private property by the federal government. a history professor on how the memory of the civil war is affecting the current debate over the confederate battle flag. you can join a conversation by phone and on facebook. host: good morning everyone. here are your headlines. president obama intends to extend overtime pay to nearly 5 million workers. updating rule so that workers are earned more than $50,000 per year would be guaranteed time and a half when they work over 40 hours a week. meanwhile, in new jersey today chris christie will become the 14th candidate vying for the republican nomination this presidential cycle.

we will get started here this morning on the washington journal with your view of the death penalty. the supreme court narrowly allowed the execution drug used in some of these botched lethal injections in recent years. we will get your thoughts this morning. also, go to twitter at facebook.com/c-span and we can take your e-mail at journal@ cspan.org. phone lines are open. robert barnes writes that the supreme court turned aside claims by death wrote inmates that a drug would be -- would lead to an unconstitutional level of suffering. a narrow but unequivocal ruling

that made it clear that states had leeway in carrying out the death penalty. the issue gave way to a broader dispute among the court's nine members. can the ultimate punishment for the most read this act be at what -- equitably and humanely applied and confined to the truly guilty? your view of the death penalty. art joining in now. two justices who have been on the supreme court bench for decades wrote a long dissent saying it was time to take another look at weather the death penalty is constitutional. inside the washington post they say that justice samuel alito wrote for the majority of the challenge failed because they did not meet their burden of identifying a known and available eternity of method of execution.

he said that was required under the previous ruling upholding lethal injection. additionally, he said the plaintiffs had not proven that a massive dose entails the potential risk of severe pain. the court's determination -- they must identify and available at alternative means by which the state by which the state may kill them is indefensible. it is not only on this narrower case of the drug used but the larger question of the death penalty. betty in ridge new york, and independent. what do you think you go >> i am for the death penalty but in

very serious cases meeting multiple deaths. the older i get, the more i am against it. i am debating. i want to listen to other people , but i had a brother who was a police officer that was shot. and he lived. i want people to understand that there are people out there to protect us and they make exceptions, if you kill a police officer state trooper or other people in law enforcement. you can get the death penalty. i believe they deserve that. but if you're going to do it, do it right. if you're going to give an injection you have to make sure

that it is done quickly and safely. thank you. host: before you go, let me ask you about life without parole. take a look at this poll that was done. which punishment do you prefer? 43% said the death penalty and 48% life without parole. what do you think? caller: i cannot answer that because -- i feel in some cases especially when it involves children and families murdered together -- if it is two fighting over something and one shoots the other -- it is different. the you get what i'm saying? one deserves the death penalty. the other could be life in prison. but how many people can we hold. the murder rate right now is

outrageous. if we lock these people up and we have all of these people in jail for murder, first of all where do we put them at second of all, are you going to kill them all? there are a lot of different factors that come into it. you have to look at each case individually to determine whether or not you think that they deserve it. >> take a look at this map. these are the states with the death penalty in blue from usa today. the washington post says 30 states have either abolished the death penalty or not carried out an execution in eight years. only a third of the country's residents live in a state where they occur occasionally. pew research has put together this map. a source allows the use of execution drugs.

take a look at this map. since 1977, the number of executions have played out across the country. so where the death penalty has occurred and in which states. this goes all the way up to current day. this is a cumulative number of executions as of 2015. vincent and tulsa, oklahoma. good morning to you. caller: i am for the death penalty but i am against it if there is no reason for it. host: what do you mean? can you explain that? i guess we won't know. arthur and corpus christi, texas. what do you think? caller: i go for the death penalty.

in hideous, horrible crimes where an individual is likely to repeat again. as far as the drugs are concerned -- i don't know why they don't give them a massive shot of heroin. that is a pretty fatal way to go. host: ok. lloyd and arkansas. democrat. welcome to the program, what you think? caller: i think that i agree with the death penalty and i think if congress would pass a law that if you voluntarily take a life then you should give your life, it would stop a lot of the problems we have. i think putting a person in the penitentiary for life without

parole and no chance of getting out -- i think that is ridiculous. i think they should put them to death instead of that. host: let me bounce this off of you. this is "the new york times" editorial this morning. they cite justice breyer's dissent. justice breyer explained why the death penalty likely violates the eighth amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. it is unreliable. more than 150 people sentenced to death have been exonerated. it is arbitrary and the application depends on factors like race and geography. decades long delays negate the current affect. all but very few jurisdictions have abandoned it. what do you think, lloyd? caller: i don't think that race

should have anything to do with anything. i do agree somewhat with that but not all of the. host: william in maryland. independent. go ahead. william? you are on the air. we are talking about the death penalty. caller: did you say william or wayne? host: you're on the air. what is your name? caller: i am wayne from baltimore. if you committed a crime you should be executed. lethal injection is a joke. these guys commit heinous crimes these atrocities but then you put them to sleep just to execute them? bring back public executions and

hangings and let people understand that if you commit a crime like this you should be executed for it. if people see this, they will think twice. host: you don't think that lethal injection is a deterrent? caller: not at all. host: william -- wayne, excuse me in baltimore. time magazine did a story about this drug. they write that midazolam intended use is to cause drowsiness and relieve anxiety and it also causes memory loss. in the lethal injection cocktail it can replace sodium for pentyl or pentobarbital. joseph would receive 15 doses of an experimental drug domination that included the dazzle them --midazolam despite the dosage

it took almost two hours and he gag and choke the entire time. your view of the death penalty what do you think about it? independence (202) 748-8002. you can join the conversation on twitter. you can go to facebook.com/c-span or send us an e-mail journal@c-span.org. this is the washington times story about the court case yesterday trading sharp words. a deeply divided supreme court upheld the use of the drug yesterday even as two dissenting justices said for the first time they think it is highly likely the death penalty itself is unconstitutional. dan, what do you think? caller: good morning, greta.

my view on the death penalty is i do support it under limited circumstances and i believe the threshold should be higher than beyond a reasonable doubt. there are many cases of people should only receive life but there are some cases where there is no doubt about it in the crime so heinous that the death penalty should remain a punishment. host: what do you think about the tragedy in charleston, south carolina? the governor of south carolina nikki haley said yesterday that the accused shooter absolutely deserves the death penalty. it was pure hate. that is the headline. caller: i agree with nikki haley. it is clearly a case that he did it. he took nine lives and forfeited his own life. if i were to do that i would try

to have the honor to say i deserve to forfeit my life. like i say, i only believe in it when it is almost dead certain. mistakes can be made. in a case like that, i would say that man deserves the death penalty. he earned it and he should reap what he sowed. i also appreciate the people down there that could be forgiven. i try to be a christian but not as christian as i might be. caller: we will -- host: we will hear from another dan in south carolina, an independent. caller: i am against the death penalty solely on the reason of the inequities of our judicial system with rich and poor. when they begin to lock up the rich in the same exuberance that they do the poor even though the ones that deserve it don't go

then i would consider the death penalty tilt and it is too unequal. we have turned justice into a commodity and the more money you have the more justice you get. host: look at the reaction on twitter from representative evan brady. he tweeted out scotus rules in favor of lethal injection. texas will continue to put justice for victims and public safety first. representative keith ellison, i never supported the death penalty. bad business for the government to be in. any type of lethal injection is cruel and unusual. a liberal columnist, we cannot rely on scotus. we have to rely on the people and public opinion is gradually moving against it. the l.a. times this morning, curtis -- despite the vote yesterday shift is felt on the

death penalty. conservative justices give the go-ahead but opponents take justice right or effort dissent has a call to arms. -- justice breyer dissent as a call to arms. a new constitutional assault on the very foundation of capital punishment. the death penalty is an unfair and unusual. opponents took his word as a call to arms. richard in pennsylvania, a republican. you are on the air. >> i think that the death penalty is a deterrent and it should be used. should be given within a few months. but if a person commits murder, he or she should suffer the consequences. that is all that i have to say. host: you do think that it is a deterrent? caller: yes, it is.

host: why do you say that? that person they put to death won't be doing it again that is for sure. that is what i am saying. that is the deterrent. >> there have been some folks citing evidence that shows -- this is from box.com, the death penalty deters crime. experts: no, it doesn't. one of the top nonpartisan sources for information about capital punishment summarized at 2009 survey in which a large majority of criminologist isn't proving to deter homicide. nelson is next in miami, florida. what are your thoughts? caller: i am for capital punishment in someone murdered

your family, the problem is that euthanization is not a proper way to resolve the problem here it either you hang that murder but that is an appropriate way to sentence the criminal to death. caller: you don't think that -- host: you don't think that is cruel or unusual? caller: firing squad is proper. one bullet and you are done and you will not do it again. host: nelson, a democrat in florida. i tony, good morning. caller: this is my opinion. the death penalty doesn't seem to deter the crime of murder because murder here in chicago has got up dramatically, but there is a solution. to deter a crime of such a great

magnitude we need to part out oregon wise the guilty party. you take a kidney or like jeffrey dahmer, you give him an injection and he is missing one kidney. then the next day, you give him another injection and he is missing his right eye. host: we got the point i think. more than 100 death row inmates have been exonerated showing the death healthy is unreliable and it also is imposed arbitrarily. it takes to belong to carry out and has been abandoned by most of the states. the liberal justices joined retired john paul stevens in the courtroom monday and justice terry blackman calling into question the use of the death penalty. in 1972, the supreme court

struck down every state death penalty law. some justices believed that the time that this decision would end capital punishment. instead, many states wrote new laws. four years later the state reinstated the death penalty, a decision justice stevens joined at the time. we are talking about your view this morning. what do you think and keep dialing in. i also want to tell you what else the court decided. the supreme court agreed about taking a second look in admission decisions by the university of texas. reviving a potent challenge to affirmative action in higher education. the move which supporters called baffling and ominous signal that the court may limit or and such affirmative action. the arizona republic, the court's decision to protect the independent commission that drew

arizona's congressional map is a win for voters who wanted competitive elections. the court 5-4 sided with the character -- arizona independent redistricting commission. it was a win for the voters and direct democracy. they saw to and gerrymandering by putting the duty of drawing political lines in the hands of an independent commission. here is a decision that we will be talking about coming up. justices reject pollution rules saying cost should have been considered by the epa. we will talk about that coming up. and robert pear in the new york times, some charities get to avoid rules on birth-control coverage. the supreme court issued a rule on monday that allowed certain

nonprofit religious groups to avoid compliance with federal rules regarding insurance coverage of contraceptives for women and another decision by the court that is usa today. the divisive decision delays a texas antiabortion law. the order the supreme court put on this lot yesterday requires the implementation of the law requiring doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and requiring clinics to have facilities equal to surgical centers. a state that once had 41 abortion clinics was reduced to having nine. the decision produced as divisive. justice john roberts and antonin scalia, clarence thomas and samuel alito said they would deny the state application from abortion proponents.

