of rights, you are saying there is no to station between economic and personal rights in the constitution? treatingust defended personal autonomy more skeptically than infringements on economic liberty. but, i want to press you on the notion that judges have a blank check to decide not what rights violate the revisions but generally what laws are arbitrary and not in the public interest according to natural law philosophy. your standards are pretty vague. it cannot have no relation to a legitimate or chris or call where lack any reasons to support it. and lochner there was a reason. they said it was bad for

baker's. i am not sure whether it is good or bad but there are plenty of people smarter than me who did think it was bad for health. to as a judge, it is my job defer to the political process and not impose my own sense of whether or not it is bad for health on america. you can see the opposite presumption where judges are empowered to do what you want, to decide which are arbitrary in which are not. you honestly and candidly say not want tothey did construe it the way you want is because it would call into question a lot of regulation and can see since the new deal, much of what the government now says helps with safety regulation, maximum our prolonged law laws. -- maximum per hour laws go into

effect. that is why they say it is a recipe for mass judicial activism. i do not think any of the embraced it.ices ity explicitly rejected because they think the judicial preferences the way to go. in the face of uncertainty, there should be deference. thatre jews so confident judges are equipped to strike down the entire regulatory state ? >> i am very comfortable with this. if this led to the striking down of the regulatory welfare state, the vast majority of what the government does to us today is unconstitutional. depriving us of liberty without , andcient justification exist largely to satisfy political beliefs at the expense

of those who lacked political influence necessary to get the legislature to do favors for us and instead have to rely on constitution to defend the interest. the reason we have a constitution is that we do not have to spend time lobbying the government to respect us. ofco, the nation's leader user of eminent domain has people whose only job it is to go to city council and condemn people home and get the property over to cosco -- costco. you and most of the people in the audience to not have the resources available to persuade the council. that is why we have a constitution, so you do not have to spend your time doing it, you can go about spending your daily life pursuing happiness instead. a feature and not a bug if it led to free streaming and tying the hands of legislatures. i am very proud of that.

to i wouldn't trust judges make the call is a much more complicated question, because i like lawfulness as opposed to arbitrary are very tough standards. they call for the use of political philosophy. i think conservatives are guilty of trying to come up with the constitutional theory that will avoid difficult questions of political philosophy. they think they can come up with some sort of mathematical equation that will result the questions, and i do not think that is the proper or possible. i and base -- embrace political philosophy as a role in the little call process. is in the founding documents and constitution. as for trusting judges vomit that is why we have her process for confirming and impeaching judges. all government is liable to

abuse. that is just a flaw in any i was that reports -- going to say democratic but monarch institutions have this even more. mr. levin made a great point when he said the constitution presumes we are all wrong, and then says what would a good government look like, assuming we're all from? that is right, exactly how it should be. judges should be much more willing to strike down laws. in the past several years judges have struck down a fraction of 1% as unconstitutional. does anyone think congress get it right that often? yes, it is true a judge is liable. when he cases where a judge isn't -- is abusing power. as being somehat

sort of proves my theory is wrong. in the end, all governments rely on the good sense of the people. it's a good sense of the people is not there, no constitution of any sort will succeed. >> great, the argument is squarely joined, principal and candid of you to embrace the label radical to say this would lead to the massive validation of a great number of laws. >> which i'd like to call liberty. >> the enforcement of liberty. you are skeptical of the massive exercise of judicial activism. tim, the group is very distinguished company with judge saysce stephen breyer and breyer, pork and roosevelt see the constitution as concerned primarily with fostering democracy and enabling the majority through legislation. very honorable company there but

borknds us justice p embrace judicial restraint and there is a view among conservatives that -- you call yourself an activist who would unapologetically use the courts to strike down much of the political states and judicious andraint like esta scalia even justice thomas has rejected the idea of the declaration of independence. so you do not have a single real ally on the court, except moreps justice kennedy is open to this but does not embrace human rights being enforced. , you have four this would bey constitutionally disastrous and not merited by you as a taxpayer

of the constitution. why don't you give us some of those reasons? , i don't think of myself as an advocate of judicial restraint necessarily. theou look at the mistakes supreme court has made, we are think about what the supreme court did. the answer is sometimes it does about think that being an activist in striking down the law it should not have struck down. war, andvert the civil they end up issuing a terrible decision, which history has justly reviled. can look that, too. plessy against ferguson. upholding a law to segregate

rails by race. the supreme court upholds the government plan to evacuate americans of japanese descent from the west coast. so i am not saying judicial restraint is the best thing. -- court should always be restrained. what i'm saying is courts can interpret the constitution and asked what the executive branch thedone is complying with constitution. but the legislature and asked but to. the executive branch can ask that question, too. we needamental question to think about is when are the legislature and executive going to do a good job answering the question, and when are they not? when should courts be deferential and when should they be suspicious? i believe there are factors out there, and i have tried to list some in my book. idea that ifo the

some circumstances it make sense for courts to be deferential and in some circumstances and make sense to be suspicious, which is why tim wins me over when he talks about the predatory corporations or the wealthy and powerful dominating the legislature and enacting laws that oppress the politically weak. that makes me want to say on the show me that is happening and i will say court should step in because in those circumstances you cannot trust the legislature . i see this has to -- been done in the past four racial minority . and testament for women, sexual and if we could come up with nice comment judicially administer ball way -- administered way for creating wealth and access, i would do that, to. i think wealth inequality is a terrible thing, and i would love to have courts do more to address that if they could.

i am a little bit suspicious the libertarian agenda goes a lot farther than that and are possibly after the whole regulatory state, which i do not think is in the entire creation of crony capitalism. tim openly says the goal is to strike down the regulatory state. it was not only the creation of early capitalism but also in part, my judicial hero. whenever i have a hard constitutional question, i asked a simple axiom, what would brand guys do? you lump them in they same -- the same sentence. just frame do great size unlike homes who had contempt for what he called the sake regard -- click finger towns we call the people and never voted to strike down any law.

