-- politically, a president to veto even a defense appropriation bill that provides exactly the amount of money that he requested for defense, that his top military adviser says is the lower ragged edge of what it takes to defend the country, and so he vetoes that bill because he's trying to leverage our leverage our military is a very risky political strategy in the volatile complex dangerous world we have been talking about. i have a hard time believing that is what it comes to peer we will see. >> we have time for one more question. >> hello. george nicholson. you alluded to strategy and the need for that. i know when it president eisenhower became president one of the first things he did is he established the solarium initiative, so maybe it is time

for another. what are your views on that? >> it is past time. it would be helpful. the question i have struggled with is how can we impose strategic thinking required strategic thinking from the legislative branch, and i tried to look at several examples over history including the solarium project and i run into the problem that if a president doesn't want to do it doesn't make much difference. the are a number of members of both parties, both house and the senate who believe strongly that we have let our strategy muscle atrophy and our -- we need

to have a strategy to which we can tie our resources. how we advance that cause from the legislative grants is something we are grappling with. if you have any bright ideas we would love to hear them. >> a perfect way to end. we will have more to come on that. i can't thank you enough for coming here, for your strategy for the country. the most important element speaking the truth and making sure we are more effective in prosecuting the questions of ideas and struggle of ideas across many fronts. if we get that right the rest is easy. if not we are not going to win in any of these confluence. after the congressman leaves, if everyone can remain seated that

would be helpful for his schedule. join me in thanking him for coming here as well. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen please remain seated. thank you. >> june 30 is the deadline for the iraq -- iran negotiations. we get a closer look at iran and those who favor engaging with the country and those who

say the regime cannot be trusted. >> the challenge with iran, it is not a country that is going to bully. it doesn't work that way. if you look at what iran excels at it is the olympics, wrestling and weightlifting. i'm serious. this is a country that is very nationalistic. it is a strong sense of self. when you go to tehran, which i'm sure you will at some point your host will take you to a -- it is a house of strength. people do synchronized weightlifting. it is interesting. the point diane making is culturally this is not a country that gives then to bullying. they have a strong sense of themselves, they are very nationalistic.

there is a martial quality there and it is simply doesn't work. >> are issue spotlight airs tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. like many of us, first families take vacation time. like president and first lady's, a good read can be the perfect companion for your summer journeys. what better book than one that appears inside the personal life of every first lady. first lady's present shall stories on the lives of 45 iconic american women, inspiring stories of fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house. a great summertime read available from public affairs as a hardcover or e-book through your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. chris christie has a new website

ahead of his anticipated presidential campaign announcement next week. he gave supporters a first look by providing a link to the site on twitter. he is inspected to formally enter the 2016 race on tuesday at an event in livingston, new jersey. we have live coverage on the c-span networks. the latest republican is bobby jindal. he made the announcement wednesday at an event in kanner louisiana he was introduced by his wife. this is a half hour area [applause] >> thank you. thank you all so much for that warm welcome. i have the great pleasure today of introducing you to a very good friend of mine.

he's a tremendous husband and father and a great leader of our state and for our country. [applause] you know i would say all of that stuff. and you knew i would mention his crazy long resume of accomplishment. but what you may not know is why bobby is so successful. it is not because he's smart and oh, so good looking. [laughter] it is not because he's well-educated. no, the key for bobby jindal is that he's absolutely fearless. [applause] of course, the fact that a man would send his wife out on live television to say whatever she wants about him, that by itself is a little fearless. bobby was fearless when he first decided to run for governor at the young age of 31. there were already a dozen

candidates. including the best-known politicians of our state. sound familiar? he knew he would start out as an asterisk in the polls and he did. but he went all over the state talking and listening and laying out detailed policy plans to move our day forward and on the day of the primary, he got more votes than anyone else in the race. [applause] it took someone fearless to do that. and it took someone fearless to lead our state through the after math of katrina. people were moving away in droves. our largest employers contemplating closing up shop. but bobby stepped up. he was fearless in taking on the entrenched corruption. [applause] he was fearless in challenging the status quo of our broken education system.

he was fearless in cutting taxes and refusing to taking the easy way out by raising taxes. [applause] most importantly, bobby takes on problems head-on. while others tap dance, he tells the truth. while others worry, he leads. bobby's courage has changed louisiana for the better. [applause] of course, i have to tell you a little bit about month the more personal side of his fearlessness. you see i got to know bobby in , high school. he was impressive even then. smart and ambitious. but when he asked me out, i told him no. [laughter] rejection did not deter him. he was fearless. he did not stop. and years later, i finally said

yes. and like the state of louisiana, i am oh, so glad i did say yes to bobby jindal. [applause] bobby knows that our nation has great problems. but that our people are greater still. where others see obstacles bobby sees opportunity. where others see division, bobby sees a path to unity. bobby jindal is the right person to do the hard things and to fight for what is right. [applause] he is the right person to solve problems, not just talk about them. [applause] i am very proud of my husband. on behalf of our daughter sealia, or son sean and slade, i'm so proud to introduce him to you today.

please join me in welcoming my husband and my best friend bobby jindal. [applause] (music) bobby jindal: my name is bobby jindal. i am governor of the great state of louisiana, and i'm running for president of the greatest country in the world, the united states of america! [cheers and

applause] 44 years ago a young couple who had never before been on an airplane, they left their home on the other side of the world to come to a place called america. they had never seen it. there was no internet to search, but they had heard the legend. there was a place in this world where people were free, and the opportunities were real. they weren't really coming to a geographical place. they were coming to an idea, and that idea is america. [applause] to them, america

represented all that was good in the world, where you could get ahead if you worked hard and played by the rules. a place where what matters is the content of your character, not the color of your skin, the zip code you were born in or your family's last name. my dad grew up in a house without electricity, without running water. it was the only person in the family to get past the fifth grade. he and mom came to louisiana because they believed in america and when they got here they found that the legend was true. they found that the people of louisiana accepted them and they found america is indeed the land of the free and the home of the brave. [applause] 37 years later, my parents' eldest son became governor of louisiana. it was the aftermath of katrina.

our economy was locked in a downward spiral. our biggest city was reeling for 25 straight years, more people had left this state than had moved into it. louisiana was in big trouble. so we had to make big changes. we had to believe in louisiana again, and that is exactly what we did. [applause] we reformed our ethics laws. we went from one of the worst states to one of the best states in the country. [applause] we privatized our outdated government-run hospital system. we reformed education with nearly 100% charter schools in new orleans and now we have statewide school choice, because every child deserves an equal opportunity for a great education.

[applause] instead of a child following the dollars, we made the dollars follow the child because we trust the parents not the bureaucrats, to make the best decisions for their kids. [applause] we did what they said could not be done. we shrank our government. we cut our budget by 26%. we cut the number of government bureaucrats by more than 30,000. that wasn't easy. the big government crowd fought us every step of the way. they protested. they filibustered. they even took us to court but in the end we won. [applause] today, we have more people moving into louisiana than out of it. our highest population in history, our kids are coming home.