but justice kennedy and the four liberal justices decided to put a stay on that law. we are getting let's hear from lenny. caller: i think the death penalty is a necessity. in california we voted. this makes -- i'm sure you've heard it before the death. people believe that because we did vote and it doesn't mean anything to our legislature. >> when did that happen? >> i don't know what you're it was. i believe it was six years ago that we voted to reinstate the death penalty and it was passed by the voters. yet we haven't executed anyone

intel or you are it so what is the sense in voting. i agree to a certain degree but until someone has been personally touched by a relative or sees the victim of a homicide, you don't understand the taking of a human life is -- that person needs to be punished to the ultimate length of the law. i don't have a problem with an injection. i don't know if you have been in surgery but i have been in surgery where i go out and i don't feel a thing. you just have to get a dose of something to stop the heart and the man is dead. that is humane. i am tired of liberal people and liberal thinking of housing these people for the rest of the life. we are in an economic state where we are hurting. i have never been on public assistance and i am now a retiree and i cannot hardly make it on what i heard and i was in

life for 25 years. >> california recently have a situation with a budget for prisons was so overwhelming that -- the you know what i am referring to? caller: the realignment of the prison system. they're putting criminals back on the street that unless violent and we are having such turnover -- these people are going right back to jail. they are arresting them all the time. arnold doesn't work, early release doesn't work. i agree with nonviolent crimes like narcotics and other things like that that dopers should be just put into some type of rehab situation as long as they are not violent, who cares? caller: -- host: let's hear from alan next. caller: good morning.

a funny thing to one guy said about putting him under and taking his eye -- that was sick. i am against the death penalty for several reasons. as a christian i find it hard that we would take a person's life. i know that people commit horrendous crimes at times, like jeffrey dahmer, but i don't know if it's consistent with christianity to take someone's life. and i saw at one time that it was cheaper to house the individual for life than to execute them because of all the appeals they go through with lawyers and the cost to taxpayers pay for. another issue that i have with it strongly is -- there are inequities in the prison system.

there are a lot of people that were unjustly incarcerated. they even stopped the death penalty for a while because there were people on death row that are innocent that were innocent and executed and i find that abominable. it is true that there have been innocent people executed because they did not have the wherewithal for decent lawyers or -- as one man brought in earlier, inequities because there are poor or the wrong color. host: alan with a few different viewpoints. we are getting your thoughts but joining us on the phone is the statehouse bureau reporter with the star-ledger, here to talk about chris christie's announcement today. let's begin with the theme of chris christie 2016.

what are they? guest: the theme of the campaign will be tell it as it is. the governors campaign and waiting as he was traveling through new hampshire, iowa and south carolina he had these tell it as it is town halls. now that we are just hours away from the official announcement it is clear that telling it as it is is what the campaign will be going with. host: where is he in the polls? as he entered this race becoming the 14th candidate, 13 others have already put their hats in the ring. they have been campaigning. where does he stand? guest: is a good question.

right now he stands not in a good position. a little bit more than a year ago, he was considered the front runner of the republican nomination. things have shifted quite dramatically for him. when he was considered the front runner there wasn't talk of folks like jeb bush running -- jumping into the race. now he is in a position where he has a pretty serious uphill battle if he wants to clinch the republican nomination. following the governor and talking with his folks. they will be putting a lot of time into new hampshire. that is an eight -- make or break state for him. if he can have a significant showing their his campaign will gain a lot of attention from that. maybe also with the debate that is another point where he needs to have a big strong showing in.

host: what about his popularity in new jersey? guest: it is tough to know how that impacts a presidential bid because governor christie isn't alone in this. in new jersey his popularity is at an all-time low. we have had a few polls come out that show his approval numbers and job approval has been ticking down. one of the most recent polls show that governor christie is at a low just below his predecessor who he unseated because of his popularity. it is hard to say exactly what affect that will have because you folks like scott walker who has his own troubles in the state. there is unpopularity back at home.

host: where do the investigations stand into governor christie? guest: at this point in service of that washington bridge scandal one person has pleaded guilty and two folks have been indicted on federal crimes. the two people indicted was a former top staffer to governor christie and bill moroney was governor christie's top appointee to the port authority. those folks are still awaiting trial. it is a little unclear about whether that will be transpiring or whether it will get pushed back after the election. in terms of ongoing investigation -- concerning the governor it is tough to say. the former top christie confidant -- it is clear is

being investigated. it is tough to say where things stand or when additional things could come down. host: why did the governor decide to get into this race? he is the 14th candidate and it is crowded, why get in? guest: the calculation is that he was floated as a person to jump into the race during the last cycle but ultimately decided not to. he ran for a second term and one a resounding victory but the governor is term limited out. he cannot run in new jersey again so it is kind of a tough position. he is a governor of new jersey right now and can easily do that. i don't know what your next move is in terms of how to state relevant so it sort of makes

sense that even though he is not in the best position that he has been in years that now is the time to do this. did the ship sail? that is a debate some can rightfully have but we will certainly know within the next few months, depending on how he does in new hampshire. >> and folks will be listening to what he has to say later this morning. thank you for your time? guest: thank you for having me. host: we will be covering the 2016 presidential announcement from chris christie and that will be here on c-span. speaking of 2016 news here is the financial times this morning. nbc cut ties with donald trump over his immigration remarks. the decision follows going -- growing public pressure to cut

ties with mr. donald trump. it or -- more than 200,000 people have signed a change.org petition calling on and bc cancel shows involving mr. trump. here is the response from mr. trump yesterday. if nbc is so weak and so foolish not to understand the serious illegal immigration problem coupled with her rent us and unfair trade deals then their contract violating closure will be seen in court. they will stand behind a private williams but one stand behind people that tell it like it is. the battle of the brands. promotion is the name of the game in gop presidential primary and one name trumps them all.

in the washington times, they have a piece about fundraising. jeb bush wanting to announce an overwhelming number when the fcc reports are made public july 15 and so his mother and father are getting involved. his father apparently pitching to donors on behalf of his son and warning supporters that his wife barbara is the enforcer telling them, trust me, you don't want her following up on this phone call. the washington post this morning has a lengthy piece about senator marco rubio, the former florida legislator's financial dealings throughout his history. they say that 80% of his total income came from florida law firms that lobbied state and local governments. much of the rest of his legislative salary typically

about $29,000 per year. while speaker of the state house, his salary went up to four -- $414,000 per year. some 2016 news this morning as we await the 14th republican candidate to jump into the race. david, an independent, back to our phone calls to all of you and what do you think about the death penalty? caller: my opinion is that in a clear case where we know who committed a heinous crime, such as the attack and charleston, i think the death penalty is the fair way of going about it. i would like to address a couple of objections. i know a lot of christians or religious folk might be against the death penalty but i would like to point to the families in the courtroom that forgave

dylann roof at the same time wanted him to meet god quicker. when it comes to a deterrent you cannot expect capital punishment to be a deterrent if it is being applied inconsistently. it is like disciplining a child. you have to apply it consistently in order for it to be effective. in terms of exoneration, there have been four people on death row but a lot of that is when you're on death row the state affords you the legal capabilities to defend your case. to make appeals. if you are on death of there is a good chance you would stay on death row because you are not given the chance to make an appeal. finally, when someone is put on death row and given an appointment like a date when they will be taken, that gives them a chance and usually an

incentive to make peace with themselves and god. i think that the death penalty is the right course of action in many crimes. host: sheila in misery, your thoughts? caller: i am against the death penalty for financial reasons. it costs $1 million plus when everyone goes through everything they need to do to get executed and it would be much cheaper to put them away. they get 23 hours per day in a cell to think about what they did. send them to alaska where it is nice and cold and they can get an hour in the cold to get their exercise that they need. there are no poor people executed and once you make the decision to execute you cannot go back.

host: brenda and jacksonville florida, what do you think? caller: i just heard the last color and i am baffled. i am a christian and to take a life you give your life. it's not fair because you have some people on death row are not supposed to be on death row because they didn't commit the crime. if someone goes and takes people's lives in a theater people looking at movies and they decide to take people out in schools, -- let me tell you something i have one child and he is a 35-year-old black male. i raised him. i didn't buy him guns to play with. because guns are real and they kill people so i tell people --

if my child takes a life, i will cry, i will grieve but he must give his life. especially if you know he did it. that young man in charleston, south carolina, those christians say they forgive him you didn't hear one say he should not give his life. you have to go back to his parents. i am so tired of psychiatrists getting on television and calling everyone mentally ill. why is it when a black person kill somebody -- when people come from overseas -- but when a white person kills someone fair mentally ill. come on. there isn't one man who walked the earth and gave his life for another -- that is jesus christ. he committed no crime but he had two thieves on the cross with committed crimes and killed.

when they are sitting to minister to them about christ they could have eternal life if they seek christ and rick sent -- repent but if they take a life and you know they did it, they need to give their life and that is all i have to say. thank you for having me on. host: some other headlines. the front page of "usa today," the tao dropped -- dow dropped worse in two years but they say the contagion is likely to be contained because greece is a relatively flat spec in the global economy. the gross thomistic product of connecticut. -- domestic product of connecticut. the biggest fear is that so-called grexit would foment

fears of similar moves by anti-austerity activists in countries such as italy and spain. in the wall street journal on this, john hills and wrath with the headline that this global turbulence could delay the fed on raising interest rates. officials signaled they expect to raise rates in 2015 after keeping them near zero for almost seven years. officials say since they are gathering september could be the time for liftoff. however they could wait longer to move if the dollar surges slows economic growth or broader financial market instability following the recent turmoil. puerto rico saying that they faced a $72 billion default. they cannot pay their debt. some other headlines for you across the world.

also in the front page of the washington times this morning. and in washington today, the president will have a joint news conference with the brazilian president. that is at 12:00. we will have coverage of that on c-span two. russia and iran are facing hard choices and syria is near a tipping point. will russia and iran align with assad or will they try to form moderate forces to topple the assad regime so it doesn't go into the hands of the factions of jihadists moving to that country. then there is this in the financial times related the story -- jordan has decided to map out a southern serious security zone to deter isis landgrab. people familiar with the situation say jordan is also considering a militarized zone

to segregate the buffer area. it will be manned by fighters in the anti-assad rebels in southern brigades and the jordanian military will provide support. international coalition members are expected to give behind-the-scenes military support but it is unclear if the u.s. will sanction the move. then this on iran nuclear talks. the u.s. is telling iran that the preliminary deal must stand. that deadline is today. that will come and go. united states and its negotiating partners are no longer trying to meet the original tuesday deadline. american officials hope to conclude the agreement so it can be submitted by july 9 to congress which would then begin a 30 day review period and congress will get to vote on

whatever the sites come up with. a couple more calls. moses in fayetteville, north carolina. you are on the air. >> good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i have no problem with the death penalty. only one thing like the situation in charleston, south carolina. the men confessed that he did all that but so many innocent people's lives have been taken and later on dna found out they did do it those people are dead and their loved ones will not see them again. it would be better to give them a life sentence in case they come up with evidence later on. to enjoy them because every day people are coming off of death row because later they find out those people were innocent. host: moses is a democrat in

north carolina, surely is republican. caller: i spoke to someone a few minutes ago, but what i think is that i believe in the death penalty. host: we are listening. you believe the death penalty. you are on the air, don't look at your tv. caller: i believe in the death penalty yes i do and -- host: unfortunately we will have to go. just a reminder that when it is your turn to talk speak into the phone and turned on the tv because otherwise it is confusing. we will talk with bob dean of the national resources defense council on epa air pollution rules. later, the law professor illya

somin discusses private property and the government's right to seize private property. the former cia deputy director along with the washington columnist david ignatius for discussions in the ongoing efforts and challenges for combating isis. >> looking at the iraq syria theater is different, too. in iraq they have a significant number of foreign platforms. it makes common sense that the closer you get to the target the easier it is to recruit and collect intelligence. there are still significant possibilities from which the can launch and it is my understanding that it is never good enough but there are collections that are solid. i do this from my soapbox. in the intelligence business there are secrets and mysteries.

