we asked a couple of weeks ago to identify a single bill that you have seen pass into law, you talked about the funding for the va v-8 hospital -- hospital. i will ask again what bill did you author? >> you just mischaracterized the truth. i'm offended by that. i served on the veterans administration committee, i represented colorado veterans to get through the process, the approval of that hospitals now under construction. i've made sure that over the next four years that colorado kept a place at the table for

one of only three hospitals that would be approved and built. i made sure that i think it was my very last post before i left congress that the language for the original appropriations was in that appropriations bill that we got past to fund what is now coming out of the ground to serve our veterans in colorado. i'm very proud of having done that and brought transportation dollars back to colorado. frankly, something that you're benefiting from right now. the continuation of the payment on fast tracks, that was largely responsible to our staff and my work on the transportation committee to his dollars came to colorado. please not his characterize america. >> -- please do not mischaracterize my character. >> made rounds.

maybe top stories -- ebol.a -it- ebola. if we had ebola in colorado, how would you keep it from spreading? >> i'm confident in largely acause i have visited with doctor who is ahead of the emergency preparedness in the emergency room services at the university of colorado hospital. i have to commend our state department of health and the health care professionals. i think you have done a commendable job. isolation is important. them and give it dip of the hat on the current administration on that one. >> i certainly agree. the doctor has done a good job preparing everyone. one of the issues as we have why are youa is

using technology better. in terms of making sure that people who might have been exposed, why aren't we using handheld devices to make sure we communicate to them on a daily basis as we understand the situation better? how are we not making sure that we have all manner of social media that helps us inform people so there isn't the uncertainty and anxiety that is spreading around the whole issue. thanven the news that more 200 people received duplicate ballots, how confident can colorado voters be in the integrity of this incumbent election? >> unlike other foreign countries, at least we catch it. we take it seriously. the secretary of state is opposite going to investigate and make sure that it gets taking care of. i feel very confident. no system is perfect. when you look at millions of votes being cast, the amount of i think ineps

colorado as any other state, we run clean, for elections. >> we hope we do. i think it is very troubling that we hear the stories of duplicate ballots. we have also heard this weekend media stories efforts to find ballots, dumpster dive come if to fraudulent them. that is very disconcerting. it is an issue we will keep an in future address elections whether or not we need to reform our laws. >> what steps would you take specifically to ensure that retirement security of coloradans? >> it is pretty important to zone whose 66 years old and has two older brothers. i think we have to be very vigilant on it. as a former anchor, protecting the public's funds and our publics moneys is crucially

important to me. we need to make sure that we have the support of law enforcement to do just that. promises made our promises that need to be kept. the retirement is one of those that cannot be violated. >> chile in terms of state employees, there has been a lot of concern. we can adjust the cost of living. we need to make sure it remains solid. we have a great many other workers and colorado were not part of it. we need to make sure -- do more to make sure we can guarantee they have something to retire on. they're are building a large cap is on the south part of town. i talked to him a few weeks ago about if he would be willing to conferenceynote a and look at how we can maintain retirement for everyone? >> if that is projected, the

state budget starts running a surplus. should it be returned to taxpayers? or use it to restore services country the recession? >> i think it is amazing to look at the fact that despite many claims that the economy isn't -- if you told anyone we would be in this position, they would be incredulous. are a lot of different ways we could return money to the voters. we will follow the law. we will make sure that money gets back to the voters. >> that is a different answer than he gave in a previous debate. >> no. >> i think the money should be the -- return to the voters. did the valley is you have

waited a long time for this day to get some funds back. during the suppose it recovery, the average household income has declined about $4000. it would be nice if government could give you a break instead of the other way around. my watch, that is exactly what will happen. the money would be returned. if you each had a do over, what would it be? lesson i learned when i was in congress was that you cannot always trust some of the people you are closest to you i trust the leadership. i don't regret giving pharmaceuticals to senior citizens. i learned the lesson of shame me

once, and she menu, fully twice, shame on me p i wouldn't make that same mistake. went to rapidly. many people didn't feel that their voices were being heard. i think more time to listen and hear both sides has oh is been official. it helps keep momentum going when trent deal with a sequence of missions. >> that concludes our speed round of the debate. >> we are to closing statements. we had a coin toss. governor hickenlooper won. he elected to go last. congressman beauprez, one minute for your closing statement.