brandeis was far different. he was deferential in economic matters because he believed in states as a democracy and thought star communities -- small communities were able to govern themselves. he wanted to defend small business people against jpmorgan and was quite willing to strike .own laws and defend liberty he was the greatest defender of great fest free speech and unreasonable search and seizures and the greatest defender privacy and the 21st century. i get that plug to him because i think you are too quick to lump them in with homes because he is an example of justice who will enforce rights that will be deferential when it comes to other balls. to toheother laws? how do we account for equality

and impact liberty? >> in some ways equality is more important than liberty as far as the declaration is concerned. we are free is because no other person has prior right to own us and control us and tell us how to live our lives. jefferson put this point beautifully in the last editor when he said mankind has not slaves on the back. withse people are not born saddles on their back and other people with spurs on, we are equal in the sense that we have the equal right to run our own lives, which is why we have a right to govern by consent. you do not consent to the government by your parents because you are not equal with your parents that you are a all with your neighbors. your neighbors have no right to control your life. therefore, they have to ask your

permission first. government by consent comes out of the principle of equality according to the property articulated ins the declaration. what the progressive managed to do was substitute democracy for liberty as the central value of the constitution. declaresitution roberti is a blessing. does not say the same thing about democracy. it uses the word not once. the reason we have democracy is to protect liberty, not the other way around. the reason i dislike brandeis so much is although he purports to be a defender of free speech, he theacterizes it from perspective we talked about earlier today that i have a natural right to speak my mind and no one has the right to take it away. that's the reason why we have free speech is so that democracy

can flourish and work. -- that the reason we have free speech is so that democracy can flourish and work. >> i have to defend the honor of my hero. [laughter] said the opposite, he said free speech is a right and an honor. he said the men who wrote the constitution were not cowards and understand the ability to think as you speak and speak as you think is among the duties of a free society. it is the necessity of public escutcheon, and unless there is no time, there is an imminent threat. there is no circumstance where he suppressed speech in the name of the community and believed thely like the romans -- fifth century athens and the jeffersonian shires he thought for models of and engaged community that the speech was a right and a duty. be. choose the right not to

think debates about the central meaning of brandeis, how does that play? time.anel must end on one last installment of the blockbuster constitutional book fair. we have talked about the first amendment. about great debate democratic version of the constitution and after a 15 minute break, we will come back in here it a new biography of the great chief justice who solidified the vision of the court as a co-equal branch of government, john marshall. please join me in thanking them. [applause]

>> c-span live today in philadelphia for a daylong forum on the bill of rights. today's forum will close with a look at the influence of the longest-serving chief justice in history, chief john marshall. there earlier part on on our .ebsite at www.c-span.org here is more information about

the festivities today from moderator in constitutional center president jeff rosen. ceohere with president and of the national constitution center in philadelphia. 15 223rdecember ratification of the bill of rights. what is the constitution doing on that day? >> we are thrilled on bill of rights day to open a new exhibit that displays one the 12th arriving -- surviving copies of the bill of rights. george washington sent 13 copies out to the states to be ratified. one of theed and copies will be displayed in a new gallery at the national constitution center. printing of the constitution. in addition, unexciting interactive that viewers can make variants at the constitution center and online.

you can click on any provision of the bill of rights. see the historical antecedents and then traced that across the globe. for example him at the japanese constitution, basically cut and paste the american fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. this is a gallery that tells the story of constitutional rights and the rights promised were implicit in the constitution. and finally as codified in the bill of rights. these basic rights, according to the framers came from god, not from government. the story of why it was jefferson declared them, madison did not think it was necessary to break them down. he thought it would be

unnecessary or dangerous if it is not written down, it is not protect it. madison changed his mind, embraced numeration of the bill of rights and that is the incredible document we will display. >> how long will this be up? three years, historic agreement. the national constitution center will display this for three years which coincides with the 200 35th anniversary of the proposal of the bill of rights this year and the ratification will be in three years, and then it will go back to new york and after three years will come back to pennsylvania and we will share the precious document for the next 300 years. >> open to the public for three years? >> check it out of the constitution center and across whereeum

the constitution was drafted. i am working in constitutional heaven is everyday i look out at independence hall and people can come to see it for three years. we have a great micro-site where only theee not gallery, the template for david rubenstein has lent us and have written that tells the story of these rights. you can check out the rights and are active and watch the spread of liberty across the globe and experience the incredible town hall debate. the national constitution center not only a debate or the people mandate from congress to disseminate information about the u.s. constitution on a nonpartisan basis. the only place in the country that brings together all sides in the constitutional debate to talk about not political

questions but constitutional questions. so we have an advisory board cochaired by the federalist , leading conservative group and the american constitutional society. those advisers recommend to us who every week and every day debate constitutional issues and viewers can check those out on the website and our podcast, which are getting $200,000 per week. i will just call out the top political conservative constitutional scholar on the question. they will debate the issue and go back and forth and viewers can make their own mind. the top conservative to debate the constitution. >> we have covered many of these events.

c-span will be covering your bill of rights day book festival . can you tell me how that idea came to for wishon? >> i would like to think this is the first bill of rights book festival in america. the idea was we do these great and videospodcasts and events, one that bring together top authors for the current bill of rights themed books? we have four wonderful books, the first about the abolition of new york times versus sullivan. it is called the progeny of the second one. broke andt how painted pine time -- to find the modern right in america.

a beautiful new biography of john marshall. i love the fact that the authors are diverse. they will be substantive and a great conversation about the history and current meaning of the bill of rights. >> december 15, two hundred 23rd anniversary of the ratification of bill of rights. jeffrey rosen, thank you. >> the host of today's conversation, the national constitution center, moderator james rosen, president and ceo. c-span live for the bill of rights book festival, taking a look at the key events and individuals. the forum will close with a look at the influence of the longest-serving chief justice in american history, john marshall. go back online and look

at the earlier presentations throughout the morning and earlier afternoon. while we're waiting for the final panel to convene today, take a look at the size and scope of u.s. customs and border patrol. host: we're joined by gary graff, the green monster how order patrol became america's most out-of-control law enforcement agency. i want to start with a green monster and where that name comes from. that is in the same internally within customs and border protection that talks about the hout conditions the border patrol has of the dark,

all of green uniforms. are one of the identifying marks that goes back to the original founding of the border 1920's and has been a key part of the identity, and was a big fight or big source of tension in 2003 when customs -- u.s. customs and were be merged together into what we now know as customs and border protection . whether border patrol would keep green uniforms or go to the blue uniforms. >> where does the monster part come in? guest: the green monster they used it playfully internally as.

i use it to talk about how dark and unmanageable the force has become since 2005. >> i want to talk about the explosive growth. hitting to the numbers. what is the annual budget, and how has it impacted by the crown cromnibus bill passed by congress? >> to understand where we are today you need to go back little bit to understand that for most cache of oury history, and this is weird because we've now see politics is so fraught and politically of thee, bump for most history the united states is not even try to secure the borders. the border patrol agent up until

the late 1990's a very small larger of the immigration and national immigration service and had a levels andadequate it was only really after 9-11 and only a department of homeland security when ins was broken up and moved out of the department of justice and into the department of homeland security. that we begin to build up the force of border patrol. like 4000om being agents in the 1990's -- 9000 agents in 2005 when the growth started to doubling in just four years. at 21,000 agents.