my example of that is to remember the young fruit vendor who set himself on fire in tunisia. there is no one on the planet for the universe who knew what was going on in his head when he decided to set himself on fire. there are mysteries taking place in terms of what isis decided to do and their ability to close their ranks. i use my example of the bolsheviks. don't forget that espionage is still punishable by imprisonment but but isil's is -- isis is punished by horrific death. when you as we do their lives and their families lives in jeopardy it is not that easy to say whatever you want, happy to help in keeping and mind when you're thinking about intelligence. syria becomes an even more difficult challenge. host: you can watch the entire

event if you missed it yesterday. u.s. strategy on our website. we are now turning our attention to the supreme court decision yesterday. they ruled against the epa and deans is here with us. the director of strategic engagement. mr. deans, let's begin with what was this case? and what is the impact of the decision? there are two pieces, the first was should we be protecting our air health and people from very dangerous pollution coming from the power plants. we are talking here about chemicals like mercury, arsenic, chromium and acidic gases that can cause all manner of cancer, brain damage, lung disease. the court left untouched that question. of course we should protect

people against that. the question is how do we go about setting up those standards? with the court said was that the epa must look at a cost benefit ratio. we are happy to do it because the benefits far outweigh the cost. we will get up to nine dollars and public health benefits for every one dollar we spend cleaning up the pollution. host: the power plants on the other side said the epa didn't even take into consideration a cost of $9 billion up front. why didn't they do that? guest: they did do the analysis and various stages and looked at cost and benefit. that is where they came up. $9 billion to clean up our air but we will get $90 billion every year in health benefits. 11,000 avoided premature death every year.

5000 heart attacks avoided every year. 500,000 lost days at work every year. when you add it up it is $90 billion of potential health benefits. host: here is "the des moines register" iowa conservatives led by their governor celebrated the supreme court ruling on powerplant emission rules as i win over the epa saying they hope the agency will begin taking a more measured approach. here is a quote from the governor's office. the governor is hopeful that the supreme court ruling will encourage the epa to reconsider other misguided decisions like the cut to the fuel standard that will cut jobs, increase income and increase our dependence on foreign oil. guest: we hope the people of oil will be suffering from mercury in the air and the fish that the eat. the good news about iowa is that

they are way ahead of the rest of the country in wind element. wind turbines are providing more than 20% of all the electricity in iowa. we know in this country that we can get 35% of all our electricity by 2030. host: for this rule, when did they put it in place? what is the precedent for yesterday's decision by the court for rules already in place and coming? guest: the plants were supposed to be in compliance by april and about 70% are in compliance. so the industry has moved on and accepted that we need to protect people from these dangerous chemicals. some parts of the industry or not. the peabody coal company for example and others were asking

for special treatment in the precedent for this rule goes back 25 years. this was the way that epa had been controlling pollution. the kind of got it but it is a good rule that reflects a good cost-benefit ratio and we expect it to stand. host: will they continue with the rule? guest: absolutely. but they said was a federal district court should work with the epa to work this out. the did not vacate the rule and so it stands for now. host: take a look at what justice scalia wrote. epa's decision to regulate power plants allowed the agency to reduce powerplant emissions of hazardous air pollutants and thus to improve public health. epa refused to consider whether the cost of its decision outweighed the benefits.

the agency gave cost no thought at all because it considered it irrelevant to the initial decision to regulate. guest: the epa has produced a cost benefit analysis that has been a matter of public record for quite a while. everyone should take a look at that but let's remember that almost every regulation written in this country is subjected to a cost-benefit analysis at the regulatory agency and separately at the white house office of management and budget. they have two dozen economists who do nothing but assess cost-benefit regulations and what we find year in and year out is that the benefits vastly outweigh the costs especially when it comes to the clean air act. host: "the wall street journal" has a piece this morning. mercury falling. three presidents have attempted to regulate mercury and other air pollution from power plants. talk about the history.

guest: the fossil fuel industry spent in this country more than $720 million over the past two years to support allies in congress. that is a lot of money and a lot of influence and unfortunately we have been dragging our feet. mercury is a serious brain poison that affects children, particularly if a pregnant mother eats fish with mercury it can go right into the brain of the fetus. for a young child who's developing brain is affected by a small amount of the poison it can affect them for life. in addition to mercury, we getting 50 tons in our power plants, a thimble full of mercury can contaminate a lake. this is a serious room and it needs to be addressed and it is shameful that this industry has been tracking its feet on needed protection that has real benefit

and real cost. host: we are talking with bob deans and the officer of this book, "the world we create." let's talk about the climate -- climate agenda. the court ruled against the epa yesterday but what is next? guest: what is next is at the epa will propose its final rule on the president's clean power plan and that will reduce the dangerous carbon pollution from power plants. these fossil fuel burning power plants are the single largest contributor of the dangerous carbon pollution driving climate change. 40% of our footprint is coming from these. the president's clean our plant will do that. it will reduce the carbon 30% by 2030. we think that we can do better

and we hope that we will that we have to start somewhere. host: if the united states does that what about the other countries around the world? will it make an impact? guest: it will because our friends around the world are watching what we are doing and the european union has pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2030. what china has said is that it will peak greenhouse gas emissions no later than 2030. they announced today that they will peak even sooner. we will start right here doing what is right for our people and that is what the presidential clean power plan is all about. host: why is china making the announcement today? guest: the united states is having a high level event to t up -- tee up high level talks in

november. where all these nations from the united nations can come to strike a blow against the central environmental challenge of our time. host: what will the president say and the administration say? guest: what this president will say is that we are doing three things. we are cleaning up dirty power plants and cars. we have a new rule in place that will double gas mileage to almost 55 miles per gallon that cuts our carbon footprint in half. we are also investing in energy efficiency so we can do more with less waste. that's what he will be talking about. this president has done more to cut our carbon footprint than any other leader at any time on the face of the planet and we are proud of that record. host: george in michigan, an

independent, what do you think? caller: you must be kidding me. the financial situation in michigan is terrible. we have no manufacturing. no plants. we used to be the center of the world but that is all gone. the epa says, you are not cleaning up enough and you have to do more. they're trying to shut down undo clear power plant in the area -- nuclear power plant in the area. costs are skyrocketing. people cannot afford electricity anymore. host: let's talk about the rates going up. guest: i appreciate the call and michigan has no doubt had some tough times. here is the good news, general motors has invested more than half a billion dollars recently in new battery technologies, new

electric and hybrid vehicles. the chevy cruz and diesel can get 50 miles per gallon. the chevy volt. the chevy spark. that little guy can get the equivalent of 110 miles per gallon in their i think there is a little bit of confusion out there. the republican party is constantly blaming the epa for the situation with the economy. let's get this clear. we have decades of data to show this. government regulations of all kind to not cost jobs. they are responsible for less than .3% of all job layoffs. we have hard data from the bureau of labor statistics. host: what about cost to consumers? guest: the power plant will save families $103 per year on

average. that is an independent analysis done by one of the top economic firms. host: how is that? will they either the costs of changing technology? guest: one of the cheapest and quickest ways to cut our carbon footprint is for utilities to help invest in efficiency. when we fix our leaking windows and upgrade our appliances and utilities help us to do that, we will reduce our consumption in a way that will actually reduce overall bills. host: a look at the overall reaction to yesterday's's decision by the core, the caller was from michigan and he said the report agree we can and must find a constructive balance protecting the environment and continuing michigan's economic comeback. robert is a democrat. you're on the air. caller: thanks for taking my call.

just talked about money and income. i have a comment and a question real quick. years ago, there was a woman who worked and i cannot remember her name, at the epa. for years, they were doing blood tests on pregnant women to their arms. she had the uncanny idea umbilical fluid test. she came up after her study came up with young fetuses and young children, 10 times more mercury than the women's lead system who were pregnant. in other words there was multiple effects in the mercury going into developed fetuses and brains. epa went from 650,000 estimate

the fetuses at risk to more than double that. why isn't the people who are antiabortion or pro-life, if they concentrate on the fetuses and the terrible damage the mercury is causing and harming young fetuses -- secondly, the organization which i definitely send money to often, why can't they have lawsuits followed by women or children with brain damage and disabilities? guest: thanks, robert. i think the call goes directly to the danger of these power plants. what happens is, it gets in the air and then it falls down in our streams and gets into the fish. every state in the union greta has some kind of fish that has

some kind of a warning that you should not be eating this fish too much because of mercury concentrations. every bit of it is coming from power plants. that is exactly what this epa rule will do. host: where's the evidence of direct correlation? guest: the power plants spewing six tons of mercury are the largest source of mercury in our atmosphere. we find these levels at elevated levels in lakes and streams particularly if they are in a few mile radius of the power plants. then we get into the future -- the food chain. you can find warnings for specific kinds of fish in their

tissue has it does in their unborn child. host: don, a republican. caller: good morning. can you hear me? i want to make a comment about mercury. first, global warming. i used to believe in global warming but i don't anymore. there are at least thousands of videos, films, documentaries on youtube, global warming hoax, literally, people, go do your homework and look at the evidence out there. the percent of climate scientists who believe there is anthropogenic global warming, it is less than 40%, i believe.

and 90 7% number has been proven a front. about mercury, a doctor the other day said the government is still allowing mercury -- true vaccines are we allowing fascinations with mercury in them to be put in our bodies and bloodstream? guest: thanks so much, don p let me deal with the vaccine question. about 12 years ago, we got mercury taken out of almost all of the vaccines. the flu vaccine, for some reason, mercury was retained in it and now today, about half of the flu shots you get out there have mercury and about have to not. -- half do not. we want to make sure our flu shot does not have mercury in it. i appreciate you raise in that. thank's for the piece on

climate. i hope people do homework as well. the 97% figure, 97% of the climate scientists who make their living knowing all about our climate will say this. the climate is changing, the planet is warming, and the main driver for this is the dangerous carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels. that has been established. whether you believe the scientists or not, look at your window. 2014 was the hottest year on record. since global met -- measurements began 105 years ago. the 16 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1997. we have lost one third of arctic sea ice. the climate is changing. all the rest of it we are paying a high price for climate change right now.

that means cutting the dangerous carbon pollution driving the global surge. host: david welcome to the conversation on our line for democrats. caller: thank you. i would like to ask your guests about a car called honda clarity. it is a hydrogen powered car. would you know anything about that? honda clarity. guest: i am sorry, i am not familiar with it. i know hydrogen fuel cells are very promising. i know toyota has got one very near to market if not out by now. i know our own countries in detroit are taking a good hard look at this technology even as they continue to produce the best electric and hybrid cars anywhere in the world. it is exciting and encouraging. it will definitely be driving job growth. new kinds of cars and new

technologies that will get us better gas mileage and create a healthy future for our children putting our people back to work. we need to be not on the sidelines but at the forefront of the technology. host: who can afford these cars? guest: that is a good question. in them for hybrid or all electric technology or the great thing is the prices are coming down. similarly, the prices of solar and wind are coming down dramatically. falling by more than half the just the past five years. it is very exciting and it is changing everything. of the last three years, more than 40% of all the new electric generating capacity in our country has come from wind and sun. more than 40%. in the first five months of the year, 63% of all of our new electric generating in this country came from solar and wind.