[applause] and now, we have more people working than at any time in our state's history, with the highest incomes in our state's history. a job for your family. a paycheck in your mailbox. they're the ultimate proof that your state is doing things right. [applause] but of course there's another side to the story. the big government crowd, they hate what we have done. they say that we have cut the government more than anyone. the government budgets are always running low on funds with me and the governor's office. my response to the big government crowd is simply this. yes. i am guilty as charged and our state is better off for it today. [applause] it's time for the

folks in washington to admit the truth. you can't grow the economy and the government at the same time. it is an either/or choice. hillary clinton, she wants to grow the government in washington. [booing] we want to grow the real economy out here in america. [cheering] here's the key difference. democrats evaluate success in terms of the prosperity of government. we define success in terms of the prosperity of our people. [applause] my approach is different from most of the other people running for president. the united states of america was made great by people who get

things done, not lots of talk or entertaining speeches. oh, to be sure, there are a lot of great talkers running for president already, but none of them, not one can match our record of actually shrinking the size of government. if great speeches helped our country, we'd be on easy street right now. the guy in the white house today, he's a great talker. we have a bunch of great talkers running for president. we've had enough of talkers. it is time for a do-er. [applause] i'm not running for president to be somebody. i'm running for president to do something. [applause] oh it's easy to talk about the mess that obama has made of our country.

every american knows about it. every republican candidate talks about it. that's not even half of what we should expect from our next president. we owe voters more than just a tirade about the problem. we owe them honesty about our solution. i will do the things that you cannot do in washington. i will say the things you cannot say. [applause] i served two terms in congress. i can tell you how it works in washington. if you want to be with the cool kids, you want to be liked by the media, if you want to be invited to the right cocktail parties you have to accept there are things in washington you just cannot do. they say you cannot reduce the size of government or the number of bureaucrats. you might be able to cut the rate of increase here or there but you cannot actually cut government spending but we can

and we will. [applause] they say the $18 trillion national debt can't really be addressed. just a part of doing business so it's better not to talk about it, but we can and we will. [applause] they know social security and medicare are going bankrupt, but they're afraid to do anything about it. they denied the math and pretend everything is fine but we can reform and save these programs and we will. [applause] in washington they say term limits is a quaint idea, that we are naive to believe in. they think we need a permanent class, a ruling class of elites.

it's safer to not rock the boat but we can rock the boat and we will rock the boat! [applause] in washington they know they want the borders secure but they refuse to do it but you and i can, and we will secure our borders. [applause] finally, they say we can't really repeal or replace all of obamacare, but i'm the only candidate who has written a replacement plan, a free market plan, that focuses on reducing cost. we can repeal obamacare and we will repeal obamacare. [applause]

today's republican party in washington, d.c., has been beaten into submission, is increasingly afraid to speak the truth. it's time to say what everybody's already thinking. the emperors in washington they're not wearing any clothes. in case it's not clear right now, i am running for president without permission from headquarters in washington, d.c. [applause] i am tanned, rested and ready for this fight. [applause] here's the truth about most politicians. they're selfish.

they're followers, not leaders. they worry more about their own fate than the country's fate. they take polls, figure out where the public is headed. they run out front, they pretend to be leading the parade. it's easy to be a popular politician. don't rock the boat. just a bunch of babies, -- kiss a bunch of babies, cut ribbons don't make big changes, but i'm not going to take the easy way out. if you want somebody who is just going to pretend that everything is fine, just make some small tweaks, then you want somebody else. i'll make this promise to you, i will never leave from behind. -- i will never lead from behind. [applause] i know some believe i talk about my faith too much but i will not be silenced. [applause] i will not be silenced in order to meet their expectations of political correctness.

they don't seem to accept that idea you can be both intellectual and christian. [laughter] they can't fathom the notion you can be both smart and conservative. they need to get out more. [applause] there's a big country out here with millions of americans who believe in god and are not ashamed to say so. [applause] i'd be wary of a president who didn't seek wisdom from the almighty. i don't know about you.

i've met many smart people who lack wisdom, yet christianity, it is under assault today in america. the liberals, they have forgotten their history. religious liberty is not some quaint notion from the past. it is fundamental to our freedom. that's why there's protection in the first amendment to the constitution. i'm going to say it slowly so even hillary clinton can understand this. america did not create religious liberty. religious liberty created the united states of america. [applause] and it's time we stopped trying to divide ourselves against each other.

hillary clinton is always trying to divide us by ethnicity, by gender, by economic status. i don't know about you but for me i'm sick and tired of people dividing americans. [applause] and i am done with all this talk about hyphenated americans. we are not indian-americans, african-americans, rich americans or poor americans. we are all americans. [applause] and while i'm at it, here's another thing you're not allowed to say but i'm going to say it anyway. we cannot allow people to immigrate to our country so they can use our freedoms to undermine our freedoms. [applause] that is exactly what

has happened in europe, where they have second, third generations of immigrants who refuse to embrace the values and culture of the countries they have moved into. we must not let that happen here. [applause] it is not unreasonable to demand if you want to immigrate to america you must do so legally. you must be ready and willing to embrace our values, learn english and roll up your sleeves and get to work. [applause] now let's do something different, let's tell the truth about our political situation. that's right, it is a mess.

republicans must stop being afraid to lose. if we try to hide who we are again, we will lose again. you've heard jeb bush say that we need to be willing to lose the primary in order to win the general election. we are going to help him do that. [applause] let me translate that. i'm going to translate that political speak into plain english. what jeb bush is saying is that we need to hide our conservative ideals, but the truth is if we go down that road again, we will lose again. let's do something new. let's endorse our own principles for a change. let's boldly speak the truth without fear.

[applause] as republicans, we've already tried to appease the left. to make the media like us better, to talk in politically correct language, to hide some of our beliefs by calling them distractions, we've tried to mask our conservative ideals and we have failed. every republican will tell you they are for school choice shrinking government, cutting the government workforce and getting rid of common core. but talk is cheap. talk is just talk. i haven't just talked about these things, i've actually done these things. every republican will say they will fight to protect the unborn, repeal obamacare, secure the border and destroy isis. i won't simply talk about these things, i will get these things

done. [applause] it's time to level with the american people. this president and his apprentice in waiting hillary clinton are leading america down the path to destruction. economically, culturally, and internationally. for the most devastating thing they try to do, is redefine the american dream. instead of their dream being to have opportunity and freedom to control your own destiny, to make your own way, their dream is for the government to take care of you, to make people dependent on the government. we want to guarantee quality of -- we want to guarantee equality of opportunity. they want to guarantee equality of outcomes. simple fact is, they are trying to turn the american dream into socialism. now the folks in washington, they may call that the american dream.

out here in america, in the real world, we call that the european nightmare. [applause] to be clear, we're not simply trying to reclaim the past. no, quite to the contrary, we are laying our claim on the future, a future where america leads the world. [applause] this is not a pause any of us can resist. it is our destiny. it is our mission. as america goes, so goes the world. we are the light of freedom in a dark world. it's time we started acting like it. i will not be intimidated from talking about the fact that radical islam is evil and it must be destroyed.

[applause] containment is a strategy for losers. but as general george s. patton famously observed americans play to win all the time. americans don't play to lose. president obama has it wrong. secretary clinton has it wrong. our allies need to trust us. our enemies need to fear us. it is time we play to win again! [applause] as president, i will have four objectives. i will secure our borders. [applause] i will replace obamacare with a health care system that focuses on reducing cost and restoring freedom. [applause]

i will grow the private sector economy by shrinking the size, scope and reach of the federal government. [applause] and i'll rebuild america's defenses and restore our standing on the world stage. [applause] i'm not asking you to simply join my campaign. i'm asking you to join a cause. if you're looking for a candidate who will politely manage america's descent into mediocrity, i'm not your man but if you are chasing a dream looking for a land where the people are free, and the opportunities are real, i am asking you to believe.