this is part of the larger border protection that is all ultimately 45,000 gun carrying personnel, 60,000 total personnel, the largest federal law enforcement agency. >> 12.4 billion annual budget. what happened with the bill that was passed last week? this is one of the speaking points on the budget remaining going forward, because the nbus bill funds the government through 2015 but the department of homeland security budget is only good until february because the republican congress is still trying to figure out how they want to respond to the immigration action. >> give people a sense of federal spending on securing the border, immigration enforcement. you talk about how much has been

spent, upwards of $11 billion. border andhe immigration enforcement in some context, we now spend more on the border patrol and immigration enforcement than we do on the dei, secret service, atf, u.s. marshals, and the entire nypd annual budget combined. a stunningly huge amount of money we're are ready devoting to the customs and border protection, even before we get into talking about any of the proposal still in congress to grow and secure the borders further. host: what are some of the proposals? the proposals run the gamut found the reasonable to

the insanely large idea we double the border patrol even again to upwards of 40,000 border patrol agents. what is so weird about this, it is only one of the federal i have ever come across where they say don't give us more money. if you talk to people within border control, they think they have all of the funds they now need to secure the border. their challenge is allocating the resources they have more effectively, bringing more technology in. they think border patrol may be a bit larger than they need -- they need to fulfill the mission. the directone of causes if you want to go into a

few of those. >> this is where we go into the title of the green monster. the story of the customs and border protection of the past inade is a story that encapsulates what has been happening in washington. the best impulses and worst impulses of last year. with the management and political cynicism of the obama administration. administration poured all of the money into customs and border protection because they realized we had underinvested for four decades and they wanted to get as much money, as many personnel into the field and figure in a weird way anybody in the field is better than no buddy.

budbody. explicit and that idea was the idea that we would make mistakes. no agency should be able to growth this past well. you see this on the one hand and government agencies and also in companies like uber that are growing exponentially year-over-year. that it is very hard on a culture and very hard to get the right personnel in. in customs and border protection it meant they hire thousands of the wrong people, people who could not and should not give a badge and the gun. >> you highlight some of them? >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the last installment of the block esther bill of rights constitutional book fair. [applause] a big round of applause to all of you for having stayed with us

through these subs hours. i am so proud of you our great members and audience who are so hungry for constitutional education that you have set aside bill of rights day to hear it the best beakers and educate your self. we are so lucky to have you at the center. those of you watching on c-span who do not happen to be members of the constitution center can go there by going to our website and getting access to the incredible videos and podcasts and programs. have access to the best nonpartisan political debate every day. i have done my duty with three moderated panels and will turn over this last one to a dear friend of the center who is a superb moderator. to the c-spany

audience, i am just rosen, head of the notch -- national constitution center, the only center in america chartered by congress to disseminate information about the u.s. constitution on a nonpartisan basis. that is what the constitution center is. 12 original copies of the bill of rights. who has managed to see it during the break? isn't it?g around of applause for the bill of rights. [applause] so really honored to be able to display the priceless document along with rare declaration of independence for the next three years. constitution, ctr, ncc bill of rights. ladies and gentlemen, we have together traveled from the roots

and contemporary meaning of the first amendment. network --from edward burke at the debate between the libertarian and democratic version of the constitution, and that we will hear from the author of an acclaimed new biography of the chief justice who brought it together and established the supreme court as a strong and co. we will branch of government and solidified the power we have been talking about in the last session of judicial review. it was not obvious independent scored have the power to strike down laws that conflicted with you could sayon it existed in federalist papers. it took marshall's opinion to establish that power unequivocally and we will learn about the great chief justice, his vision and battles to define america.

our book writer is and has on thed frequently history channel and our favorite channel, c-span. has spoken this -- extensively in the author three works on american history and 10 biographies including jan hand -- john hancock, the new book john marshall, chief justice to saved the nation and moderating the final discussion is judge david west, a great friend of the center and mind and will be capable hands. he served on the superior court of pennsylvania since 2012. was the court of common pleas and has presided over important cases. an administrative judge and , lover of thoughtful the constitution of magnificent

moderator. them.join me in welcoming [applause] >> thank you so much. . great pleasure to be here in front of such a wonderful audience. who has given us a fantastic new book about the great chief justice john marshall. the book is subtitled, the chief justice who saved the nation. in the short time we have him, i am sure he will give you insights on to some of the contributions that chief justice marshall gave us, although with only an hour program, a scholar

can only begin to clear his throat about the subject before the curtain comes down. getting right to it. i suppose the first question that i would put to you is why john marshall and why now caps indeedjohn marshall did save the nation. i think john marshall probably is most important of the founding fathers after george washington himself. george washington helped to create the nation that john marshall supreme court chief justice the first, the fourth chief justice but the first effective one used the court to defend the nation against potential tyranny by the executive and judicial branches of government. the constitution is a very big government. almost all powers to the

house of representatives. the only potter elected directly by the pew will themselves. the senate was a pointed by the various state legislatures at the time. the president was elected by the who themselvesge were appointees of the state legislatures, and the judiciary, the third branch of government was simply a court of appeals, no power to it here appeals and --her uphold or tonight tonight the decisions of the lower court. chief justice marshall stepped in at a time when washington had and the successor founding fathers, thomas

jefferson, alexander hamilton -- all of them comrades at one either comrades of the continental congress, declaration of independence or casedes in battle in the of aaron burr and alexander hamilton. president.nted to be course won in 1800 and immediately dissolved the supreme court. ran a new act to congress that had all of the justices writing circuit for two years. last four years of office had ran through laws, the alien into titian act that suspended the first right of the

bill of rights. made it illegal to criticize the government either inns beach or print. dozen journalists and one congressman to jail for criticizing the government. so there was growing tyranny and the federal government, and quite understandable because of the time congress really could not meet very often. the congressman lived far away. no highways or public transportation. it took days and weeks to get to congress. the president was left alone most of the time. washington was the first one to powers not granted to him under the constitution. he sent troops to war against the indians. no constitutional power without the consent of congress. the government ran out of money. -- sent alexander

hamilton to a local bank to borrow money. the alien sedition acts were unconstitutional. these men were left alone to try to run the government. john marshall, when he saw what jefferson intended to do, he .aid enough as it happens, john marshall's appointment was at the end of the adams administration, and -- adamsadvised adam to fill up every empty space in withederal judiciary federalist to believe is a strong central government under the constitution because he warned jefferson, a republican, was enamored by the french revolution, let the people run the nation, and he feared anarchy. adams to that.

one of the many appointed to the low level of justice of the peace. he became probably one of the most famous justice of the peace in american history. a famous case that most of you probably remember mentioned in the history books, marv very be madison. jefferson comes to power and madison takes the office. that are these commissions have been signed and stamped with the feel of the united states by the at -- adams administration and had to be delivered. if madison asked jefferson, what should i do with these? jefferson said tear them up. i will name people to those pus -- posts. are very sued and to and -- marv sued, forcing madison to

deliver the commission. jefferson basically dissolves the supreme court. they do not meet. this is in 1801. they do not meet for eight years. 1808 they finally come together again. marshall comes to the decision and says madison and jefferson have violated the constitution and cannot remove a judge under the constitution. a federal judge can only be removed for cause, not at the whim of the president. the president is not above the jefferson.t shocked jefferson thought the president was like the king and could do no wrong. marshall said he can do wrong and has no rights other than the citizens of the united states.