that is exciting. host: philadelphia, bob, and independent. caller: good morning, i wonder if you are aware, one of the professors that took on the case was obama's law professor. he said the reason he took on the case was "we need to stop this lawlessness" because the president does not have the authority to write an executive order to tell the epa what to do. that is wrong, so we need to stop it. that is why obama's law professor took on the case. i just wonder what you think about that. guest: i would not present to get into that relationship. i know he is being compensated quite handsomely for helping the peabody call company on this issue per i will leave that between the two of them. i will say congress passed the

clean air act 45 years ago with majorities in the democratic and republican side of the aisle. it was signed into law by rick said -- richard nixon to protect us and protect the quality of our air paired it will save hundreds of thousands of lives. one of the most successful laws ever written. what the epa's doing is forcing -- enforcing the law congress passed precisely as congress directed the law to be enforced. that is what is going on. host: a look at the wall street journal editorial today. the supreme court -- this is what they write. justice thomas's concurring opinion deserves a larger audience. he makes the provocative case that the court's's 1984 decision in chevron, the natural resources defense council, is

unconstitutional. the chevron -- the executive interpretations when laws are ambiguous. this has become a license for the executive pieces legislative power. that they are supposed to be invested in congress. guest: that court case has stood for decades. anyone who wanted to challenge it was free to do so. regardless of what any justice may say, we have a balance of power in the country or the president is the law enforcer. he did not create the clean air act. he cannot. congress did. the president is enforcing the law precisely as he was directed to do so by congress. anyone who doubts it is free to take it up with the courts. host: richard in new york, a republican. caller: that is upstate new york. you are just touting how great solar and wind power are.

could you tell me the percentage of wind farms in the united states that have filed for bankruptcy in the last two ears? guest: good question, richard. i do not know the answer to that. i do know they have been expanding. i have an out to colorado and kansas and been out to the situation there and talked to farmers and ranchers out there. wind turbines are not only providing clean and reliable electricity, but they're helping to keep that family farm and ranch in tact. that is important to the farmers in texas and colorado and elsewhere. in new york, there has been controversy about wind farms. i do not know if that area affects you in anyway. all this stuff needs to be reckoned -- rectified and make sure everybody is sharing the benefits. we have seen texas panhandle where little towns are building schools or fixing roads on tax revenue being generated from the

new wind turbines. it is helping the economy, it is helping to drive texas right now, getting more than 8% of its electricity right now from those wind turbines. that is where we are headed. host: reaction from our audience on twitter -- guest: the court will have broad flexibility in how it handles this with the epa to work it out. but again, what is really important here is the epa has already shown us the benefits will outweigh the costs by up to eight to 821. that is a bargain. that is a sound investment in our children's health and future. we need to make that investment. host: mercury in the air -- guest: mercury is a problem.

others will come out that is reduced by this rule as well. nickel, these cost cancer -- cause cancer. acidic gases that cause lung damage, respiratory ailment, they can lead to heart attacks and asthma attacks. this will be a good law. host: -- guest: i am not sure i agree with rick at what we do in the united states is puny. we are about to celebrate the fourth of july. we are about to celebrate our beginnings as independent people. the stories we tell each other, the aspirations we share this is what we know about america. there is nothing that we cannot do as americans. we will do what is right for our

people in this country. let's remember this about china. china is doing something no country in the history of the world -- they are removing hundreds of millions of people from poverty to the middle-class. there are costs associated with that weird we hope the costs will be minimal. working with china for more than 20 years to try to improve their environment and health. prosperity for their children. china's challenge cannot the an excuse for inaction in the country. it is not the way america works, especially this week. host: what influence with the pope passes message on climate change have on other countries that could be listening to him? guest: huge. there are more than one billion catholics in the world to more than one billion protestants

around the world who also pay quite a bit of attention to leadership in spiritual matters. the science speak for itself. homes are damaged. disease is spread. extreme heat waves are killing people in pakistan and india and elsewhere around the world. who hurts worse? people on the front lines, often the lower income people who do not have the resources to live anywhere else but on the front lines. it is a moral imperative that we act to protect future generations against this challenge care people are looking to the pope because while the science may speak for itself, faith guides us in how we respond to what is happening in the world. host: the pope will be coming to the united states in september. this climate change conference.

guest: i am not sure whether he is going but he will adjust climate in september and right here in washington in september. we expect he will be just as clear to the congress in that address as he was two weeks ago. host: in portland, connecticut, democrat, hi, marcia. caller: i am 73 years old and have always been an environmentalist. proud to be called a tree hugger. there are deniers of climate change that will say, well there will always be weather patterns and cycles, cold and hot. possibly for the last thousand years. recently, the past to 70 or 80 years, enter man. enter massive corporate pollution and weather patterns will go off the chart. i want to leave something for my grandchildren but i want to ask the question about 12 years ago on c-span, there was a

representative from the environmental group, and they were addressing mountaintop removal. companies blow off the tops of mountains as a cheaper way to get to coal, causing all this mountaintop removal to fall down. the breeze and rocks go into the waterway community below the mountains, literally destroying these communities. could your guest address this and what is being done about this terrible practice? guest: it is a great question. mount have removal is when a coal company will dynamite the top off of these mounds. some of the oldest mountains in west virginia, just so they could get to a single piece of coal. just a few years ago, the coal company was trying to blow off the top of a mountain and it was going to use rubble, which is

talks is -- toxic, and bury eight miles of those extremes anywhere in west virginia. the army corps of engineers said go ahead and do it. epa stepped up and said, authority over this, the epa worked with the coal company for over a year to come up with a better way to come up with that rubble in the coal company said, you know what, we will do it anyway. epa said, you will not. they pulled the permit. they stopped that horrendous project. standing up for this country in precisely the way it was to do 45 years ago. that is what we need more of. host: is the practice stilwell used in the country? guest: fort leigh, it is still

going on. we have been opposed to it for a long time. we are doing everything we can. the people of west virginia are rallying to do whatever they can. let's be clear. coal mining is not what it once was. there are about 80,000 coal miners in the entire country. if you go to wyoming where most of the call is coming from, there are not a lot of workers. it is machinery. those 80,000 jobs are important but we have two large thousand people in this country who get up every day, suit up, go to work help us get more power from the wind and sun. those jobs are important. they are the jobs of the future. we need to connect the opportunity of the future to the talents and skills of the 80,000 coworkers and transition so they have a brighter future. that is what is happening.

full of wind turbines. teaching people how to maintain those in west virginia university is one of the nation's leaders in new manufacturing technology. our companies can be among the most competitive anywhere in the world. host: carol, an independent. is that the name of your town? "look out, california?" caller: yes. anyway this climate change, we have four seasons. the sun is what determines our cycle in what is going onto a want to talk about carbon dioxide. if you do not have carbon dioxide, there would be nothing alive on this earth.

it takes carbon dioxide to tell your brains to tell your lungs to take a breath of oxygen. you exhale carbon dioxide. the trees and plants love carbon dioxide. they put out oxygen so we can live. when i was a kid, it was carbon monoxide that was a danger. without carbon dioxide, there would not be anything alive on the earth, in the ocean, or in the sky. you know that. this is the agenda. crippled american economy. i live on seven -- $7.50 a month p i cannot afford utilities as the president said we have. it is a lie to control the public, the people. if we can take -- break everybody and get us down on our

knees, begging the government for food, that is communism and that is the agenda. thank you very much. guest: that is not the agenda. host: how do you respond to her going through historically gases, chemicals that have been a problem. guest: carbon monoxide remains a problem. carbon dioxide is a different kind of problem. we are talking about industrial carbon dioxide pollution. carbon pollution that is driving up temperatures of the planet and has increased average global temperatures 1.5 degrees fahrenheit over the century. the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are over 400 parts per million, the highest level they have been in at least 1200 years. we know what is happening in our planet. industrial level -- revolution has choked our atmosphere full of dangerous carbon pollution. we have changed our climate and the repercussions are being seen

globally. we need to turn it around and prevent dangers from apparently our children's future. host: tim from illinois on our line for republicans. caller: almost 81 years old. i have also seen a lot of changes in this world. the biggest hypocrites in the global warming are you guys who have these homes, 25,000 square foot, they fly all over the world in their private jet. obama has traveled more miles than private jets. you know that is true. all you rich people with fabulous homes, i have never lived in a home with 2000 square

foot. i do not want to pollute the earth, i do not want anything to happen to the great country of ours. but it is happening to this great country of ours because of guys like barack obama. host: we got your point. guest: i appreciate the perspective and the wisdom and the long view that you have taken here and the change that we have seen. my view, i will share it personally but i speak for the nrdc. we do not see this as a blue or red issue. we speak for everyone across the country. there was a time for most of history, importantly, the history of this country when that is the way it has been seen. teddy roosevelt, a republican president, is the greatest conservation is to ever inhabit

the white house. dwight d. eisenhower set-aside the national wildlife refuge. richard nixon set up the epa. ronald reagan helped us to get led out of our gasoline. george h.w. bush strengthened the clean air act. the republican party has a long history of responsible environmental stewardship. what is happened in the past few years is the party has become your captive of the fossil fuel industry in a way that is great for the shareholders of the fossil fuel industry and horrible for the rest of us. it needs to change. we are about trying to restore the bipartisan majority for the environment for the good of the country so we have better jobs, and a healthier future for our children. that is our agenda and that is what we are about it is all we do p or i appreciate the call. host: here in d.c., a democrat.

caller: a great conversation. i want to add one more point about the pollution from coal. metals and other small particulars are, it has been documented from everything from asthma to on disease to heart disease. now, mother jones magazine came out and they are talking about research showing the fibers in your nose for smelling, it is acting like a pathway for small metal articulate to get into the brain. what happens then is the immuno response in the brain attacks us -- the fibers and nerve endings in the brain. long story short, is increasing alzheimer's and dementia. those are in the hundreds and

hundreds. i do not want to live the last 20 years in my life drooling in a bucket in a wheelchair and the corner because some guy wants to make a little more money on: pumping it into the atmosphere. host: all right. guest: i appreciate that. where the rubber meets the road is this. if i can make more profit by dumping my trash in my neighbor's yard, the market is not going to compel me to stop. that is why we need commonsense laws that say, you will not be doing that. these health costs have been externalized for decades if not generations. that is what we are trying to record -- rectify. host: in wisconsin. caller: hi. i want to bring something's up. our system needs to be replaced.

create these new forms of energy. secondly, liquefying coal. when a person supposedly as mercury in the system, how do they determine that? with a blood test or hail analysis? how do they do that? i would like to know. guest: first of all, it does need to be updated. as we move forward, we are finding our system is more than keeping up with it and the reliability is there. the system does need to be updated. it is part of the system we need to create, and a lot of it. as far as analysis there are

various ways. you can take it from tissues, from blood when the epa analyzes mercury levels in fish, they tend to take it from the tissue of the fish. host: thank you for talking to our viewers this morning about the climate change agenda. coming up next, we will take a short break and then talk about another supreme court decision. that is one done with eminent domain. law professor ilya somin will be here to discuss the 10 year anniversary of that. then later we will talk to a universal -- a loft fester talking about the civil war and how the memory of that conflict is in debate over the confederate flag. right after the break. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] \ ♪ >> partnering with our cable affiliates as we travel across

the united states. join us as we learn about the literary life of omaha nebraska, one of america's advocacy groups fighting for equality. >> omaha had a reputation in the united states as a city that when you came in and you're black, you needed to be aware of it. you are not going to be served in restaurants or hotels. the term civil rights, they used the term social justice because civil rights was not part of the national lexicon at the time. the idea of civil rights was so far removed from the idea of the greater community of omaha or the united states. they were operating in a vacuum. the four groups not the prior experiences of other groups to

challenge racial discrimination and segregation. >> we look back to the union pacific and how the construction of the union station helped omaha's economy. >> one of the railroad compass of america founded with the at sign into law with -- by abraham lincoln. a combined several railroad companies to make union pacific. the transcontinental railroad would connect the east and west coast. they started here moving west and central pacific started on the west coast and was in the east. they met up in utah. that is really what propels us even farther. we have become that point of moving west, one of the gateways to the west. >> see all of our programs on omaha saturday at noon eastern. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3.