[applause] my dad told me as a young child that americans can do anything. i believed him then, and i believe it now. i know in your heart, you believe it, too. i am asking you to believe again, believe in what we can do, believe in what america can do. [applause] thank you. may god bless you. may god bless the united states of america! [applause] [singing casting crowns "courageous"] [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]

♪

>> after announcing his presidency governor jindal headed to new hampshire where he spoke at a politics and his breakfast. he talked about his accomplishments, health care social security, and national debt. this is 40 minutes. [applause] governor jindal: thank you very much. i would like to thank the institute of politics for being our host. this is indeed my very first announcing as candidate. i brought along my better half.

it is hard to marry me. mrs. jindal. [applause] we have known each other since high school. i like to describe her as my high school sweetheart. you could ask for the real story. before i begin, i would like to tell you how glamorous it is to run for president. i will if you repeat the curtain -- a peek behind the curtain. yesterday in louisiana, where we lived before he moved to the governor mansion, we had 12 under people who saw me -- 1200 people who saw me there. families flew in from across the country for the announcement. it was live on television. i was amazed by the folks in the room and the intensity and response. as soon as i was done, i did an interview on one of the national news networks.

literally had to go to the airport. had enough time to get on a plane and fly through charlotte to get to boston. where's posted wake up this morning at the crack of dawn and go and do seven different national tv interviews before coming here. can you imagine a world where we have three children, 13, 11, and 8. there are on life tv and they will behave? everything goes great. we get to the airport. if anyone has flown recently, i think you know what i'm about to say. of course there is a flight delay. no worries. we will make the connection. a little delay becomes a longer delay. then they canceled the flight. then it got on canceled. i didn't real -- it got uncance led. i didn't realize they could do that. [laughter] we get to charlotte.

our bags are not in charlotte. you could either -- to morning tv and get on a plane and miss politics and eggs -- or you can fly through the night. no. we made a commitment. walmart closes admin night in case -- closes after midnight. we are pushing a shopping cart. they made an announcement looking for shaving cream and toothpastes. as we are leaving, you know those greeters at walmart? you are on tv. what are you doing shopping at walmart? [laughter] if you see some selfies, those aren't fake. i'm thrilled to be here. thank you for your hospitality. we intend to spend a lot of time

here. the weather's this nice, we will spend a lot of time here. incredibly beautiful day. my brother spent four years of his life going to college here as well. i have enjoyed being in the state before it not only as governor, but also for family visits did i want to talk to you -- family visits. i want to talk to you about what this campaign is about. i want to leave time for questions. i want to hear from you. i wanted to do's myself. i will tell you -- introduce myself. over 40 years ago, my parents came halfway across the world in search of the american dream.

here is the amazing thing to me. to this day is still gives me goosebumps to think about. it is the first time i have ever gotten on a plane before. there was no internet back then. i didn't even know anybody that had been to baton rouge. the idea of freedom and opportunity. they came so my mom can be a student at lsu. they came so my dad could get a. -- job. my dad did not come her to be dependent on a government program. it came to work. he looked in the yellow pages and called after called looking for work. my dad has a sick accent. i don't mean like me, a south accent. he had a thick accent.

i don't know how many weeks or days or how many times people laughed at him. but a railroad guy took a chance and said you could work -- begin work on monday morning. do not do this when you interview for your first job after school. my dad tells him -- he hasn't even started -- that's great. i don't have a car. i don't have a job's license. you will need to pick me up on your way to work monday morning. who tells his boss that? the guy was so amazed with my dad's enthusiasm that he did it. six month later, i was born. i love the next part of this story. there was no obamacare. my parents insurance did not cover me. i love what my dad did next.

my dad went to the doc and shook hands. i will send you a check every month as i pay for this delivery. i know how that would work today. i asked my dad, how do pay for a baby on layaway? if you skip a payment, do they take the baby back? he said you were such a bad baby, that was not an option. the reason i tell you that, my parents came in search of the american dream. today president obama and hillary clinton worked on changing american dream into a european nightmare. they are trying to turn it into socialism.

dependence. this is an important time for our country. the next election is the most in horton. i never heard any of them say -- -- the next election is the most important. we have a fundamental choice to make. there's a very generous introduction. the reality is what i was elected governor, my state was reeling from hurricane katrina. there were still trying to get back on their feet. one of the worst public school systems in the entire country. indeed, they wondered if they could come back or should come back and rebuild. i got elect it. we got elected to be making big changes. we did it. we cut our budget by 26%. we got 30,000 less bureaucrats. the best credit ratings in a decade. top 10 state for private-sector job creation.

seven years in a row, more people moving into louisiana rather than leaving it. statewide school choice is to making a child hollow that dollars -- instead of making a child to follow that dollars. didn't raise taxes. when you do that, you see results. more people working than at a time before in our state. highest ever per capita state. when he did, people complain. people will tell you you just cut government too much. there is never enough money in the government accounts.

what we did in louisiana we will do in d.c. we showed we don't measure prosperity by the success of our government did we measure prosperity by how people are doing in the real world. that is a choice we face in d.c. it is an either/or proposition. you cannot have both. you and i measure success by how real families in new hampshire and louisiana are doing and across the country of ours. we have got a lot running. there's a difference between talking and doing. have given great speeches. things would be great right now in america. we have a one term senator who had never run anything who needed on the job training. we need someone who will do something and not just talk about it. every republican will get

appearance a day will cut the size of government. we're not just talking. we did it in our state. protect the unborn. fight isis. repeal obama care. we'll get it done. i'm running for president to do something. it is time we replace talk with action. i served in washington, d.c. and congress. i was in the senate for two terms. here the difference. in washington, they say certain things and do another. it is not hard. if you want to be -- one him to write nice things about you, it is not that hard. you to go along to get along. you meet the smart folks. you cannot really do anything about it. we all say we are going to

repeal obama care, but you cannot really do anything about. the president is declaring victory today. the supreme court has ruled that one part of the law is not unconstitutional. this is now a success? that is a success? i don't agree with the court is nevermind the fact that obamacare decreases our freedom. nevermind it forces us under the threat of law to buy insurance we may not want. nevermind that it creates a new apartment program for we cannot afford the ones where we already -- new entitlement program winning we cannot afford the ones we've already got. we have a program that will saddle our children and grandchildren more and more. and put bureaucrats between

doctors and patients. i think it is time for conservatives to make a case of how to replace obamacare? i'm the only candidate who details how should do that. the court had spoken today, i think the people of america are ready to speak. we could do with the president said he wanted. he said he was opposed to the individual mandate. you could talk about securing the border, but you cannot do it. i think the american people are sick and tired of the candidate saying one thing and doing another. i think voters are saying we don't want them to clear the field.