that was one part of the decision, telling him they have to deliver the commission to berry.e against himdefines and says you have to go through the lower courts and work your way up on appeal, and then i can give you a bit of mandamus. theattorney pulled out as -- unsubscribe section which demand for bread of mandamus from the supreme court specific cases. marshall turns around and says that is unconstitutional. [laughter] sayew york city we would [inaudible] to do that,ght nothing in the constitution gave him the right to declare part of a law of congress

unconstitutional, but he did it. , to this day it is called the concept of judicial review. he created it, invented it and gave the supreme court to review laws and declare them constitutional or unconstitutional. the key part of marv very be madison. that gave the supreme court first power over the other two branches. branchout history each of government has violated the constitution. -- no one can arrest anybody to say you cannot violate the constitution. the only reason the constitution survives is not because the constitution but because when one branch over steps it's mark,

the other two tend to push back so that if the president overstepped the line, congress to pass a law that events it act from taking effect. him to trial.ing they can impeach him and the senate can -- can try them for misdemeanors. if the court overstepped its bounds, congress can pass a law that goes around the decision and basically nullifies it. markngress over steps it's , the president can veto the law , and the supreme court can declare it unconstitutional. this is what has held the system together -- not the constitution itself because everybody in

power in this nation from small-town sheriff in mississippi, to president nixon to sam rayburn, everybody in power in the country has violated the constitution or is trying to do so in one way or another. would you agree with that? >> well, i think that is a worthy insight. i suppose i would like to get the audience an opportunity to hear from you a bit about where marshall came from, his family memoround -- what was his in which he came up? >> like many in power at that time, he came from virginia. he was a farm boy in effect but

on hundreds of acres. his father, thomas marshall, was a good friend that lived not far from the washingtons and was a good friend of yours washington, and george washington took, smart show out on surveying trips where they surveyed the land of lord fairfax, the northern neck of virginia -- a huge piece of land. it was all owned by fairfax before the revolution. marshalon and the grand were favorites and sent them out to survey his land after virginia threatens -- the commonwealth of virginia was going bankrupt and threatened to seize lands that were not lived in. so fairfax quickly sought to at the lands were surveyed so he

could keep up the property. sean marshall -- thomas marshall's first born son, the oldest of 15 children, all of whom survived, which is rare in those days. he became a surrogate leader in the sense. saw the arguments because the father was off surveying a lot of the time and thomas became a wonderful negotiated between the battles of his brothers and sisters. he then was educated by his father and mother at home as a youngster and sent to a school in the woods, along cap and school come about 100 miles away and lived at the pool. boy at thenother

school at the same time, james monroe. close friends. marshall would stay at the munro house occasionally and remained close friends until the end of the day. truly close friends even though politically they were on opposite sides of the fence us munro became of republican and marshall became the federalists. went to war.munro when patrick henry call them to to war as boys. they fought in the battle of new york, trenton, brandywine, and they were both at valley forge together for the winner and shared a lot of valley forge. were, to hear rose of the revolutionary war. neither of them fought at yorktown, not because they did

not want to but because officers had to recruit their own regiments, their own companies, and all the young virginians had gone to war and were not going to go twice. neither of them could recruit enough men to fight at yorktown, which is why it was so essential that russia and the french army complement washingtons shrinking continental army at yorktown. they both went to law school. monroe stunned- studied under jefferson. herschel studied under george white. white being a federalists, jefferson a republican. they both learned different philosophies of the law when they studied law.

lawhall decided to practice . while he was there he married the love of his life. parents were friends of his parents. paulie was 14 years younger. they had 10 children, eight of whom survived. they lived a happy married life, truly one of the most -- most warming love stories to come out of the revolutionary war, and thomas marshall was very happy. he loved being a father, husband and practicing law. he really did not want to leave richmond. they built a beautiful home that is still there in richmond. came to power, adams asked marshall to join a commission that was to go to

peace withegotiate france. france was showing a lot of the ships and the caribbean and adams hoped to resolve the problems with france. from thehall came back treaty negotiations, he was hailed as a hero for having stood up for the interest of the united states. and in thecongress last year of his administration, when the supreme court chief , adams had toed appoint a new chief justice. this would've been the fourth chief justice, not very important position. the government had been in operation for 11 years. over the 11 years, only 11 court

decisions came out. there were not many laws on the of americans were farmers. it was not a very import job. although adams offered it to the original first chief justice, he refused. he had done it once and was bored silly and was not going to go back to it. adams turned to marshall and said whom shall i appoint? and he said i do not have the slightest idea. he said i -- i guess i will have to appoint you. he did. that was the beginning of a 35 year span of many chief justice in american history. decisions, almost 1200 decisions of which he, john

marshall, wrote nearly half. republicans came and went. federal list came and went. wakes came and went, each with a political agenda that the president who appointed them they would stick to when they came on the court. and they got on the court, john marshall had a winning personality, turn them around and became centrist, moderate and dropped the political effect, had and in acted in the interest of one thing only, the constitution. those of you in the military know the oath you take as you go in the military is to preserve, defect and defend the constitution. you do not work for the american people, the political party, the constitution. his is what he convinced

colleagues to do on the supreme court. that is what makes the supreme court such a great institution because it defends the constitution. most americans think they have constitutional rights. the constitution does not say a word about the people. it is a blueprint for government. it gives the government certain right. even in the bill of rights, the 10th amendment says any power that has not been granted to the federal government are left to the state and the people. nonetheless, that is the case. the constitution does not give any of you to write tickets the government the right. court has been the expositor of the right over century. have a lot of judges gotten on the

>> after marshal died, his successor wrote the scott which declared all african-americans noncitizens and no rights to vote rights as citizens. seemsurrent supreme court to be politically oriented to a great extent. question aboutno it. but what -- the principals that established was that once you're on the court, you the constitution. and over the years, the supreme bulwark toeen a protect the american people tyranny, internal andnny by the executive judiciary branches. adamsn president john elevated marshall to the chief his last or one of his very last acts as

president, the incoming jefferson, hadas to be sworn in by a relative. much like not very him. >> oh, they hated each other. >> perhaps you could tell our audience a little bit about the mentionship between the two and about the course of their dealings over the years. >> well, they had two different opposed political philosophies. that leaveieving everything to the people, let them govern, as the french did which,french revolution, as you all know, led to a and eventual tyranny anyway. marshall believed in a strong central government, with certain powers, buts nonetheless, a strong central

government to handle the basic of the nation. to despise each other, because jefferson was trying -- once he became president, he was andtantly violating the law the constitution. furious. was he hated to be crossed. when aaronfurious byrd jr. decided to challenge before the 1800 elections. really the leader of the republican party in new york state. without new york state, jefferson would have lost to adams. populard become a very president. so arian byrd agreed to try to deliver his state, new york, republican camp, into jefferson's camp. do, i'll beif i