>> washington journal continues. host: ilya somin is a law professor at george mason university law school. author of this book --"the grasping hand: kelo v. city of new london and the limits of eminent domain"." 10 years ago, the supreme court ruled that under certain circumstances, it was except will for the government to seize private property known as eminent domain. explain this case. >> what this case was about with when the government can seize your land for various purposes, the constitution says it can only be for public use. in this case, what you had going on was the government seizing 15 residential properties for the purpose of giving them to a private developer to promote economic development at least supposedly. the question is, is that a public use given to a private party?

ultimately, the supreme court in a close decision said that it was because in their view, public uses just anything that might potentially benefit the public in some way. even if the government does not prove that the benefit will actually materialize. host: why was this included in the fifth amendment? what constitutes public use? guest: the simple answer, it is included because james madison wanted to be there. he played a big role in drafting the fifth amendment. i think the deeper reason is while in some cases it may be necessary for a government to take fiber property, the founding fathers and americans throughout most of our history were very suspicious of the idea that the government should just be able to take your property for any reason. host: in this case, what could they point to in this decision to say, yes, this is a public use? guest: two things.

first, they pointed to presidents going back to 1950 was already set public use could be almost as in the government said it was feared i think those precedents were wrong but they were on the books. the second thing they said as well, the city has a plan. they called it a carefully considered plan. they said we judges are not very good at figuring out whether or not is a good plan. we will defer to the city of x is. -- experts. guest: what happened in new london? guest: sadly the plan was not as good as the justice thought it was. today, 10 years later, nothing has been built on that site. the only regular users of this our cats. there is now a plan to build a memorial on the site for the victims of eminent domain. if that happens, it will be

development of a sort but not quite the kind of development expected and promised. host: editorial on june 23 this year, hard to blame them for trying. -- -- guest: i do not blame them for wanting to promote the velma appeared i'm not against development paradigm against trying to develop in a way that destroys peoples existing homes and businesses and in the long run actually -- actually tends to cause economic harm rather than benefit, which is exactly what happened here and also in many other cases throughout american history since we have moved to the doctrine that public use can be almost any can the government says it is 60 years ago or so. host: what are some other cases? guest: since the 1940's in the

united states, several million people have been forcibly displaced by economic development condemnations and in places which have used these extensively, there has been a norm is harm to the local economy. a great example is the city of detroit, one of the biggest users of these historically. it went bankrupt just a couple years ago. i'm not saying it was solely because of eminent domain, but the destruction of property rights and deriving a many businesses and residents this way and undermining the security of the property certainly helped contribute to the decline. there are sadly many other similar examples. not quite as instrument detroit but still quite bad. host: we're talking about the government passes right to seize private property with law professor ilya somin. "the grasping hand: kelo v. city of new london and the limits of eminent domain" -- why write an

entire book about this case? guest: most supreme court cases only experts like me pay attention to them. this had enormous interest in it. in addition, it really triggered an enormous debate over the question of when the government can seize private property, a question most of my fellow legal experts taught was settled before it i wrote the book because of the importance of the case and also to challenge the conventional wisdom among my fellow law professors and other experts, most of whom at least until -- believed this was an open and shut issue whereas i believe that decision was badly wrong and so are many decisions leading up to it. host: you point to the debate after the court may their decision 10 years ago, that it went back to the states. 45 states wrote laws dealing with eminent domain. what were some of the laws put on the books?

guest: enormous evaluation. in some cases, they said they would prevent the kind of things that happened in the kelo case one private vigil -- individual and giving it to another, in the hope the new owner might provide development. we would ban that are others had other kinds of reforms the limiting condemnation, the idea we think your property is blighted, we will take it and give it to somebody who will clean up the blight. in many states, blight was defined so broadly that almost any other property could be preparing blight. other states, said they, perhaps a slight majority of those reforms had only cosmetic changes that pretended to a dress the problem but failed to do so. overall, in at least 19 or 20 states, we are much that are off than we were before. ironically, the situation before was so bad that even a defeat for the property rights side of

the supreme court led to more progress than probably would have occurred otherwise. host: what happens to the people who own these properties in these areas? where do they end up? guest: they get compensation but at most, fair market value. studies show they do not even get that and in many cases end up having to leave the key -- the community entirely and rebuild their lives somewhere else. they may quit jazz and lose social ties depending on the situation. many of these people end up significantly worse off than they were before. a significant disruption to a significant disruption to life to have your home condemned or in many cases are small business. host: if they were to take the fight to the ballot box, what happens? they cannot go against the people who decided their fate to begin with. guest: it is a good point. the supreme court historically

once said what we really need judicial review for -- minorities who cannot protect themselves in the clinical process. it is interesting that if you are a person forced out of the community entirely you may not even be able to protect yourself in the process in a very minimal sense of being able to vote in the next election against the people who approve the condemnation of your home. more generally, most people targeted for these takings are relatively poor and politically weak. a majority of them are in many cases probably ethnic minorities. they tend to have not a lot of political clout even in cases where they are still around to vote. host: since 10 years ago when the court decided, has the court taken up more cases and how have they decided? guest: they have not heard another case on the meaning of public use. not completely surprising as they often go 20 or 30 years without taking a case in this

scenario. there has been a jurist resolution in his area because several state supreme court's have considered the issue of whether, under the state constitution, kelo should apply to state public use provisions in almost all of them have said no, we do not agree, we do not think kelo is a good guide here. after kelo, there is disagreement not just in the general public but in judges legal scholars, experts in the field. the consensus before kelo has been broken p optimistic that over time, the court may overrule kelo or significantly limit it in the future. host: recently judges have rolled fez cannot seize raising crops. is this related? guest: only distantly related but in a deeper way, it is related aired in the -- related.

in the kelo, no one doubted the government could seize property. raising for the purpose of keeping them off them are set -- the markets and the prices would be higher for consumers, there the government was saying, we did not really take the property. we do not oh compensation. it is not taking at all. but the supreme court rolled is that yes it is a taking. logically speaking, the question of what is a taking and whether it is for public use are separable or your views on to want do not necessarily have to be linked to the other. both this case and the kelo case relate to the question of should the court take a serious role in protecting constitutional property rights or is this scenario where the court largely prefers a political process because perhaps property rights are not all that important. expert planners or the government to be what they want.

host: paul in new york, republican. caller: i want to talk to you about eminent domain. in new york, columbia university has eminent domain on a lot of property and kicks businesses out that have been there since the great depression and the civil war. and they were paying taxes during all that time. kanye university is now eminent domain. they pay their taxes. universities using public money to build a new campus for private students. i think it is discussing how those businesses had to suffer. they did not get their day in court. a private institution over hard-working people. what do you think? guest: i largely agree with upa the on this case is an egregious case we recently discussed in my

book. i have an entire article written about it. one thing that made it egregious is what was done was they claimed the land was blighted. the firm that did the study supposedly showing that had actually been on the payroll of columbia university before. they were essentially given instructions, like the outcome was predetermined p or the case got to the new york court of appeals, the highest court of new york state, they basically said the standard was so broad for defining blight that there's probably no property anywhere in the state of new york or in the world that could not be declared blighted on that standard. basically whether there could be reasonably disagreement or whether that property was sufficiently developed or not. you could have that kind of disagreement pre-much anywhere. in new york cardiff appear else in some ways it is an outlier being even more permissive in certain cases than the decision

potentially requires them to be in new york is one of those states where eminent domain abuse has constraints on it. there has been much progress in other states and perhaps over time there will be progress in new york. host: we are talking about when the government can seize property. it was acceptable for the government to seize private property for economic development. kelo. besser ilya somin -- professor ilya somin is here to talk about that. -- i want to get your thoughts on this pyramid c, ohio, and independent. good morning. caller: i have two questions.

my second question, was there a time when the word blighted it not in fact -- it seems that it is always -- we row is taught in school that sometimes the government might have to purchase property to build an airport or expand a highway, and they paid fair market value to the owners. i am now hearing blighted, blighted, blighted, and it seems to be a new twist the courts came up with the i will listen off the air. thank you. guest: two good questions. in terms of what the framers would think, it is hard to know for certain but in set -- in chapter two of my book, i talk about how people understood public use during the founding era and they understood it much more narrowly than in the kelo

case pay the thought it had to be like a road or bridge for example. or at least private firms, is a public utility that has a legal obligation to serve the entire public. in terms of blight taken they have a longer history than the caller suggest. they date back to 1920's, 1930's, 1940's. blight was a slightly nicer term it came into vogue later. initially, the idea was you should clear places that really were slums or blighted in the layperson sense of the term. overtimes in many states, the definition was expanded that almost any property could be could declared blighted. even in areas that genuinely are blighted, it does not necessarily follow we need to condemn the neighborhood in order to save it here there are much better ways of helping people who live under teller bowl conditions than to condemn them and have them leave their homes.

the evidence is in the advice american experts routinely give to underdeveloped countries. they say one of the things you have to have to develop your economy is the skier -- security of property rights. you need to have that to stimulate investment, the growth of neighborhoods, social stability and so forth. this advice be give to other countries, a good idea to practice at home. those areas of american history were property rights have been recently well protected, we have had tremendous growth and historically have lifted many people out of property -- poverty. like the ones in the trade i discussed earlier, we often -- host: bryan's nest in massachusetts, a republican. caller: i would like to ask the guest what his view is on larger takings such as the tennessee valley authority or the grand

coulee dam in washington taken away from the indian tribes, or even in holdings for national parks. i will take my answer off-line and thanks for letting me ask you that. it guest: an interesting question. in many cases, that would fit a relatively now definition of public use. it does not follow that it is always a good idea or that they are not sometimes terribly unjust. but i do think there is a difference between those sorts of takings and takings for private firms in that when the government takes property for a public project, it often does not have same mechanisms for avoiding problems that could exist for private developers. i think those kinds of takings for public projects and pipelines, utilities i think sometimes we are to permissive with them.