you see an unprecedented assault on our freedoms. they think they know what kind of health insurance you should buy. one of the most egregious assault is he assault on our first amendment rights. those of us were pro-life say we need our religious elites changed? -- beliefs changed? that is between me and god. we separate the fact that people could live their lives according to their conscience -- we believe in the fact that people should be able to live their

lives according to their conscience. unfortunately, that is unreasonable now? a religious liberty rights fundamental while freedom of speech and freedom of association rights. i will say this slowly so hillary clinton could understand this. the u.s. of america did not create religious liberty. religious liberty created the united states of america. there is a reason we are here today. too often the left has forgotten the history. one of the things that concerns me is the effort by hillary and president obama to divide us. there are trying to divide us by race, gender, younger free income. -- younger free, income.

my parents are proud of their indian heritage. if my parents wanted to raise their child as indian, they would have stayed in indian bit of there's no more african-american or any other kind of american. we are all americans. i don't think it makes sense to allow people to come into our country and use our freedom to undermine those freedoms for others. to me, it is just reasonable to say if you want to counter country, come legally. learn english. learn and share our values. work. roll up your sleeves. go to work. make our country stronger. we turn our attention back to the campaign in this election. you'll hear some -- jeb bush

said we have got to be willing to lose the primary in order to win the general election. i couldn't disagree with that more. he is basically saying -- we have got to make the media like us. define who we are and what we believe. why don't we embrace our ideas and interests? what are we tell the american people what we stand for? help every child do better in america. the army can grow the private sector in the economy.

every zip code will have a test to get a great education. we will leave debt for our children and grandchildren. why not provide a real alternative for the american people? stop hiding who we are in what we believe. stop believing if we could just get the media to like us we will somehow be successful. it is time breast to stand for our principles and stand for our ideas -- it is time for us to stand for our pencils and stand for our ideas. i will have four objectives. repeal and replace obamacare. i hope he will get talk more about it. secondly, we will also restore our nation's defenses. the unafraid to identify the enemy as islamic terrorism. our friends don't trust us. our enemies don't fear us.

the president has declared war on the crusaders for medieval christianity. and against junk food. i have made a deal with the president to protect my own kids from microwave popcorn and oreos, he will protect us from islamic terrorists. the third thing i would do is grow our private sector economy. fourth, we will secure or borders. they all talk about that, but they never actually do it. i want to close with this observation. containment is not a strategy for the united states. general patton famously said that americans like to win every time. that is the strategy we have to adopt going forward. i am asking people to join a cause. to join the movement.

this is bigger than a campaign. america is the light to the world. people aspire to be free everywhere, it is time we started to act like it. i know our best days are ahead of us but it is not inevitable. we must not be the first generation to mortgage our children's future. to me, that is what this election is about. it is nothing less than the future of america. it is nothing less than restoring the american dream. so that our children can say my mom, my dad, my grandparents fought hard so i could live in the greatest country in the history of the world. thank you all very, very much. [applause] >> we have a few minutes for questions.

if you have a question, identify yourself. >> you mentioned obamacare. you have been unbending in your critique of obama care, that it should be repealed. in light of the ruling today and upholding the voucher funding mechanism, how realistic is it to go forward to address that issue? governor jindal: i think it is realistic for it people don't want obamacare. they won election in purple, red, amply stays campaigning on this. it has not done what they said it was going to do. forget keeping your doctor -- he told us he was going to cut our premiums and he did not do that. i put forward a straightforward

plan. the first principle, let's make it affordable. let's give everybody a standard tax deduction so they can buy it on their own. second, let's bring voluntary purchasing tools. third, let's create the opportunity to buy insurance across state lines. fourth, let's expand access to wellness and savings. we must crack down on frivolous lawsuits. we can absolutely drive down the cost of health care. analysis shows that we can reduce premiums on average by $5,000 for a family. let's help those that are vulnerable. there are people that because of pre-existing conditions cannot afford health care. my plan would give $10 billion a

year to the states for high risk individuals. third, let's give affordability and choice to consumers. we have specific ideas about premiums, as well. i think that senator obama was right when he told senator clinton, the issue is not an mandate, the issue is affordability. his plan does not fix that doesn't address that. here is where i think republicans have made a mistake. before the court ruling, they should have voted on alternatives. it is great they voted dozens of times to repeal obama care, but we have to show americans what we are for. we can't simply just be against things.

obama's policies will be on the ballot but secretary clinton -- we have to say that this is what we are for. the court has spoken, now it is time for the people to speak. >> thank you for being with us. i would like to ask you about social security. not for my generation -- i came through world war ii so i won't tell you my age, but i am on the down slope. i am talking about social security for future generations. my children and grandchildren they pay for social security. i was questioned the other day will it be there for me? how would you strengthen social security? governor jindal: that is a great question, thank you. if we don't do anything, everybody knows a dirty secret that social security is not sustainable.

they all pretend like it's not true that you look at the liabilities -- they make $18 trillion in debt look small in comparison. we want this to be a campaign of ideas, not just her's analogies. we will put a detailed ideas on social security. we have to take steps to make sure that we keep the promise that seniors and others who have been paying in continues to be there. i have young children, i wanted to be there for them, as well. we will put a detailed plans. i spent a year of my life as the director of a bipartisan commission on the future of medicare. we had a bipartisan majority that recommended premium support. we can do that in a way that helps taxpayers and beneficiaries.

we need to look at social security to protect those who have come to depend on the program and at the same time protects it for future generations. doing nothing is not an option. >> i am with a campaign called first budget. you spoke about young people and as a young person, you mentioned the $18 trillion in debt. many of us understand that if this debt grows, we will be the people who have to show to it. what are your plans to reduce the deficit? how would you do it with a bipartisan approach? governor jindal: that is a great question. the folks will pay this -- the folks who will pay this will be the future generation. we have to shrink the size of government.

we put out specific ideas and specific departments -- for example, the federal department of education spends billions of dollars on teacher quality programs that have not been shown to improve teacher quality. we have to get rid of that wasteful spending. same thing is true with title i dollars. i think epa can be reduced in terms of trying to micromanage the economy -- we will have to deal with social security and medicare and entitlement programs. we need to make fundamental changes to the way washington, d.c. works. we have had republican and democratic majorities run at the debt. we have specific structural changes. the only way he will balance the budget is a combination of

cutting government and growing the private sector. right now we have this 2% growth rate. that cannot become normal. in terms of the structural changes, i would like to see a balanced budget amendment in the constitution, a super majority vote before raised taxes, a supermajority vote before they can grow the federal government spending faster than the private sector, i would like to see in louisiana -- i would like to see -- in louisiana, we pay our legislators a per diem --i would like to pay members of congress a per diem for every day they

stay outside washington dc the problem is we have a permanent governing ruling class who thinks the rules do not apply to them. if you live in a bubble, it appears fine. seven out of 10 of the fastest growing counties are in the washington, d.c. area. i campaigned for a lot of republican candidates. i am glad the republicans took over. i don't think having one party control doesn't mean we will address problems. you ask about cross party lines -- we had a democratic majority in the house and senate in baton rouge. we had no majority until the second term. we did in income tax cut, we cut our budget working with democrats. i think it takes leadership. one of the mistakes obama has

made is that he elects people but doesn't work with people. it takes the american people saying enough is enough, saying that this is important, this election really isn't about who can tell the best jokes, it is about what opportunities are we leaving for our children. >> welcome to new england. you represent a seaport state. the importance of our ports and waterways are important to the new england economy. the current administration has talked a lot about the importance of funding for our ports. in reality, has only dedicated about half of the funding that comes in which are paid for by