happy to be vice president. thoseonce he delivered votes, and it went into the electoral college, lo and behold, he won as many votes as jefferson. it was a tie. they were both -- they had the same number of votes for the presidency. close friend said -- >> not bill? >> no, not bill. i'd fight for it. make a good president. and aaron byrd was a very popular figure. a tremendous hero in the revolutionary war. jefferson, remember, he was accused of cowardis at this point. dorything he said, he would the opposite. he wrote all men are created equal and he goes home to run

nation with 200 slaves. at the bottom of the declaration independence, he said we pled sacred honor. he never fired a shot. charlottesville, never fired a shot, stayed out of the war completely. patrick henry was the first terms.r and served three under the virginia constitution, he could not succeed himself, so they elected jefferson. the election was held by the assembly, not by the people. named -- elected jefferson governor. thatngton warns jefferson is going --nald arnold is going to lead a force up the james river and try to capture richmond. jefferson ignores him.

nothing. what happens? well, the british sail up the the capitaland burn at richmond. and jefferson flees. his firste end of term, the assembly, under one of thery as leaders, was about to take a censure jefferson for really terrible leadership as governor. just then, word comes in of the at yorktown. well, everybody is slapping each other's back. forerson says he won't run a second term. and they name general nelson as the new governor. jefferson goes home to everybody forgets about it for a while. when burr is running against jefferson for the presidency, burr is a very figure.

finally alexander hamilton, who hates burr more than jefferson envai enlists a few generalists change their votes. if it was a tie in the electoral college, it was thrown in the house ohouse of representativesd they would vote. well, they voted 36 times and nobody could get a majority. 36th ballot, hamilton tovinced a few federalists come over. bitter, he will not let burr loose. haven't and jefferson is plotting against him. burr and hamilton have their famous duel. burr kills hamilton. has a republican -- republican attorneys in new york and new jersey charge burr with

murder. murder.asn't dueling was perfectly legal in new jersey. it was illegal in new york, but it didn't take place in new york. took place in new jersey. to escapeees new jersey and eventually comes trialo washington for the chase, who was being impeached. and the trial was in the sphat. burr is still president of the senate. he's still vice president. trial in a that magnificent way. great,hailed as truly a great judge in that case. he then resigns, because he knows jefferson is chasing him. at the senate was in tears the time, as he spoke, and as he

resignation. he goes out. jefferson won't let him alone. him.nds troops after he has commander of troops in suspend habeas corpus. brought before one, then two, then three, then four grand juries. time, the grand juries throw the cases out. finally, troops capture him in him to trialring in richmond for treason. who the circuit judge is? it's john marshall. and they hear the case. they hear the evidence. shredwas absolutely not a of evidence against burr. casearshall throws the out. and jefns hated him -- jefferson that.him for jefferson had a lot of friends

in the south. burr was fearful of his life and to europe. lived in europe until jefferson's administration came end. then came back. wife and son were still in this country. died shortlyad before he arrived. the wife gets on a ship. south. in the she gets on a ship to meet him in new york, and the ship was never heard from ever again. he lived out the rest of his life practicing law in new york, quietly. a substantial law practice. is responsible for destroying this man's life and great, a great a american hero.

hated marshall for ruling him in united states vs. burr. not again, there was shred of evidence and marshall did the right thing. >> footnote, it was george. roger is the half brother of bill. my bad. events of great importance in your book occurred pennsylvania. book, you talk about the whi whiskey rebellion and, f course, all of the events related to the capital city of our young nation early on. i wonder if you could tell the audience a little bit about role in some of these pennsylvania-centered events. whiskey rebellion was, again, one of these the americanre people had not really accepted a national union,

of a real country. said "my country" in those days, they meant virginia or pennsylvania. they didn't mean the united states. second world war -- ha. that's george marshall. revolutionaryin revolutionary , had of the colonies declared independence from britain. theydidn't declare that were united as a people. they declared independence. they were independent nations. they all joined into this very confederation. they drew up a thing called articles of confederation in sent representatives to what we now call the continental congress. it was really to discuss common issues and try to agree on how

the wargoing to conduct together, how they're going to cooperate. well, they didn't cooperate. washington, after a while, couldn't get -- congress didn't have the right to tax, so it couldn't send any money for the army.ental 1777, atngton, by dying forge, people are there. they're starving, freezing to death. he has no money. at one point had deteriorated by desertions from 3500 men.0 to down to the war was over. even left philadelphia and fled to baltimore. and then after the british took philadelphia, the capital, they fled westward. congress left philadelphia, it had more than 50 members. york, time it arrived in pennsylvania, where they tried

establishe they did the congress again, there were left.1 members they all fled for their homes. they were sure that the british win.going to and they wanted to protect their families and figure out how they could escape arrest for treason, because this was still territory.british union, which by any means, during the revolutionary war. and after the war was over, after the battle of yorktown, did then sign the articles of confederation, but it left congress with to powers. still couldn't raise taxes. they couldn't raise an army if they needed to. no federal powers. of as in western europe, all these independent states started fighting with each other. new york and massachusetts really started

battling each other with guns at threeundary where the states meet. territory. connecticut farmers who tried to settle in northwestern what's called the wyoming valley. it has nothing to do with wyoming. the river there was called wyoming. fired on by the militia. pennsylvania didn't want them there. when eventually they signed a constitution and create this of 13 states -- of 11 states. only 11 states signed the at first.on when they did that, the average person, when he said "my country," he meant virginia or deldelaware or the state he came from. each state and the people of each state still felt that their

supreme. and this battle over what we now rights still goes on. sovereignty.state and this is one of the great early marshall decisions, was to try to crush this concept of state sovereignty. jefferson himself basically committed treason as vice up what's writing resolution,entucky which asked kentucky legislators deem unconstitutional any federal law they didn't like. in itself, that union.on ubreaks up the and jefferson set off this states rights fight that lifetime right in the

of george wallace, standing in the school house door. back to the whiskey rebellion, these were farmers in western virginia. the federal government had passed a tax under -- when hamilton was secretary of the treasury. the federal government passed a taxing stills. whiskey tax. well, in western pennsylvania, a still.mer had that's the only way he could make money. the appalachians were impassable. you couldn't grow corn or wheat, it on wagons, and get it across the appalachians to eastern markets. to transportway it. there were no roads. so what they did was they distilled it in liquor, put it bottles and jugs. that they could put on mule back

and carry across the mountains. a tax on stills wiped out their profits. it was a 15% tax. theyhat was basically what sold their whiskey for. and they rebelled. they burned down the house of lynched a fewtor, tax collectors. on were threatening to march philadelphia, which was then the temporary national capital. entire washington administration and most of the adams administration, the capital.was not during the entire -- the for acapital was new york couple of years. then it moved to philadelphia. threivin threatening to philadelphia. usurped,ngton, again, for lack of a better word. pulled together and called the