4 andrybody on channel those with have tuned in tonight, thank you for this opportunity. a good friend of mine told me the other day governorship is a terrible thing to waste. can make ar's difference. they can make a difference for the states and their people. i want to provide an opportunity for this great state. james and never even imagined dreaming up came true here in colorado. it saddens me to see that other state seem to be adding the opportunity now instead of colorado. that is simply wrong. the governor's primary job is less to govern the people and much more to govern the government. i do not want to run your life. i want you to have the freedom to run your own life. i don't want to run your family or small business. i want you to have their freedom and liberty to do that for

yourself. that is what will guide me every day. thank you. governor, you get the final word. >> thank you for having us. colorado's future will be about innovation and collaboration and not about seeking pointless fights. four years ago we had a shortfall in the city budget. four years later, we have come back. fund and 35iny day consecutive months of job growth. we achieve this with dealing -- while dealing with disasters. we did it by working together. my opponent seems to enjoy picking fights, at least with me, but whaling gas versus local control equating abortion -- we have more to do. we could be the healthiest a america. because of the most innovative

public education in the country you to be can be the number one stay for job creation. together is the colorado way. the colorado way is always going to work. i would like to say mercy to all of you and ask for everyone's vote. thank you. we have.s all the time thank you for joining us for this important setting to help viewers make informed choices in campaign 2014. >> if you would like to check out this debate again or make sure others see it, we will re-air in tonight on channel 12 at 8 p.m. and again on sunday, november 2, and i p.m.. we will have a special on the candidates and issues. our team is working together for complete coverage. we will be live on channel 12 on election night here and we will have race results and live

coverage from the campaign headquarters to get reaction from the winners and the losers. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] includes's coverage more than 100 debates for control of congress. stay in touch, follow us on twitter, and the conversation at facebook.com/c-span. coverage of campaign 2014 continues with a live debate in the georgia governors and between incumbent deal jason carter and andrew hunt. here's a look at some of the campaign ads running in georgia. [video clip] >> a came into office with millions in personal debt. after four years as governor, nathan deal is worth millions and how did he get rich?

he sold a salvage yard to a ofpany that owes the state georgia $74 million in back taxes. nathan deal made $3 million. the company still owes $74 million. the middle class has fallen further behind. nathan deal, putting money into his pocket, not ours. [video clip] >> jason carter has big ambition is, but his big promises fall short of the truth pretty claims to be for education and the middle class. but he would cap and restrict middle-class access to the hope scholarship. his big plan is to increase spending, requiring higher taxes on small business and the middle class. jason carter, falling short and untrustworthy. [video clip]

it has been the adventure of our lives. he is the best dad. they love him. takes them to school the morning. he is a parent teacher at preschool on friday. he reads to them p i don't have the stomach for politics. but jason's courageous. he is strong and unafraid. he wasted them. i don't have the stomach for politics, but jason is courageous. he is strong and unafraid. [video clip] giving georgia families a real future. nathan deal brought the appeal to our economy, creating over 294,000 new jobs. no george's business is leading the nation -- now georgia businesses are leading the nation. it is the number one place to do business. [video clip] >> hello, georgia i want to represent you as governor should 80% refused to vote in the primary.

why? all you have to do is vote to take government back. we want to move away from being the bottom in education and the top in prison. we want government out of our lives. let's reduce regulation and create jobs and go back to work. vote andrew hunt. >> i'm andrew hunt and approve this message. >> we will have a debate beginning at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. next, c-span's 1991 interview with ben bradlee who passed away this week. after that, a woman empower conference from fort lauderdale, florida. another chance to see the debate for candidates running for governor in >> former washington post executive editor been bradlee --

died.adlee the paper's operations. he talked about his life and in ar and a cease and -- c-span profile interview. this is one hour. ben bradlee, how do you feel about leaving your post that you have been in for 20 some years? >> i feel great about it. i feel excited about the new things to do. i feel excited about the quality of the team that is going to take my place. i feel wonderful about the leadership, the owners of this newspaper. they are special people.