shippers for harbor maintenance. congress has expressed a desire to dedicate 100% of that funding that is paid for by shippers for its intended purpose. would you support a similar pathway? governor jindal: absolutely. you may have seen all the flooding you saw in texas and oklahoma and you saw the horrific scene south of boston and all the damage -- south of austin. that water comes through northwest louisiana. we have historic flooding. part of the reason, the national weather forecast cap getting revised overnight. they had not dredged. the last time they had a major

flood, projections were based on faulty data. we saw the loss of property and what that did. we see the economic damage. the mississippi is routinely not dredged to appropriate levels as a result. in some instances, we are competing with mexico and other countries for work that we should be doing in our country and can -- they can't get into those channels. i am very well aware and absolutely support and there is actually of ill in congress that was sponsored by louisiana's delegation -- that is one of those solutions and folks understand the federal government charges a user fee for the people that use the ports and infrastructure and that fee is supposed to pay for dredging and instead, that money sits there to mask deficits, so it is used it to help claim they are closer to balance than they

really are. they use it to pretend the deficit is not as big as it really is. no wonder people get cynical. no wonder they say, when a minute, we paid a fee, it should at least be used for the purposes you told us. i will tell you one other example. in louisiana, they dredge the mississippi river, they call them dredge spoils, and a dump it on the continental shelf. then, the same engineers turn around and goes and minds elsewhere to help rebuild the coast. elysee and asked -- louisiana asked, why are you paying more money to get new silt? wouldn't it be better to build a pipeline and rebuild -- as a taxpayer, it seems like he would make sense.

the answer they came back with was yes, it would save money but it wasn't cost-effective. they looked at it in isolation. forgetting the fact that the next day, the same agency was going to buy silt to rebuild the coast so the state put up the money in some cases to show them -- we call it beneficial dredging. they are not spending the money they should be on ports and infrastructure. when they spend it, they are not spending it in the most effective way. so absolutely, we would support efforts to dedicate those dollars to where they are intended to be which is to maintain our infrastructure which is good for our economy and you were talking about manufacturing jobs earlier, good for those as well. >> there are two economic issues that congress has been debating. the trade pacific partnership, and the bank that is about to

expire. your thoughts on if we should be in a trade negotiating position. do you like the way it was developed? xm bank is about to close down and there were some people of the new england council very concerned about the bank losing their clout. governor jindal: on the tpp. i am opposed to giving this president fast-track ability. i think trade can be good for our country. i think tpp could be important. you have south korea, taiwan japan, traditional allies looking for american leadership. you have india and vietnam looking for american leadership. they will not wait forever. this president said he was going

to pave it to asia -- pivot to asia. it is a great opportunity for our country if done right. the reason i oppose it for this particular president is i don't trust him. he has violated the constitution before, he has chosen which laws he wanted to enforce, i don't like the deal he is negotiating with iran. that is not an argument against trade. i am for fast track authority, it is particular to this president. i and not saying abandon tbp, i am saying don't give this president fast-track authority. if it is that good, why not let us see it? in terms of exports and imports,

i am for the winding down of this tank. i think the government picking winners and losers is a mistake. people argued that the bank is self-sustaining and profitable. the reality is, if there is money to be made, the great thing about america is that we are not shy about folks wanted to make money in this country. you have to argue, no, it is about helping countries to make sure they don't become hostile to america. if that is true, it should be part of the foreign aid budget -- this idea that the governments can take and choose which businesses to help to me we need to get away from that what we really need to do is not have the highest corporate tax rate in a developed world purely want companies to compete internationally. that means both democrats and republicans have to be willing to give up their special treatments and say, old sides are going to come to the table and have an honest tax reform debate and the last time we did

that was the 1980's under reagan. it was a bipartisan initiative and that is the kind of tax reform that can help our companies save hundreds of billions of dollars overseas that could be invested here. we have companies making investments overseas and that of hiring americans. i talked a little bit about louisiana. i talked about the 90,000 jobs. our competition is not new hampshire or texas, our competition is other countries. a south african company spending money here instead of canada. the list goes on and on and on. we cannot compete. every one of those companies looked at epa regulations and

skilled workers and we have to win the competition. they came because we were able to win the competition. i will close with this. it was a pure act of faith that probably parents here. they had not visited. my mom was pregnant. there was not a plan b. they had confidence that this was a place where you could have freedom. i am that optimistic about our future. we have to make the right choices. reagan reminded us that every generation has to renew those visible's of freedom. -- those principles of freedom. i am asking people to join our campaign to learn more, go to bobbyjindal.com. thank you for your hospitality. >> well done, governor. [applause]

announcer: secretary of housing and urban and development on the obama administration's policy, the decision on housing discrimination and recovery from the mortgage crisis. newsmakers on sunday. >> i am not one of those who believes in the psychiatric examination of people. i believe most of these people should be on the couch themselves. on the other hand, when i meet people, i don't judge them in terms of their handshake or eye contact, what i try to do is to listen to what they say. you learn a great deal when they are talking. >> one of the many tragedies of

richard nixon is that he was not self-aware. he did have a psychiatrist. the doctor said he was careful not to have nixon think he was being analyzed. his head hurt, his neck hurt even sleep, and his doctor gave him some mild therapy. even know he went to one, he hated psychiatrists. he was afraid of looking at himself in a realistic way. one of the reasons he used to say, i don't carry grudges. richard nixon was one of the great grudge carriers of all time. he could be very un-self reflective. announcer: evan thomas talks about the victories and defeats and inner turmoil of richard

nixon, focusing on a personal stories. sunday night on q&a. announcer: this summer book tv will cover book festivals from around the country and top nonfiction authors. in july, we are live at the harlem book fair. with author interviews and panel discussions. in september, we are live from the capital for the national book festival. that is if you of the events this summer on book tv. announcer: next, from washington journal, a look the yesterday's supreme court decision at same-sex marriage. then a look at microsoft's latest project. later, chris murphy talks about defense policy.

>> joining us to talk about the decision from yesterday on same-sex marriage. good morning. you gave me a copy of the decisions by anthony kennedy and chief justice roberts. can you talk a little bit about anthony kennedy -- what are some of the arguments he has putting together this document -- legal framework, how he went about crafting the argument -- fill in the blanks. guest: sure. this opinion is based entirely on the 14th of the make of the constitution, which was ratified after the civil war in 1868 and it is a restraint on state power, a restraint initially

inspired by the civil war and the end of slavery, but it does not use language specific to slavery. it uses very broad language when it talks about every person being entitled to equal protection of the law, no person entitled to liberty without due process of the law. these principles of equal protection and due process are what the supreme court has used at various times when addressing new assertions of rights and those are the principles that justice kennedy and the four other justices that joined them require definitions of same-sex marriage. host: what else bolster the argument using the 14th amendment? guest: he talked about marriage is a fundamental right something the court has justified for generations, even though the constitution says nothing about marriage, it is evidently part of the human condition, the right to procreate, intimate decisions should be outside of state intrusion. he talked about some of the purposes of marriage, including the raising of children and the hundreds of thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples and the interest that not only the parents, but the children's --

the children have the dignity of marriage. he spoke about marriage role --marriage's in the social order, part of the liberty that democracy depends on and that when a couple gets married, not only do they pledged to support each other, but there is an implicit pledge of support from the entire community and society because marriage is an important building block of society and excluding same-sex couples from that status relegated them to a second-class existence and denied them the ability to fully participate. he also spoke about the harms that the state had asserted might flow by extending marriage to same-sex couples and said they were not plausible. one is it would diminish opposite couples getting