sometimes it is a real problem but i'm not sure we should get rid of them entirely in the last thing we should get rid of takings for a purely private development. host: ted is a republican. caller: my question is, since america was founded and we start taking land from native americans, my question is, they can legalize anything and justify anything. what about them? all those rights, what is happening to them in the name of progress? guest: today, no one doubts there was enormous injustices done to native americans. stealing their land in many cases the 19th century. i'm not an expert in this area myself. in the 21st century, there have been expert to give indian

tribes some restitution to resuscitate some of the treaty is given to violate the 19 century. there is ongoing debate about how effective the efforts have been and realistically, in this case the injustice was so large. we may not be able to fully rectify it anymore than we could rectify and justify slavery. that does not mean we should -- over time, we could make some progress in that area even if we cannot solve every aspect of the problem. host: we are talking about the government passes right to seize private property with law professor ilya somin and author of this book on that. how often does the government site imminent domain without it being challenged in the court? guest: in the vast majority of these cases, they do not go to court. the government comes to the owner and says, we want to buy your land.

if it does not sell for the price we are asking, condemn it and use eminent domain and it is usually the people involved are not particular -- they usually find it in their interest to give in. that is likely what happened in the case itself. if not for the fact that reduce thing property owners had the aid of the institute for justice, a prominent public interest law firm that rejected them for free. in most cases it is very hard to fight city hall in this way and many of their people who lived in the neighborhood in new london did give in partly because of eminent domain and partly because of other types of intimidation against them. host: what about parts of the country where this is -- more prevalent. used more often in certain areas

than others. guest: there is considerable valuation -- variation. these light economic development taking. they tend to occur more often in urban areas or sometimes in suburban ones as opposed to rural areas. you do sometimes get takings for pipelines and dams. sometimes, you build a dam. those happen more often in rural areas. usually we do not displace as many people. host: rachel is watching us on our line for democrats. hi, rachel. caller: a very long time ago, my grandfather, grandparents farm was taken to build a road. that always really affected him because he felt it was not fair because i guess they did not get

their real property value and my grandmother, my great, great grandmother did not have much of an income. i was wondering also what states we are better off in after these decisions. guest: there is tremendous variation between states and in my book i cover each one. states that passed strong as reforms are states like florida, arizona, indiana, new mexico and several others. other states at the other stream, like new york, which has passed no reforms, which allows fairly extensive abuse of eminent domain. one small comment about your grandfather pasty situation, it is common for people not to get as much compensation, to not get the fair market value. even if they do, in many cases people quite understandably value of their homes and

distances at a higher level than the market value. after all, if you value below what -- host: on twitter -- guest: no, they still have to pay them the market value. there is a catch, which is that when the area is declared blighted by the government, that in itself often causes value in the area to fall. a couple years later, they come condemning property there. they have to pay the new market value not the old one. you might very well end up losing much more than you end up getting paid in compensation. host: iowa, dave, independent caller. you are on. caller: good morning.

earlier, when you asked the question, where is your evidence he said the organization that go to third world countries, i'm referring back to that. you know what i'm talking about? i wanted to say that was not evidence. someone said it would lead to economic development or adware is your evidence? i'm interested in knowing how that leads to economic development. guest: i said the way it leads to economic development is the securement of property rights emulates investment here at it also stimulates social ties and neighborhood formation. i agree entirely that advice given by experts is not in

itself evidence but that is taken by extensive studies that do show private property rights play a very significant role in development. experts find the history of industrial revolution and events of that kind to suggest that actually those countries that led the world in economic development began the revolution in part because they had relatively secure property rights. host: texas, a republican. caller: i was a developer or i lived in texas come where they took property from 127 homes. the developer bought a legislation to get the law passed, scared all the peopleaccept what they were offering.

some people even took less than what they were offering. it was one of the 10 worst real estate deals in the united states. host: can i ask you, what did they offer you? in your opinion, what was it worth? caller: the first time, they offered real estate value for commercial property. commercial property in that area would be worth $1 million an acre. because of the interstate highway. they were doing us a favor by getting us out. but we knew how to get out. but after they bought the legislature, and they appointed the committee to set the value they lowered the value the second time and the lady next

door took $5,000 less than they offered the first time because they scared her. they scared her in the articles that were being written. host: ok. guest: i am not familiar with this particular case. it is not unusual for people to be paid less than the fair market value. you can go to court and try to fight it. but it is not easy to prevail if you are not legally sophisticated, if you don't how to deal with this kind of situation, whereas the government is a repeat player in this process. also, it is stressful to have an ongoing legal battle for months or years over whether he will get to stay in your home. host: in this case, in kelo

versus city of new london, do we know how much they spent on the case? guest: we do. it is in the many hundreds thousands of dollars. -- the many hundreds of thousands of dollars. fighting this over a. of many months or years is quite expensive, not just in terms of the lawyers, but in terms of the impact on your life. host: so fighting the government on seizing your private property, in this case, cost him between $600,000-$800,000. guest: that is what i am claiming in my book. again, i'm not claiming that all of them would be as expensive as his. but if you want to fight a prolonged legal battle, it can

be expensive. especially if you are not well connected and have to fight this on a middle-class or lower class income. host: we're going to virginia. caller: good morning, how are you doing? he was talking about the native americans in north america, and i know that land was seized for progress from the 19th century to the 21st century. when they took land from the arabs and -- became a nation, was that in progress for the 21st century when they seized millions and millions of acres of land in israel? guest: that would be a whole other program. it could swallow up this one.

what i would say is that the war in israel -- that before the war in israel, the arab states attacked israel. the israel forces responded and sees the land. there were rights and wrongs on both side. host: that is many, many, many other books. we are talking about the grasping hand, ilya somin wrote this book. kelo versus the city of new london and the limits of eminent domain. chris. caller: hi, how are you.

you might have party cover this. this was a supreme court case seven years ago when the city took over a bunch of residential housing and the domain from individual owners and sold to a developer. later it was corresponded with the crash in 2008 and the developer never even developed. i thought that was an unbelievable decision by the supreme court. i would like your comment off the air. guest: that is the very case that we are talking about. they case in 2005. the four most conservative justices on the court at the time voted on the other side. although you can argue about whether justice kennedy and justice o'connor, who wrote the lead dissent. some people say it was just the crash of 2008 at trip them up.

but there was already evidence long before that this was a bad project. it was pointed out by the trial judge that initially heard this. it was pointed out in a dissenting opinion in a connecticut state supreme court. he pointed out that there was no good reason to expect that this development would ever actually materialized. so this is a poorly designed project even before the crash of 2008. host: louisville, kentucky. ryan, you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a libertarian at heart. in kentucky we had a case where the out-of-state companies were trying to come in and seize land from farmers and ranchers. they were trying to force them off, and that is now back up in court.

i was wondering how much prior to these companies have when it comes to taking land? guest: sometimes, quite a lot. some features for pipelines and other utilities can fit fairly narrow definitions of public use. however there are real abuses in that area. sometimes you get seizures for pipelines that are purely private ones. some state courts have cracked down on that. others are very permissive. i'm not sure what the situation in kentucky is. secondly, even if it is a public pipeline there can still be serious questions about whether it is necessary, whether it is taking more property that is required -- property then is required.

it should be more closely regulated than it is. at least in some of the states that are permissive. host: since kelo, have states put the definition in their books of what eminent domain is? guest: some of them have. in a number of cases they have defined it to exclude the very sort of taking that happened. they've essentially said that you can't take property from one private individual to give it to another just to promote development. but you can if the property is lighted. host: we will go down to texas with paul. welcome to the conversation. caller: ok. i wanted to ask, a friend of mine has 80 acres. it was going to be taken over by

the new highway coming up from mexico. i was curious about what kind of deal he has from getting the main part of the money that he wants. another friend of mine had it done to him and he lost money and then had to pay the lawyers for what he had to pay. how can you guess what the real estate value is for your land, and the best way to do it, because you know you are not going to win if you sue? guest: it is a good question. if i had the answer, i would be far wealthier. i would give advice to people in this situation. unfortunately, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. they can get more compensation than those who lack that influence. host: connecticut, good morning. caller: how are you?

host: good, question or comment? caller: i've heard about this case my whole life. my question is, do think -- do you think there are socioeconomic lines to taking the land from areas that are less well-off? they didn't take it from the land that was two houses up. guest: this study overwhelmingly shows that people who are poor tend to be much more vulnerable to these sorts of takings. this case was slightly unusual in that it was lower-middle-class people who happened to be white. he didn't have the kind of political power that the other side had in this case including

the pharmaceutical manufacturer who is involved. on average, they were better off than the average mix of these sorts of takings. host: elliott in ohio, democrat. caller: about a year ago, the state put in a turn lane down here in ohio. they wanted the frontage of 15 houses, about five feet. the guy came to my house and i refused to sell it. that started something big that i didn't understand. they sent me letters, set up court dates, and then send me a threatening letter saying they would sell my house as a public auction, and i would pay all the costs. so then that scared me, so i

called the district attorney in springfield. i called it all off. the one thing i wanted was to not sign the papers. if i sign the papers, it is like agreeing with them. why didn't they take it without me having to sign the papers and agree with them? if they could take it anyway, why do they have to sign the papers? guest: it is dangerous for me to comment as a lawyer on the details of a case that i don't know much about. but i know that people who do not go through this process regularly, it can be a very intimidating process. he will come to your door and to say that he would better sign up and agree to sell your land or else we would take it. that is intimidating and painful. if you choose to fight, you're

in for an expensive bottle. you may end up being forced out of your house and getting less money than you would want to expect. host: mary in texas, a democrat. caller: yes, i am calling to ask if you have given consideration to these trade agreements, and what they will do to the eminent domain laws? will they be able to undermine them? guest: as far as i know, there are no eminent domain -- in international trade agreements. host: you are on the air. caller: i would like to mention virginia, my son lived in virginia. the area where they went to camp had a lake. there were several camps around the lake.

walmart wanted to buy that lake and the camps. they refused. every camp refused. so walmart went to supervisors and the toxic supervisors to the land and the lake by eminent domain and gave it to walmart. this is not right. guest: mask when this happened? caller: this happened approximately five years ago. maybe 10. guest: it is indeed jet -- indeed unjust and wrong. but virginia did ban these sorts of takings, virginia is where there has been real significant process -- progress since kelo.

it couldn't happen in virginia today. host: the grasping hand is the book about kelo versus the city of new london. thank you so much for talking to our viewers about that this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: coming up, we will talk to author gary gallagher about the causes of the civil war and how that memory of the conflict is shaping the current debate over the confederate flag. ♪ >> this summer booktv will cover book festivals around the country. in the middle of july, we are live at the harlem book fair. the flagship african-american

book fair event. at the beginning of september, we are live from the nation's capital form -- from the national book festival. that is a few of the events this summer. >> like many of us, first families take vacation time. and a good read can be the perfect companion for your summer journey. what better book than one that appears inside the personal life of every first lady in history. first ladies. inspiring stories of fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house. a great summertime read. available as a hardcover or an e-book through your favorite bookstore order online bookseller.