out from pennsylvania. several states put together an army of 13,000 men. it.ress didn't vote on a little over 13,000 men, named alexander hamilton inspector general. was going tomself leave the army against the rebels. attic,went up in the according to martha, and got his fit.rm out and it wouldn't [laughter] come and fitailor him out with a new uniform. story -- the written story is that he had trouble getting onto his horse. probably the truth is that the split. [laughter] whatever happened, he finally a carriage with alexander hamilton to carlisle, army wasnia, where the gathering. and all the old boys from war,

the old generals, were all there, all called back into action. were all old men now. there's morgan who led the and saratoga.n and general greene is there. from southp carolina. he's been running a plantation. all there. richard henry lee. they convince washington that he's too valuable as were shot that if he or killed or injured in any way, the manon would lose who was holding them together. whenfferson had put it, trying to convince him to run a second term, the north and south hang together if they have you to hang on. so they convinced washington to back to philadelphia, go back lee, and let richard henry who had seniority, run the army.

he agreed to name hamilton inspector general, because younger than all of them. so it was hamilton really in the leadership role. out to therch suburbs of what is now pittsburgh. and they get there under what is called braddock's field. general braddock and his men had been slaughtered therench and indians in colonial days. and they find nobody. farmers have left. they didn't have the wherewithal to fight an army. they scour the woods and 20 drunks.5 or they bring them back to philadelphia and march them down carts.street in wooden there was no cheering. this armyjust watched

stunned by thely wholeity of the operation. had -- washington had actually thrown the constitution to the winds, simply these people had organized for a redress of which is their isstitutional right or which their right under the constitution. i said it the wrong way. and eventually, washington amnesty to 18 of the 20. and the other two, he issued to.ons so no one ever went to jail because of the whiskey a clearn, but it was case of institutional -- in this

executive -- powerstional usurping of and the kind of tyranny any one of our branches of government checksrcise without the and balances of the other two branches. this was during the washington administration. the supreme court had no power kind. a years only meant twice for a few weeks at a time and really didn't exert its power the constitution. after not until jefferson's administration, after jefferson had been weakened, that a wonderful young was elected from the state of kentucky. henry clay. the house ofnto representatives and organized it know today.se we speakerover the job as

of the house. slammed his gavel down, othernded himself with young men who were tired of this anarchy going on and reminded the members of the house and the rest of the american people that constitution begins "we the people of the united states." representatives was the elect of the elect. their constitution. they had written it. to governere there the nation. and he rebuilt the house of representatives. well, he went into the senate later on and i should, in the interest of full disclosure, just mention that my book on henry clay is coming out next year. [laughter] so many things to ask you, but our audience takes precedence. so i'll turn it over to audience questions. we have a question.

can you talk about john marshall's leadership? how was he able to build the court?o well on do you think that can be done on the modern court? >> well, i think it could be done on the modern court, but i don't know, you know. all of us have known a friend or someone at work who has this knack of people just gather him or her. they're able to win friends. i remember there was this book "how to win friends and people." some people have that gift. marshall obviously had that gift. it's interesting. the executive editor of my the audience.n he and i were discussing this at lunch, that we really, except for the letters, we really don't know how -- what language they eachin conversing with other. >> for one thing, they spent a great deal more time together,

within the bounds of the work but in their lodgings, example. >> marshall convinced -- first of all, the court was kind of isolated in washington. congressmen wanted anything to do with them because their case might come up before these justices. so they were kind of isolated. and washington was a horrible then. these terrible ram shackled houses. marshall got the members of the court to all live at the same breakfastouse, have and dinner together and lunch together and discuss life as well as their decisions together. and he managed to convince become moderate and to thes on the constitution as primary reason for their being there. of humor.reat sense he was known for his sloppy

he got home. and his wife became rather an invalid after a couple miscarriages. so he started doing the walking doing some ofand the shopping. and he was dressed like a slob one day. well-dressed dandy, who didn't know who marshall was, comes up. he's got a heavy turkey. he says, would you mind carrying this turkey for me? you a half dollar. marshall takes the turkey, follows the guy to his home, half dollar. and -- >> that may be a warning for john roberts to dress well when he goes to the market. of fellowt's the type he was. he had been a farm boy. most of these people who had on farms loved farming. ofming had a sense personness to it. my land and with god's help, i've made these seeds grow

and vegetables and edibles. they loved the land. the land. loved when he toured the united states to get to know the people and let the people know him -- that was one thing. a stately man but he wanted the people to know them. he knew the only thing they portrait, anda that wasn't enough. he wanted them to see him in person. toured new england and he would walk the fields with the farmer, pick up some dirt, sniff it. and he knew the soil. knew what good soil was like. and so did marshall. truly, to bee people.own-to-earth adams, this brilliantly educated harvard lawyer, was a farmer. he grew up on a small farm. and washington

had -- people thought they were other, becausech john adams, you snap his head! ugly expression when he was talking, like in new england. the they got close to conversation, it turned out they were discussing farming. and adams did not understand how you ran a 20,000-acre farm. and washington did not understand how you could make a profit out of a 40-acre farm. 20,000-acre farm comment brings up one of our audiences' other questions. what was marshall's view on slavery? handful of slaves. most of the time, they lived in the house in richmond. slaves they had were slaves.d and when polly, his wife, got sicker and sicker and suddenly

had to travel more on the his head slave was this flamboyant black man, dressed in very -- the kind of mardis you'd see in the march gras. marshall thought it was very cute and liked the young man. the young man's name was spurlock. he hadn't bought spurlock. it was a wedding gift. so he never had the sense that property.as his and spurlock would speak up. and spurlock was allowed to go out. little by little, spurlock black a leader among the slaves in richmond. come back and tell marshall about some injustice. and marshall went out and

defended slaves in many cases. but one of the major problems happened in these cities like richmond, in the south, was intermarriage between slaves and nonslaves. then?at were the children were they slaves or not? marshall fought for passage the law that declared freeren born of one parent, the children are free. the same thing -- there had been law passed that children born between ange american indian, a native slave,n, and a african-american slave, was free, was basically an indian. but that had not been the case between a free african-american an enslaved african-american. so marshall was responsible.

but the person who was really responsible was spurlock. they had a wonderful relationship. with him all his life and then with one of his children. >> john marshall could not have imagined the twitterverse, but we do have a question from the twitterverse. morning, chief justice roberts quoted john marshall in holding that the fourth amendment permits really police.miemistakes of law by te what reactions do you have to that, and how, if at all, did fourth amendment involve under john marshall? disagree withld justice roberts on that was non, because it decision. they did not hear the case. they turned it down. said it was not a constitutional matter. i think john marshall --

read, studiede about john marshall shows him to been one of the most -- the judge in american history. so i don't remember the details of that specific case. but he could never have sided with any case of police brutality, unnecessary police brutality. if the policeman is then assault, he would side with the policeman's right to defend himself. >> everybody's heard of the of tears. and i wonder if you could tell the audience maybe in the time remaining something about thehall's role in litigation from georgia with the cherokee nation. one of the most important cases in marshall's