married, we can the institution. it was one or two sentences diminishing the argument as not making any sense. the majority did not see why two heterosexuals -- that the existence of marriage for same-sex couples would discourage them from making such a personal choice. he also said that through -- true marriage as an opposite sex institution had existed from the dawn of time, the earliest -- through the 21st century. while history is the starting point of the discussion, it is not the end, and we have to look at where we are today in assessing what rights people have. in effect, to try to go through all of this other stuff, basically he said that the evolution of gay rights, the expansion of gay and lesbian

people into society, into acceptance, into living openly has brought them into this broader circle and to deny them this right at this point just did not make any sense, given all the other ways that have been accepted. to single them out for exclusion from this right would be contrary to the principles of due process and equal protection. host: was it surprising to have chief justice roberts writing the dissent? guest: it was not a surprise given he dissented two years ago in the precursor decision when justice kennedy struck down a federal law denying federal benefits to same-sex thousands. chief justice roberts dissented from that opinion and dissented from that as well. on paper, there would be no reason to expect him to change his opinion. some speculated the chief justice can read the opinion polls like everyone else

support for same-sex marriage has been increasing to -- dramatically. the last poll showed support at 67%, highly correlated to age. younger demographics support same-sex marriage. in 10 years, how retrograde might it seemed to be on the losing side of the issue, how does that affect legitimacy, etc.? some people suspected for reasons like that he would join the crowd. he was not willing to do that. he wrote that while same-sex marriage might be a good thing and he encouraged the plaintiffs to rejoice at the outcome they wanted, he said this was the wrong way to get there. it should be through the democratic process. host: even at one point saying this was not about the constitution, as far as the decision was concerned. guest: that is right, when you have the broad terms like equal

protection and due process, what precisely they mean is not known. you have to draw from external sources, one's own judgment, and to him this is not what we are talking about. he had a limited view and he brought up notorious decisions in the past where the justices had made similar arguments. he brought up two of the most notorious decisions in history which he said were based on a similar form a reasoning, and one is called dred scott versus stanford where the supreme court held that blacks could not be citizens of united states and slavery must expand into the new u.s. territories. that is one of the, i would say, reasons why the civil war later followed and he cited a case called lochner versus new york where the supreme court said limiting working hours of bakery employees violated the right of bakers to work longer hours,

called the freedom of contract which is not expressly described in the constitution either. he basically said this is akin to other decisions. justice kennedy's majority opinion -- typical for him -- he does not get into back and forth with dissenters. some justices take on each other in the footnotes -- you are wrong, i am right --he makes his point and moves on. host: jess bravin to talk about the supreme court process and the decision on same-sex marriage. faultlines lines will stay the same if you want to ask -- phone lines will remain the same if you want ask in question. let's start with harry in alabama. caller: good afternoon, sir.

hey, listen, i supported because it is not my decision. i am a christian. that is god's decision, but the main thing i called in for is i would like to stand up -- i am a 61 disabled american marine corps veteran and i would like to salute south carolina especially charleston, the sod -- state of south carolina and the american people that went down there to support them. that is my comment. thank you. host: so, he started out by talking about religious aspects. did justice kennedy address the concerns of religious folks over this issue? guest: yes, but not in a way that i think many religious people have strong objections to -- that have strong objections would find comforting. he said they are free to believe whatever they want and are many reasons why they might sincerely

believe this is a bad thing and that they should have the right to deny marriage to same-sex couples and they are free to discuss this, debate this, and so forth. fine and good, but when it comes to enacting a legal prohibition, forget it. your personal values are not enough to deny a fundamental right to other people. so, i would say there was not very much in the majority opinion to comfort religious conservatives who are so viscerally opposed to this. there was not anything that said explicitly that florists have to cater to same-sex ceremonies or that evangelical schools can't is committed against gay people -- can't this committee against gay people -- discriminate against gay people, that there was not a language saying -- of language saying "don't worry."

host: this was brought up in the oral arguments -- talk about that aspect. what is the concern about those organizations? guest: the specific concern is this -- in the early-19 70's the irs issued a regulation stripping tax-exempt status from white only schools, or schools that would not permit interracial relationships and the irs regulation at the time said that tax-exempt status is for charities and charitable purposes. a charity whose goal is contrary to the public policy of the united states that promotes things that overwhelm the -- undermine the overwhelming public policy of the united states is not necessarily charitable. if it is doing things in the -- that are opposite of the public good it is not entitled to a

subsidy from all the other taxpayers in the united states including black people who cannot go to the school because the school believes they are inferior. so, the irs removed those theyn. sued and the supreme court upheld that position. that was called a case known as bob jones university and that is a precedent on people's minds. the situation where it comes to next couples and gay and lesbian rights is not exactly the same. at the time, for instance, in the 1970's there were all kind of civil rights statutes on the book that prohibited discrimination and declared very, very loudly the united states policy was to eradicate discrimination, eradicate segregation. federal law does not treat gays and lesbians the same way. so i don't think this is an immediate concern for these organizations but if public policy and public policy trends

continue and congress enacts acts that explicitly connect gays and lesbians from discrimination and more states start doing that maybe down the road their view which was once a majority view will be seen as so contrary to public policy that it no longer can be considered credible. host: grand junction, colorado. you are next. caller: i talked to you, pedro. uruguay, right, pedro? you don't have to answer. the reason i have to ask you is i couldn't tell. the second thing is you were looking at a crowd of people from above, you can tell who is black. you can't tell who is gay. but the other thing i was thinking about is on the constitution, it says, you know that right there at the very first paragraph that nature's god wouldn't entitle them to marry each other which says in leviticus, if two men lie together should be put to

death and now they know it was one nation under god. the scales have turned the wrong way, we may be cursed now. thank you. guest: the constitution doesn't mention god at all. the opening words of the united states constitution are we the people of the united states. so there is a reference to god in the declaration of independence from 1776 and essentially is saying that we're enentitled to rebel against the british crown because he's taken away certain rights. but in fact, the united states constitution is a godless document. it has no reference to god. it does say that congress cannot pass a law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise of religion. that's it. the rest of it is not concerned about religion. host: here is josephine from wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you're on. go ahead. caller: i support the decision to an extent if lesbians and gays want to marry, sure.

call it a union of perhaps the rainbow cohabitation or rainbow union. but according to the dictionary , i don't know if anybody reads that lately but it's been defined as marriage between a man and a woman. so i don't know how we can redo the dictionary. are we going to go through the dictionary changing all these things however we want? i just think that the judges should be following the decision -- sure, let them marry but it can't be called a marriage in the sense that the dictionary defines it as. guest: well, you know, sometimes judges do cite dictionary definitions in their opinions. but the dictionary is not a binding document, the constitution is. and the question is really not what marriage was understood to be in the past but what is understood to be now in light

of the principles of equal protection and due process is the way the majority saw it. certainly the disenters agree with the caller, josephine, right? that you can't -- that this is such a fundamental alteration of what marriage is, that it can't be called marriage and if it is, it's got to be a legislature that makes that decision. the majority saw it differently and said the elements of marriage really apply to these couples, all the interests of marriage apply to them and makes no sense to exclude them from it. what is the purpose of marriage. what justice kennedy said true historically marriage was a opposite sex institution and that you say the beginning of our discussion but says it has changed over the years and he noted that historically marriages were an arrangement among parents for economic and

other reasons, that the children were essentially forced to do and changed to now it's really a voluntary association and the parents in the united states cannot compel their children to marry against their will. he noted for centuries marriage was defined by a dock rin known as covetrure and her identity was merged into man and she lost her dependence and was treated as a child under the law and had few interests and was subordinate to the man and that was part of the nature of marriage and the supreme court did away with covature in the 1970's and was a big change in the definition of marriage p. he said as well since the 17th century some states in the united states prohibited interracial marriage so in this entire country the interracial marriages were prohibited and yet the supreme court said that is incompassible with the constitution.