>> washington journal continues. host: joining us from charlottesville, continue -- charlottesville, virginia, author gary gallagher. mr. gallagher, let's begin with the confederate flag. where did it come from? why does it look the way it looks? guest: there are several confederate flags. the one that most people are familiar with is the saint andrews cross version of the flag. it began as the battle flag associated with robert e lee in northern virginia. it came in the war after the original confederate national flag, which had three wide bars and stars in the upper left-hand corner was somehow -- sometimes mistaken for the american flag. host: what does it represent? guest: what does it represent

now? or what does it represent then? it's effort then was associated with the military forces who were fighting to establish it as parting -- as part of the western community of nations. host: what has it come to represent? there is a debate after what has happened in charleston and -- charleston s.c. and what it means is a symbol. guest: people have different takes on it. confederates argue that it is about pride. they try to disassociate it with the fact that the confederacy was about slavery. but at the time, no confederate would have done that. they would have said that the flag was a nation that is coming into being to guarantee the

long-term future of the slaveholding society of the southern states. host: who fought on the side of the confederacy? what were they fighting for? guest: there were about 5.5 million white people who lived in the confederacy, and about 5 million of them supported the confederacy. about 500,000 men fought for the north. but there were men from the north who fought for the confederacy cause. they were fighting for their life, their region, their new republic. but what was drilled down into any of those was that they were fighting for the continuation of a society that had developed in the southern date, in the 200

years or so before the civil war broke out. it included 5.5 million white people and the vast majority of african-americans who were enslaved. host: how did southerners frame the debate about the loss and the flag? guest: they didn't talk about the flag a lot right after they lost. a number of the flags that came to be controversial later didn't come into being until the end of the 19th century or the early 20th century. alabama and florida and mississippi added a version of the saint andrews cross to their state flags. it wasn't until the 1950's that georgia added the st. andrews cross to its state flag. it was a symbol in the late 19th century, and it was displayed at

certain events or in certain places. sometimes union veterans would get upset about it. others in the non-slaveholding states would get upset about it. but it wasn't a huge issue. as confederates look back on the war and try to make sense of what their experiment in nation building had been about, many of them try to disassociate succession in the war from slavery. so if you look at postwar writings, you get a very different view from what people were saying during the succession crisis and during the war. if you look at the documents going forward, what jefferson davis said, it is crystal clear the centrality of slavery. it is absolutely the center of what is going on.

they received a threat from the republican party for the long-term succession of slavery, and this was a -- this was an effort to get ahead of that. they understood that slavery was going out in almost all of the western world. it remained in spanish cuba, and in brazil, but for the most part, it had been out of step. so than they thought to argue that slavery hadn't been that important. there's a big difference in arguments during the war and postwar arguments. host: explain the cause and why the confederacy gets romanticized. guest: the lost cause is the memory of the war that confederates embraced. the confederacy never could have one would -- could have won the war. that isn't how they felt during the war. but in retrospect, the confederacy never could have

one. won. but they argued about federalism , against a growing central state. a fight over the legacy of the founding generation. they could argue that there was no loss of honor in fighting a hopeless war for high principles. there is something very gallant and worthy about that. they talked more about the great heroes after the war, robert e lee. lost cause writers could write about lee. they could write about it without coming to terms with slavery. they could emphasize other things. they emphasize that all the slaves were happy. that they were loyal. they created this image of the white south fighting a battle

against an overwhelmingly powerful united states. host: we are talking with gary gallagher, a history professor and an author. he heads the history department at the university of virginia. he is joining us from charlottesville, virginia on the debate over the confederate flag. here's how we have divided the lines. south carolina, guest:0 guest: we have a line for you. mike, you are on the air. caller: please give me just a minute. i don't even know where to begin. professor, you speak exactly like a person from the north. guest: i am actually from the

west. i'm from california. caller: then i rest my case. i am from the south. i own this flag, i have never killed anybody over this flag. and just say that it was the republicans south that did this, this was the democratic south back then. it was the democrats that put the flag up over the estate house in south carolina. guest: let me just come in a second, i didn't say it was the republican south. it was the effort to make a slaveholding republic. of course the south was democratic after the war. it was largely democratic by 1860. caller: and, what that fellow

did in the carolinas is an excusable. and doing it in the name of the flag is an excusable. but in the pictures that he has of the confederate flag, he has a picture of him burning the american flag. should we burn that also? you have so many people hating it who wins in a case like that? what is fair? host: professor gallagher, he is alluding to the debate of where it ends. if you take down the confederate flag, what you do about the institutions and the other places that are named after robert e lee. where does it end? guest: those debates periodically. they, about monuments, bridges or schools. these are things that localities

can talk about and debate. i don't think the confederate flag, my personal view, i don't think it should fly over any governmental buildings or institutions. we have fairies strong first amendment's rights -- first amendment rights. the question of free speech comes in to play with the confederate flag. over statehouse grounds, the confederate flag does not have a place in 2015. i'm not in favor of pulling monuments down. i'm in favor of interpreting monuments. the civil war is a huge part of our history. the most seismic event in our history. it is impossible to understand the rest of the united states history if you don't come to terms with the civil war. and monuments are great teaching tools in that regard. i don't believe in removing

every piece is cochair or monument that was put up in the late 19th century or early 20th century. host: timothy is next in michigan, a democrat. caller: yeah, thank you. i have a problem with him saying they wanted to have a free slave state. i feel like a lot of people misinterpreted. they were hanging blacks with the confederate flag in the back. that is not right. they say some yahoos are doing that but it brings back bad memories for people who have relatives or people who fought in the war. i feel like it doesn't represent america.

host: your thoughts. guest: i think it would be of possible to disassociate the confederate flag or from kind of hard-core racist attitudes. every time the ku klux klan would gather or the remnant of it does gather, they are always confederate flags waving. i think you can completely separate it from the confederacy and from slavery, the idea is unrealistic. the people who lived in the confederacy wouldn't do it either. they were not reluctant to talk about how important slavery was to their enterprise of trying to establish an aryan nation. you can reach jefferson davis or alexander stephens or robert ely and you will get a very strong sense of how important holding a slaveowning society was to those who are fighting for the confederacy. host: david brooks wrote a recent column where he writes

about the general and how he viewed the fights of the civil war and how robert ely viewed slavery. guest: he would have been considered a moderate for the most part on the issue of slavery. he wrote in the mid-1850's that everyone agreed that slavery was wrong and was a problem. he got it was a bigger problem for white people than black people. he also didn't think anyone to do anything to get rid of slavery. he loved abolitionists, he thought god would get -- he loathed abolitionists. if you want to get asus inc. view of robert e lee's toward slavery you should read a letter that he wrote a few days after lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation. he was livid about that, saying at threaten the very fundamentals of southern society and that confederates had to fight the matter what to prevent

the loss to a nation led by republicans who would interfere with the way the white south had ordered a social relation as a slave holding place. it is very short and it is absolutely crystal clear in terms of what lee's views of slavery were. host: on meet the press, the moderator took out an exchange with south airline a senator lindsey graham over the issue of naming institutions and buildings after people like robert ely and other prominent confederates. >> with your reaction of what david brooks wrote to robert e lee he said we should preserve most confederate soldiers memorials, we should keep the names of institutions that reflect those services like washington and lee university where he was president. but we should remove his name from roads, schools and institutions within and could be seen of excessive of what he

stood for the war and these debates are going to be about jefferson davis as well, virginia, very prominent. where do you believe we should go. sen. graham: if you look back the goal is to go forward. to look back and away and come back to reality where we are as a nation and therefore together. i would say why would you stop there? the whole country was founded by slaveowners for the most part. why would you name the capital of any nation after a slave owner? i think washington, d.c. is appropriately named even though george washington was a slave owner because when you look at what he did as a whole, i think he has earned the right to be called one of the greatest acres in american history. as to robert e lee, if it weren't for his relationship after the war urging his soldiers to lay down their weapons and become good americans, only god knows what would happen. host: this past sunday

professor gallagher, give us your take on what you heard from the senator. guest: i think he raises a couple of interesting questions and one is lee's behavior after the war. he was a public reconciliation ist asking them to look for, not backward. asking them not to wallow in the past. he was for reconciliation. inwardly, he was very unhappy with the verdict of the war and expressed great anger. some of the things in reconstruction, there are two robert e lee's after the war. doubleclick, he behaved differently than he did privately where he was externally upset with how the war ended. lee has always been interesting to me that the memory of this great civil war yielded by the

middle of the 20th century, to principal heroes. abraham lincoln and robert ely -- e lee. during the centennial the war it was lee and lincoln. i doubt there were any other great rebellions for the principal robert -- rebel leader became one of the icons but that is certainly the case in the united states looking right down on the potomac, that's the lincoln memorial and toward the u.s. grant monument in front of the united states capital, it is a fascinating road, the memory of the american civil war, where it took with this reconciliation dimension becoming so prominent by the mid-20th century. host: we are talking with

professor gallagher from the university of virginia history department. a republican in north dakota, you're next. caller: hi, it is me again. how are you? host: did we only talk to you? caller: no, i'm on the air now. i just want to say i'm from pennsylvania, i'm a german, my ancestors were from gettysburg i spent many summer camps there. i heard you are probably taking the confederate flag out of the gift shop. i hope not because as a northerner and a western are now, i have great respect for the south and for those men. the men in their graves should have the confederate flag flying over their graves because that is what they fought for. i believe that. there is a lack of perspective. i don't know why. one of the reasons this kid went crazy is because he look at these websites with racial crime

statistics and it basically drove him nuts. there are a large amount of black on white crimes going on in this country and he had nobody to talk to. i think what he did was horrible but the thing is, most kids aren't learning that slavery is a human institution. and we agree on that? black people practice it, the muslims were the first to enslave the black race hispanics, portuguese, native americans practiced it. in central america they cut their hearts out of slaves, is part of the human condition. we as white people and it out of a sense of reciprocity morality, pigeon morality, anglo-saxon dramatic men had it in their heart to end it. we should be proud of who we are it we had any brains and backbone but we don't. that is what worries me. i am glad to hear you don't want

to take down the memorial but there are people that do and this will not and, it will continue because the war on the confederate flag is a war on all of white heritage. it will continue as we are displaced demographically. our culture and history will be replaced, a new racism will replace the old. a new form of racial power will replace the old. a new history will replace the old history. host: we will leave it there. there was a lot to respond to. guest: i'm not even sure what part of that to respond to. the students that take my classes know that slavery has been part of human history for far longer than it has not. it is one of the unfortunate parts of how human beings interact with one another. it is, i do to my classes, that it is remarkable that emancipation came as quickly as it did because of a great war. slavery would have lasted much longer if it had not been for the civil war. when of the great ironies in

history is the gambling effort on the part of 11 southern states to protect the institution of slavery in the long-term, actually brought its end in four years. we would've had the distinction i think of being the last western nation to get rid of slavery if it had not been for the civil war. by our standards, white americans in the mid-19th century were extremely prejudiced. racist wasn't a word in their vocabulary but by our standards, they were prejudiced. i don't find it interesting to discover prejudiced in the mid-19th century among white people, and like going to the beach and discovering sand. you take that as the baseline. they are, by our standards prejudiced. that is not even interesting to me anymore. what is remarkable is that even in a nation that wasn't prejudiced -- that was as prejudiced as the u.s. was the vast majority of people decided that emancipation had become. not for the reasons we might