1200 cases. it's called worcester vs. georgia. they discovered -- george washington had set up a treaty the southherokees in to try to teach them. missionaries throughout the south to teach them to become farmers and to like americans. and they agreed. and so their lands in the south were -- some of them were flourishing plantations. then someone discovered some gold flakes. george's legislature seized all dissolved the cherokee nation, declared cherokee laws invalid, and sent 150,000 native americans into exile. traveled along this trail of tears, it's called, river,the mississippi

eventually settling in oklahoma. way.0 died along the genocideworse case of imaginable, in history at that time. 10,000uisition only cost lives. spanish inquisition. the french revolution, with all butchery, only about 3,000 lives. americans died of starvation and exposure on this trail of tears. now this land belongs to georgia. and speculators come in and buy the land. they bribed the georgia legislators to buy the land. and one of them, a fellow named land that he the a fellowom georgia to

fletcher. then a new legislature comes in throws that out. moneyetcher want his back. the supreme court rules in his saying that the previous had violated the contract. and that was in a case called fletcher vs. peck. in the case of wooster vs. after the cherokee indians are moved out along the trail of tears, a reverend samuel wooster, who was preaching among the indians, and was arrested by the state of georgia for violating what they now call the cherokee laws. he happened also to have been a

postmaster. so he brought suit. and now the federal government in to the case. and the supreme court ruled against georgia, saying that they had violated samuel rights and that the cherokee laws of georgia were unconstitutional. at first, andrew jackson was president then. first, jackson, who hated the supreme court, more of a republican than jefferson -- at first, jackson said john decision;as made his let him enforce it. the georgia militia -- the georgia governor militia to defend the state of georgia against any possible incursion by the federal government in this cherokee case.

now jackson has to act. turns right around and warns georgia that he will send federal troops. and he actually called out federal troops to go down and confront georgia. georgia pulled back and agreed samuel wooster -- to free samuel wooster. precedentet the first a federal troops enforcing federal supreme court decision. precedent that fortunately we haven't had to use often. eisenhower, of course, used that precedent in sending troops to little rock, enforce the supreme court decision on school segregation. is enforcing the time limit. so -- [laughter]

like thed gentlemen, 6th amendment right to speedy the national constitution center has to end on time. but i just have to thank, first two superb participants, harlow giles unger and mr. wecht. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. want to thank all of you for joining what turned out to be a glorious experiment. know what would happen when we asked the leading authors on the left and right and everywhere in between to talk about the constitution for four hours on bill of rights day. but what happened was conversations of such substance and such weight and such that i think all of us feel smarter and better educated about the bill of rights than before. it's a tribute to you that you joined us, a tribute to our great c-span audience, and the vindication of my faith that of thee citizens united states are presented with the best arguments on all sides

complicated constitutional questions, they can pay attention and grasp them and minds. their own it is such a privilege to share this with you. much!you so [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] there any delawares left in delaware?

we've been live today in philadelphia for this day-long forum on the bill of rights. watch it anytime online. we'll have is the different authors and their books up at c-span.org. and i want to let you know, later tonight here on c-span, we'll have live coverage from of washington,ub d.c. for a conversation with donald trump and his entry into in washington, the business community and his asitical aspirations as well his business goals. live, 7:00 eastern time, here on c-span. communicators,he commun gray. >> it's a creepy question. it's a great question, because i for all of us, as somebody who uses a computer every day, we have certain expectations

fire up our computers about who sees what we're doing, sharing information -- who we're sharing information the, and at any moment, if shiftedectations i have are because i realize there might be another party who knows what i'm message pops up and ask if i would like help making a purchase, there are that we don't know we've crossed them until it's too late. true for researchers, that's true for companies. ofre isn't a clear sense what's creepy, because that's so culturally specific. loudly on talking their cell phone in a park has no problem with someone sitting bench andem on a listening to that conversation. at the same time, you can have someone trying to have is a goversation, and they will to great lengths to be somewhere that's completely secluded. dealing withjust

the cultural context. we're dealing with individuals's anderent preferences experiences around privacy. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on communicators on c-span 2. >> the center for american a discussioned today about foreign policy, relations with russia, china and india. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to the center for american progress. greatally glad to see a crowd out here, as we run into the holiday season. we are extremely pleased to be drawing to the end of the year with what we think will be an extremely lively about future directions for u.s. foreign policy. an interesting time right now. the world is certainly in a state that many are describing

as chaotic. it's hard to see sort of how to from everything from terrorists and, you know, spaces and large refugee flows to the trajectory being chosen by big powers like russia to rising powers like china that might be looking to change or up-end the international order. washington us in think tanks struggle with these issues every day. today we're very fortunate to have a kind of unique cross-cutting spectrum of views. right now, the left and right not only left and right, but within the left and americahe right, on how might think about its role in 15,world in the coming 10, 20 years. we are very lucky to have with are actually spokespersons from all of these different vantage points.

was kind ofoday inspired by an article that jim in thecently had american prospect. article that new,d at realism, old and and explored the idea of whether the obama administration has between two tugged different views of america's world, one being rooted in american leadership the sense of america having theique role in leading on world stage, another being more america's power and vulnerability is in the world, really in a way that we hadn't seen since of the cold war. we thought in a conversation be a goodhat it would time to bring in not only his voice but the voices of others

writing recently on these issues. and of course, al all of you knw well, one of the greatest commentators and conservativers american foreign policy. books areecent well-known by anyone who looks at american foreign policy and out how figure decisions are made and how we choose various courses of action. today, we're jim going to have chris prevell, president at kato. he is the author of several "the poweruding problem." chris is a well-known and critic of american overextension and american overseas.onism he often suggests we should focus on truly vital national interests, that we often exaggerate threats and

ourselves squandering precious resources in efforts around the world that are not only unwise but also unnecessary and very costly to the united states. he's also joined by kim holmes, fellow atguished heritage, longtime vice of thent and really one pillars of heritage's foreign policy and defense programs. recently authored a four-part series in foreign saying america, needs a new foreign policy for 2016. about a more active american role in the world, notion ofway from any theenchment, and committing resources that would be robust american a leadership and for intervention in world affairs in order to interests.rican brian cotules is a senior fellow