so he said marriage has changed over the years to reflect the way society has changed and some of those changes were imposed by courts and not all were adopted democratically. host: how did it view the way the justices view the constitution as a document? guest: this is an important angle of the decision for justice kennedy and the four liberal justices who joined him, the constitution has some elements that evolve over time and don't mean exactly the same thing today as they meant in 1868 when the 14th amendment was adopted or 1789 when the initial document was adopted. justice kennedy specifically said, and he used -- he discussed this many times over the years and said the nature of injustice is that sometimes we cannot see it in our own time, that it only comes into focus as a human experience moves on and said that the

framers of our constitution, they understood that and why they used these broad sweeping terms of principles of interpretation that allowed subsequent generations to apply these principles to new circumstances so yes, those elements change. if it says you have to be 30 years old to run for the united states senate there's no ambiguity about that. what does equal protection of the laws mean? who are we counting as equal exactly? that doesn't say, for instance. so that's how the majority sees it. host: the dissenters saw it very differently and saw the constitution as a very -- as more of a limited grant of power that does not give judges the right to what they felt would be essentially to shoehorn their own personal values into constitutional law by disguising them as the application of timeless principles.

they felt the term justice scalia in his term used a judicial putch using a german term for overthrow of government. so from their point of view this was, we're quite explicit about elitist lawyers not in touch with the mainstream values of the country imposing their values on everybody else. host: john, you're up next. caller: pedro, give me some time here. i wanted to try to -- there was a caller yesterday from florida and my first question -- i have two questions. the first question, the caller from florida a black woman who was pretty bigoted said the streak is full of evil -- supreme court is full of evil white southerners and to me i don't think any of the conservative justices are from the south. that's the first question. if you could answer. guest: justice thomas who is not white but is from the south, from georgia and perhaps

one of the more conservative justices. host: second question, john. caller: the other judges are from the south. the second question i have is on your title there supreme court rules that smest -- same-sex marriage is a right. the founding fathers -- and this is in the declaration, everyone thinking it's in the constitution but says they're endowed by their creator by certain unalienable rights. they believe that rights come from god. they didn't believe that rights come from the government. and what yesterday and this isn't about marriage but about the homosexual community wanting to be considered normal. what i would have arced and watched on c-span 2, the arguments, i was amazed the attorneys for the respondents did not mention anything about sodomy because please, pedro let me finish what i'm saying

here. everything i'm about to say has been said on network tv but to me i would have argued there's nothing natural about a penis being inserted into an anus and excreting the seed of life in an orifice whose primary purpose is to excrete waste. to me the whole idea, the whole act itself we're talking about sex, not about marriage. we're talking about how people have sex. and i don't understand why that argument was not made. guest: that argument has been made in the past but the supreme court explicitly rejected it in 2003. in 1996 there was a challenge to a sodomy law in georgia in a case of bauers versus hardwick and the court in a 5-4 vote upheld the sodomy statute and essentially said what john the caller said was that this is a practice that's been

disapproved for many, many centuries and of course states can criminalize it. essentially that moral disapproval of someone else's lifestyle is sufficient to make it a crime. in 2003 in a case called laurens versus texas, the supreme court overruled bauers versus hardwick, an opinion by justice kennedy that relied heavily on the dissent in 1986 and it said that the becausers case was wrong when decided and is wrong today and that moral disapproval is not enough of a justification to put someone in jail. and by taking moral disapproval out of the legitimate state interest that can justify discrimination essentially the dye was cast for what happened on friday because essentially john's point is really -- that is the real, i would say, core foundation of opposition to

same-sex marriage is the moral disapproval of homosexuality often justified by biblical phrases and similar sources. but once the supreme court has said that's not enough you need to have some other reason, some other reason that's beyond our religious belief or our own morality. then it became very difficult for states to justify this type of discrimination because from justice kennedy the right was not something as base as the right to commit criminal acts of sodomy, the right was that of the individual to be who he or she actually is and that this is a fundamental characteristic of a portion of the population and they are entitled to dignity like everybody else. that was the finding that that this was a -- and what they're seeking through an institution

such as marriage is not to undermine it but to be a part of it and to exercise the same rights that are related to what the dissenters, some of them ridiculed the highfalutin language he used but really about the opportunity for an individual to realize his or her own identity and to live as he or she actually is without being disadvantaged for it as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. the question is who is hurt by extending -- allowing same-sex couple to be married who is hurt by that and there was basically, as judge posner in the seventh circuit considering the same issue earlier said nothing. you've got nothing on the other side and no person who can stand here and say i'm hurt by this personally. host: fort lauderdale, florida. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro and mr. brazen.

i think it all rests on a couple pieces of history the people have chosen to have forgotten and one of the first ones is in the declaration where it says we're endowed with certain unalienable rights as the man said before and one of them is the pursuit of happiness. as far as i'm concerned, choosing your life partner and the decisions that will affect you for your life and even after, if that isn't part of the pursuit of happiness, if that isn't the part of goal of people to achieve happiness, i don't know what is. and the other one is brown versus board of education, the idea that separate but equal is a misnomer. the people against this want to make it separate and equal and haven't learned the lesson that separate but equal is always discriminatory. no one is hurt by this. i just don't understand the religious people that call in and scream about it when it says in leviticus if a man lie with a man it's abomination. it doesn't apply to adultery and should be taken to the edge

of town and stoned. i say to the religious people when they're ready to take bill clinton out to the edge of town and stone him to death for his adultery and every other adulterer in the community, it makes me sick when they talk about the harm. also, they talk about the power of god. if god is so annoyed at this, you'd think he'd stop it. this is just simple basic human rights. this is about someone you cared about for years laying in bed dying and you watch as the people in his life don't care about him or his or her come in and control his life when the person that matters most to him, meaning you, is not allowed to did that. host: a lot out there, we'll let our guests respond. host: 14 couples and two men whose partners had died was an illustration of what he believed was at stake. guest: he cited several of

those individual stories in his opinion. for instance, jim oberge: fell, the lead plaintiff someone whose partner of many years was terminally ill and could not get married in the state of ohio and flew on a medical plane to maryland which had by voter referendum approved same sex marriage and got married and came back to ohio john arthur his partner died and ohio would not let the survivor put his name on the death certificate. that was the injury. that's not a form of intercourse but a dig any dari harm that ohio in death erased this marriage. a u.s. army soldier had been deployed abroad and married in new york and transferred to an installation in tennessee which did not recognize his marriage and how can a state take