want, particularly they use it as a tool to hurt the confederacy and get rid of a threat to the union but it came. i think that is something to be celebrated and something that is quite remarkable considering what the state of the nation was like in the mid-19th century. there is no good on beating up their people and talking about how they were compared us. the same thing happen -- will happened us in 50 years. it is just part of trying to understand the past. in some ways you have to take the people on their own ground and try to understand them. it's not a question of whether you like them or don't like them it is about understanding them. host: deborah, a democrat. guest: good morning, how are you doing? caller: i would ask what effect it had on the slave mentality in those days, and for the previous

caller slavery is still going on, it is just by another name. thank you and have a beautiful week. guest: religion, that is a good question because religion played a very prominent role on debates in slavery. in the mid-19th century united states, people who were adamantly against slavery could find parts of the bible that suited their arguments well and slaveowners could find parts of the bible that suited their arguments well. there was a good deal of very positive talk about slavery that came out of seven pulpits and there was a good deal of negative talk that came out of southern -- some northern pulpits. the bible is a big document that can suit very different arguments and that was definitely the case in debates about slavery in the mid-19th century. host: watching us here in washington d.c., an

independent. caller: good morning. there is so much to talk about and a limited amount of time thank you for taking my call. i wanted to ask the professor how we help people have an accurate understanding of history? a previous caller said it we fight against the confederate flag, it is a fight against european history and culture which is unfathomable to me because the you -- they came and created united states of america and 92% of america says that we are americans, most europeans don't know they are from germany. i think most of america's largest immigration group from your roo -- europe came from germany. most americans don't know that, there are americans now. most people come to america to become americans. that civil point shows that people are unaware of their

history and now we are talking about the confederate flag and people are making up all kind of wild stories because they don't know their history. this young man did an extremely awful thing because of some made-up history and skewed statistics about black on white crime. it is ridiculous. as a historian professor, how to you suggest that we help our fellow citizens have an accurate account of history so that we can make informed, quality opinions? guest: i think your comment is exactly on target. as a nation, we have only the most tenuous understanding of our history and are really not good about that. it is not just people who are interviewed with an eye toward showing how most americans know about history but we really don't. i think in your comment is something i believe very strongly, we have to engage our

history, warts and all, very honestly. that means if you're going to talk about 19th-century united states history you have to talk about slavery and the role of slavery and how it in simulated itself into the economic and political dimensions of the united states, it is not the only part of united date history in the 19th century but it is a very important one. to try to push that aside somehow leads to a tremendous distortion. of what was going on in the mid-19th century. you simply -- it is unfathomable to me that the united states could have reached the point of secession and a war without the institution of slavery and how it never braided -- reverberated throughout the states. it was about the tariff #--? that is one of my favorite pieces of silliness. it does not boil down to any of

the possible causes, but you get to slavery. we are not going to understand the mid-19th century, anybody in the mid-19th century what have said you are trying to understand secession of the war without talking about slavery? what is the matter with you? everybody knew somehow, that the cause of the slope -- war was slavery. they were very blunt about it at the time and what we need to do is try our best to recover. by talking about it honestly, it doesn't mean every confederate was a not see. i have no patience with that either. comparing nazis to confederate? it is important to engage these people on their own ground in unblinking ways. and deal with the importance within a civil war context of slavery in all of its dimensions. host: was the civil war the reason -- was slavery the reason of the war or a reason?

guest: i have lost my feet so i am not hearing you anymore so if your question is was the slavery , was the war about slavery? it is a complicated question. what have come without issues related to slavery? absolutely not. the question of whether slavery would be allowed to expand into the federal territory, that is where much of the political friction was. was it a great effort on the part of the white north to end slavery? the crusade against slavery from the beginning? absolutely not. it was a war to save the union and eventually they embraced emancipation as one of the tools to help achieve that war for the union. a percentage of people in the north embraced ending slavery as a moral crusade but they were a distinct minority. host: we are talking with professor gary gallagher from

the university of virginia, also the book of the called lost and forgotten. we are taking your questions on this debate over the civil war and memories of it and the confederate flag. we are going to georgia, a republican, go ahead. caller: hello. i am almost 90 years old. i still have some faculties about me, but i was taught that the reason that the christopher columbus sailed was the jews were given so many weeks to get out of spain.

they got together and raised the amount of money in order to sale. -- sail. am i correct in remembering that from school, or have i just forgotten? host: professor? guest: i don't know what you were taught in school, you may be remembering exactly correctly what you were taught in school. i am not sure that has much of a relationship to what actually happened with christopher columbus. we are sometimes taught things in school that don't align with what actually happened. i think that is one of them. host: we are going to south carolina. caller: i am not a republican, i am independent. i wanted to say that i have

ancestors that bought and died in the civil war on the confederate side. however, as an adult and a white adult, i view the confederate flag as a piece of memorabilia to go into a state museum. we have flown that flag in the face of those who are offended by it and it is time, past time to move the flag. people need to remember that this flag was placed there and it is not removable except by a vote on a state legislature with

a two thirds majority of our state legislature. if you are familiar with south carolina, state history, you will find that will be a hard thing to do. guest: i think, i agree with that. it is remarkable that so many prominent leaders from south carolina, both republican and democratic came forward almost immediately and argued in favor of removing it. i don't think that would've happened 15 years ago or 25 years ago. i have no idea how about across the whole state would go now but i thought it was telling that you had the array of critical leaders step forward across party lines to take the same position this time. host: speaking of leaders in the

south carolina debate, the washington post this morning on the front page, for next generations, a new legacy looking at paul sherman, the youngest son of strom thurmond, he is helping to lead the push to remove the confederate flag at the state capital. there is talk about have viewpoints have changed in the south for this confederate flag over the years and in most recent history. guest: i think they have changed. my previous comment is part of my reason for thinking that. i think the reaction among the leaders of south carolina would have been different, not that long ago. then they have been in this. whenever i hear that nothing has changed, i smile and get the sense that people, that they are

not aware of the past. when i was young, there were no black faces on television. it was an incredibly different world. it has changed a great deal. are there still prejudiced people? not just in the south but elsewhere in the united states of course. you cannot legislate that away. i think the world has changed in important ways and i think it is , the debate over what has happened in south carolina is an indication that it is headed in the right direction, at least that is my reading of it. host: look at this headline of the washington post, jeb bush called the flag a racist symbol. he became the first presidential candidate to campaign in south carolina since the deadly church shooting and was immediately drawn into a key subject of the debate. jeb bush: what happened in the last two weeks and trust in and here has reminded me of an

experience i had as governor. it was either my first or second year there was a big controversy in georgia of flying the state flag either on the top of the building or on their premises. it dawned on me that florida has the confederate flag flying on its capital grounds. one of the six flags in florida, i believe. so, i decided to do something politically incorrect. i removed the flags. i figured i could do it and i did. i took them off the premises and put them where i think they should be, which is in the museum of floridian history where our heritage can be respected but the symbols that have divided the south, in many ways, the symbols that were used in most recent modern history the symbols were racist.

if you are trying to lean forward rather than live in the past, you want to eliminate the barriers that create disagreements. i did. we eliminated all the controversy of opening up the ones, i think a was the right thing to do and i think governor haley should do the exact same thing under the right pressure. host: professor gallagher, what did you hear there from the candidate? guest: i heard that he is taking what seems to me as the only position that someone who wants to be president of the united states can take in this. it is a measure, reasonable position and i think in his discussion of removing all confederate symbols from florida , the current florida flag which was adopted right toward the end of the 19th century, has the saint andrews cross on it. it doesn't have the stars so

it's not the full confederate flag. alabama's flag and mississippi's flag all were changed in a. of about 10 years at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century and they all hearken back to the saint andrews cross of the confederate flag so it's a bit more complicated than governor bush suggested in that statement. host: sac in wisconsin, a democrat. caller: hello, good morning. my question and comment is pertaining to the confederate flag, not so much as just a racist symbol, but how can these people claim their pride and heritage on a flag that was based on a bunch of traders and people who committed treason against the united states of america? host: others have brought that up. robert e lee the cited fight

against america and others. guest: of course that is at the heart of one of the oldest questions of the civil war. are they traders? -- traitors? we don't have nearly enough time to talk about that here. it's a question that is a theme that can run through an entire course on the civil war. it is whether it was unconstitutional to secede or not, all of this is grist for different kinds of mills in this debate. you either think he was a traitor or not. i have found over the years that people have one position or the other and keep it. i will go back to my statement that i think it's very interesting or odd. you pick your words that the

leading figure of this effort to dismantle the united states became one of the two great national heroes related to the civil war. i think that happened no where else in world history, someone can send me an e-mail and remind me where it is. i think it's fascinating in terms of how the memory of the civil war is laid out. host: on that point, what about civil war reenactments? do you think they are educational for the public? guest: i've never been to a reenactment. i know a lot of civil war reenactors and i have been to the kind of in cap meant that they have and talk to them about the material culture of the civil war but i have never been to one of the mock battles that they stage. it would be hard to have a civil war reenactment without confederate flags. that would seem kind of odd but i've never been to one. host: what do you think about the educational value? guest: well, i think there could

be. i think there seems to be more entertainment value than education. but large groups of people maneuvering the way they would have during the war, you can get some sense of how civil war armies parade themselves on battlefield and how they moved around and how a canon was fired and how a musket was fired. in those ways, i think they are educational. host: as this debate continues in south carolina about whether or not to take down the flag, the state legislature will get to vote. what do you think about it ending up in a museum? as jeb bush was talking about in florida. guest: i think that is where lots of confederate flags are now. the original ones certainly are there and i certainly don't think they need to be removed

the museum is a perfect place for them but if you are trying to understand what happened in the mid-19th century, if you don't have confederate flag as part of that discussion you will miss a big part of what is been going on in the mid-19th century united date. of course they should be in the museums. with good interpreters that help locate them within the history of the united states. host: professor gary gallagher, history professor at the university of virginia, also the author of one, lost, and forgotten. thank you sir for the conversation and for talking to our viewers, we appreciate your time. guest: thanks for inviting me. host: that's it for today's washington journal, thank you all for watching and commenting with your phone calls, e-mails and tweets. we will be back here at 7:00 a.m. eastern time tomorrow. ♪

>> this morning, c-span will be live in northern new jersey were governor chris christie is expected to become the teens presidential candidate seeking that gop nomination. he is expected to kick off his campaign at 11:00 a.m. eastern in his hometown of livingston, new jersey. here's a look at the video he released yesterday. ♪ gov. christie: i get accused a lot of time of being too blunt and direct and saying what is on my mind too loudly. i have an irish father and a

sicilian mother. now, for those of you hooting you know what that means right? my mom is the one who set the rules and the tone. no suffering in silence. you have a problem, tell me. she wouldn't tell us every time she had a problem to the point where he say do we need to hear this and she was at yes. i have to get this off my chest now. there will be no deathbed confessions in this family. in 2004, my mom got diagnosed with cancer. all of you who lost a family member to cancer, you understand the scene. she grabbed my hand and said christopher, there's nothing left unsaid between us. it was an incredibly powerful moment in my life. that moment was created by her her whole life. i knew she loved me and she knew i loved her.