here. is the author of the and runs ourgd an agenda mideast program but thinks broadly about how america functions on the global stage. he argued against disengagement a recent article in the journal of democracy. we look forward to a very robust discussion today. the panel is going to be moderated by our own larry korb, formerior fellow and assistant secretary of defense who needs no introduction and is a frequent and prolific debate.tor on the i'm really pleased that all oaf to have whatre here today, i think will be the first of many debates on the u.s. role in we start entering a new political season. we're really thrilled that all thoughtful leaders in national security and defense

joinedeign policy have us. please welcome our guests. thank you. [applause] me join in welcoming you given theoday, which folks that we have, ice going to be -- it's going to be, i think, very vigorous, and enlightening debate, given all the challenges that the down facing right now -- that the country is facing right now. this event was a result of jim's article.ent by the way, they are out there, copies of the articles that all these people have written. jim, again, you are the one who started this debate, so

we're going to let you go first tell us about the realism, old and new. >> all right. thank you, larry. and i'm glad to be here. life as a most of my journalist, a writer. i consider myself on foreign mostly a critic. i'vesometimes told -- sometimes told conservative audiences you would not want to on health care or on taxes. role in foreign policy is simply to question assumptions take hold, most notably on the idea that trade and lead tont would political liberalization in china. i focus on the current fixation with calling indispensablethe nation.

it's a phrase that goes back to the i 1990's, usually madeleine albright is given credit for it, although it really started with some of his and aides in 1996. uniquelynot a democratic -- it's sort of a phrase but essentially the same idea comes in the republican incantations of american in the world. what i want to do is question whether that's a viable phrase gets iner it actually the way of american policy or american power in the world. the place i want to start is with a disagreement i noticed between the clintons, bill and hillary, or if you look at it differently, between the public

clinton,rivate bill because after bill clinton left office, he at one point told his wrote about it, was deputy secretary of state, that he really thought his job as president was to build the world for our grandchildren to live in where america was no longer the sole time when weor a would have to share the stage. gee, how comed, you never said that when you were president? told him, um,ill, why you're what you are and i was president of the united states, because if i go time whenking about a america is not going to be the top dog in the world, i'd be of town on a rail. nevertheless, his own administration's phrase nation" lives on as strongly as ever.

want to ask really is, do we really play that role today? can we play that role for the foreseeable future? and should we? of thoseswer to all questions really is no. role?play that yes. but not always. we tend to not notice when we're not playing that role. the example i would use is ukraine where it looks from over here, where this is a cold war-style dispute between and russianer power, if you get to europe or you actually look at what's that the you see the interlocker with russia and the country that is germany and angela merkel. think herees people accommodating. germany has stepped up the sanctions.

slowly.n sanctions, when they do, putin notices. this on our own, because actually our trade with russia is much less than germany's. i'm not saying that's a bad thing, but the truth is germany withuch more influence russia than we do. and that gets to the question of alone are as powerful as we are working with allies. talk about, you know, stepping up sanctions against russia. but in fact we work with germany. larger point is that our alliances are the basis of our we get out too far -- and that's true in dealing with russia, true in well -- ifh china as we get out too far in front of weakens ourthen it power. to learn somed the hard way, the realities

the cold war.of i'm sure that many people in this room think that the intervention was a disaster, as it was. but what you don't see is that disasters was a diplomatic one, because i was covering the bush administration, preparing to about it in the run up to the war, and i can tell you that they sincerely believed what i the leadership hypothesis, if the united states took certain positions at the u.n. ultimately, the allies, like the french and germans and british, would follow. they honestly believed that. and they were wrong. spectacularly wrong, because they didn't quite analyze the fact that after the the cold war, the allies were less dependent on us than they are -- than they were

before 1989. the other problem with theispensable nation" is more we run around and tell everyone that, the less other countries are willing to do on own, because the united states is taking care of it. and the more they get a little offended. so in short, when bob, the the american prospect, just called me with a random which i'd like to write a piece -- would i like to write a piece on what a policy realism means today, and i said sure, but i thought that sometimes don't quite understand what realism is, since the end of the cold younger progressives have taken realism to mean anti-interventionism, because times what it meant at the 2002.in but in fact, realism has a much

history of believing in simply balance of power politics, on power diplomacy, at the expense of values. and those were views that i thought that progressives should buy into. but in thinking about it, i in a newhat realism view ofd be a realistic an america which is not always the world hedgemon. do think that on this, for all of the criticism that he gets, that obama has of his time. i think that he has recognized in will be recognized history as having tried, whether movingeeds or not, in more modest and therefore realistic view of

america's future role in the world. i'm sure that i will be criticized by some of my colleagues, but the example i would use is libya, where in describing -- first of all, the intervention in libya came about two reasons. one is the one that most of you read about, that there was a strong desire for humanitarian intervention and that many people in the administration believed it. the second strand was that the british and the french, particularly the french, were coming to the united states. were more concerned with libya than the united states was. and they were saying things know, we are helping the world,r translate afghanistan and troops, and we would like you to help us out on this one. and in that context, the fact the frenchallowed and the british to have the lead

out front there and to show their sum of the financial and they described that as leading from behind, i have to understand what the problem was with leading from behind. that itanswer to me is touched this nerve that we have united states, 1956 andere in 1946 or in 1990 and '91, after the the soviet union, and i think that episode and the reaction to "leading from shows me that we have not yet begun to move off from fixation that we have and have to be always in the front. thank you. >> thank you very much, jim. in addition to writing this was -- and book, jim worked for 20 years for the times," covered things all over the world and really knows

an awful lot about china. the first of reporters we had out there. we're going to move next to to beingo in addition at kato, is a former naval officer. looking at your biography. in, soviet union collapsed. we won the gulf war. get out.re able to >> they gave out certificates from everyone who served in the of myar, and that's one proudest certificates. chock one up for the good guys. admit, i'm really thrilled to be here. larry'secause invitation prompted many eto read -- prompted me to read jim's article for the first time. it had been discussed but i hadn't had a chance to read it. so i read it last week. again.it my favorite part, by far, is the bottom line, which is this conceit that we are the indispensable nation. writes it has become downright, well, unrealistic.

before i got to that line, i started reading the article. and that was the word, unrealistic, that sort of struck out in my heads. unrealistic, in the sense of kind of alice through glass.king this is more like a virtual reality. people inside of washington anieve their world view is accurate one. the problem is, and i think kind of the fundamental disconnect, the reason why the current grand strategy is not realistic, is because it is so disconnected re al ti ofw of people -- reality of people outside of washington. there are so many different polls that show this. but interestingly, i think that ofot of astute observers u.s. foreign policy have known about this for some time. is fromy favorite lines a book that didn't get as much attention as it should have, a "america at the crossroads." mostly people focused on the was ahat this

neoconservative. he sees, it rests on a belief in alism thatxception most nonamericans simply find not credible. that most non-americans find non-credible. the idea that the united states behaves disinterestedly in the world state is not widely believed because it is, for the most part, not true and indeed if theyt be true fulfill their responsibility. it was hard to sustain the belief over time.