someone willing to "die for his country and erase his marriage for some abstract policy reason? so these personal stories are very important to justice kennedy and the majority in figuring out what in their view the stakes were that trigged these constitutional principles of equal protection and due process. host: kevin from kentucky, go ahead, please. caller: thank you, sir, for taking my call. on april of 2011, i was the victim of a hate crime. i was taken on a mountain, which is a state park in the state of kentucky and beaten almost to death and i only escaped once i was dumped off of that mountain after i had woke up being knocked

unconscious. i was the first person in the whole united states to have gone to trial through the federal system for the hate crime under the matthew shepard hate crime law and i just wanted to say that i'm proud of what our supreme court did and, you know all the religious arguments they put forth just like a caller before said about the stoning, it wasn't just you know, you worked on sunday, you were supposed to be stoned to death. if you plant two cups side by side and all kinds of other things. and it's just so interesting to me how people can say you have

to believe this what's wrote in the bible and you have to follow it letter to letter yet they all the time choose to not follow it letter to letter. when they don't like it and when they don't understand it and when they just -- they make of it an excuse, you know, saying well, this was just in bible days. host: ok kevin, thanks for kelling your story. mr. braden? guest: the dissenters did not cite the bible as their reason for dissenting and actually went the other way and they cited what they felt was a democratic principle and the question whether same sex marriage should be approved and belong to voters and legislators in the different states as opposed to making an appeal towards some sort of -- to god or bible or anything like that. maybe voters themselves would be motivated by their religious

views but not the dissent, didn't align it at all. other than to worry that religious objectors to same sex marriage might be villified or persecuted for refusing to go along. host: justice alito wrote those who cling to old beliefs will witness their thoughts in their home but if repeat those views in public will risk being treated as bigots and treated by employers and schools. guest: that's an interesting shift really for the argument of religious conservatives. initially laws that disadvantaged guys -- gays and lesbians were enacted and the insertion was this was a religious view and prevailing morality. and we are enforcing it against a deviant minority. and now it's sort of reversed. now it's we are a minority of religious objectors trying to avoid forced compliance with majority views in the country.

host: chief justice roberts talked about why the justices should be making this decision and not the states. what was anthony kennedy's views on state rights generally and how did that conflict with the decision he made yesterday? guest: justice kennedy's opinion in 2013, the u.s. versus windsor following the federal defense of marriage act had really two strands in it and it said that on the one hand it spoke about the damage inflicted on same sex couples by denying them federal benefits, the way their children cannot qualify for certain types of benefits, the health issues and so on, and the insults that they faced that their marriage was not recognized by the national government. and he said that traditionally states have made these kind of decisions and the federal government has put forth no justification for the first time ever almost, not accepting a state's own definition of

marriage. and that was a time there were about a dozen states that authorized same-sex marriage. one of the strands in that opinion was respect for states rights to define family domestic law which they traditionally have done. so there are two competing strands in that opinion, well, if it's all about states defining their own family law, states can define families as not including same-sex couples. so he made clear which was the dominant strand in friday's decision. sure states have the role in regulating their family law and domestic relations and so forth and have for centuries. but they can't do it if it infringes on fundamental rights that belong to individuals. that's what the 14th amendment is about, it prohibits states from doing that and the justices of the supreme court did in 1967 in the case of loving against virginia, the interracial marriage case, virginia had prohibited interracial marriage since the 17th century for more than 100 years before there even was a united states. nevertheless that was not

enough for that law to stand up when the supreme court finally chose to address it. host: mr. brazen from "the wall street journal" is next. joseph missouri, hello. caller: i want to make it clear, what homosexuals do in their own private life i don't care about. when they use this case and the government uses this case which they have, it silences the religious community and to punish them for not going along with what the government and the homosexual community wants, this is what the whole case is about. it was not about respect for marriage or love or any of that. that was made very clear during the arguments when the person representing the plaintiffs claimed that -- or was asked,

will you be using your tax powers to strip any churches that do not accept or promote gay marriage, they're taxed as and the answer was yes, that was the intent. so basically this is all about stripping us of our religious freedoms and rights. to speak out against what we believe is wrong. and that it will not stop with this, you can -- they will take it to opposing abortion or any government action we do not approve of, we can be punished and persecuted for it. that was the whole point. and also, i believe this opens up the door to many more obscene things like pedophilia. i'm afraid a pedophilia will

become the next people being discriminated against. host: thanks, david. guest: well, what david is talking about was a question from justice alito during the argument to the solicitor general, donald grilli representing the federal government about religious affiliated schools, not churches. we should clearly distinguish those. churches i think are in no jeopardy of losing their tax status. the question is what if it's an institution that's not purely religious but have some other function like a school, it might be church affiliated schools or religious schools and those schools provide a service and they are seeking tax ex-emmings and have various rules according to their view of morality and he was saying specifically about this precedent involving these white supremacist, schools from the early 1970's that lost their tax status and the solicitor general said well, that's a question and he certainly left open that door.

it's unlikely we will see any action in that regard for some time. we're talking about an i.r.s. regulation i think it's unlikely we'll see that any time soon. as far as pedophilia goes, that's a different category because by definition it involves children and children have a status children are not by -- it's a status that provides them and they cannot enter into a voluntary arrangement for illegal sexual relationships, so i would say that's -- i think david should rest easy on that concern. more as a legal question, maybe more serious question might involve plural marriages or polygamy, something chief justice brought up in his dissent and noticed polygamy has a much longer history than same-sex marriage in many cultures and still practiced today and is practiced in the bible for the bible callers.

and that he questioned what distinction the law could draw between authorizing a same-sex marriage and a plural marriage if the key question was the love and commitment of the partners and their desire for social acceptance and so on. the majority didn't respond to that and simply talked about it being a two-person union being unique. we'll see if there are any challenges there. but that might be a more serious type of legal claim because it more closely approaches the claim that we saw, the supreme court endorsed on friday. host: let's hear from david in massachusetts. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. to respond briefly to the caller who brought up the dictionary, i would remind them that webster goes through every year and picks out words that are no longer used, adds words that are new to the lexicon,

and it's a dynamic thing and words are changed all the time. so that's just on that. going back to same-sex marriage and the discrimination that people have felt for many years, i'm reminded of the film that i saw in a civics class in ninth grade and it was pretty much about parents teaching their children hate and it was you know a 5-year-old boy on screen with the family in the background and he had a toy gun under the parent said what is the gun used for? and the little child said it's for killing the n-words and the jews. and the homosexuals.

this is a taught thing. and i would say for the religious people, they ought to practice what they breach and be tolerant of others and understand that people don't have to fall their religion and it's a whole country and we don't all subscribe to their exact interpretation. thanks for the call. host: mr. bravin? guest: that's what the majority said, that today in the 21st century after a long history of repression and shame and help forced silence of the gay community, now they had been able to express themselves and live more openly and be true to their identities and they were a part of society and it's too

late to deny them this right which brings them into the full umbrella of constitutional protection. so basically the court said this social battle is over. that's pretty much what they had to say. that, you know, people can continue to sincerely believe that it's wrong and immoral they just can't enforce that morality through the law. host: from lebanon ohio. mario is up next. caller: good morning. first i want to congratulate you and probably the producer who scheduled mr. bravin should get a raise because he's really spot on. host: what about me? caller: he's quite the expert. first i want to say i can support the windsor decision and not support this decision and let me make my case. windsor said a state like ohio can