held. i want to recall officers in the court standing at their post, sorting mail and denying receptacles. i suspect the data i received about roe. lewis paul feels i should not subject myself to that stress. letters on the subject still come in. >> we have seen more of harry blackmun then we have ever before because he did all of those interviews. roe versus wade. , jane roe, she is still alive. >> her real name was normal mccorvey -- norma mccorvey.

of course, it was an extra ordinary decision. justice black wrote it. he was tortured, really, by the angry reaction that came in after it was decided. ruled -- theurt court ruled that women have a right to an abortion. it stems from the right to privacy. swoop, the supreme court struck down the laws of many, many states that have banned abortion altogether or limited it quite a bit. it causedat is why such a firestorm right away. conservatives, of course, and religious groups hate the decision. say it went a

little too far too fast. a justice in the court, a had the courtthat ruled against the texas law or done something fairly narrow, other states would have been able to legislate the right to abortion. but in a more democratic way. it might not have caused as much wade.versy as roe versus >> norma mccorvey had three children>>. she now has flipped -- she wouldn't say she flipped. she said she was railroaded into it by the two lawyers then to get involved. she became a protestant and then a catholic. she has been active and she was just at justice sotomayor's nomination. roeis trying to overturn

versus wade. does that say anything? >> it's interesting that she had a change of heart. other people have also. it's an extremely difficult issue from both sides. will it ever be overturned? i don't know. it's a possibility. again, going back to the presidential election, it might be reversed in a few years. >> we only have a couple minutes. what will mentioned be in the series -- brown versus board of education. >> probably the most important decision of the 20th century in declaring separate but equal schools were not permissible under the constitution. another one, because additional valleys at wartime. the court went the other way.

it said president truman did not have the authority to seize the steel mills during the korean war, that congress had to legislate. >> it was a 6-3 decision. again, justice black wrote that decision. the final one is the slaughterhouse cases. >> very complicated cases but involved a dispute between slaughterhouses in louisiana. one was granted a monopoly, the other suit and -- sued and claimed the 14th amendment protected them from being discriminated against. the court said no, that the 14th u.s.ment protects citizenship, not state citizenship. that became a decision that was used to protect states rights

against segregation. >> one more question for you and we will let you go. 112 justices in history. which justice in history that you have never met would you like to interview? >> oh my gosh. i would say hugo black. he is a fascinating person. as you say come he was a kkk turned into one of the most liberal justices the court has ever had. i wouldn't mind strolling over and saying hello. >> you are married? >> i am. >> children? >> a wife and a daughter. the book series is a campaign into the television series we are doing every night -- every

monday night at 9:00. availableshort book to anyone who wants it through our website. tony marrow, a- new jersey native. thank you for joining. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this anda.org.visit us at q

>> as the supreme court ,tarted his new term c-span gibby's its new series. we take a look at the real story behind the real mulder a versus madison debate. marshall established that the court as the interpreter of the constitution. he wrote that in his famous decision, mulberry versus madison. >> is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. landmark cases: exploring the storks of supreme court rulings by revealing the life and times of the people in these cases. s premieresse i

tonight. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy . >> the u.s. supreme court begin its next term today. this morning, washington journal hosted a roundtable discussion on the high court. of the keyed at some cases the justices will debate and examine some of the major decisions from the previous term. of thepening day new term of supreme court we are joined by nan aron, president of the alliance for justice and carrie severino, counsel and polity -- policy director for the judicial crisis network. with the samegin question we asked our viewers today. do you think the court has become too political? think we want justices

that are not going to be political. we want people looking at just the law not inserting political beliefs. but unfortunately that does happen a lot. unfortunately it happens particularly with the liberal wing of the court. a lot of their judicial philosophy actually invites people to bring in their political views to review the case. that would be the obamacare case recently. toef justice robert's vote save obamacare was based on political reasons rather than a neutral approach to what the law says. anytime you're considering, i really don't want to see this consequence in the case, that is not the real view of the justice. host: under the roberts court in particular? guest: it has been a problem historically as well. the most characteristic court would be the warren court for

doing very politicized decision-making. it can happen in any court. all justices should divorce their policy positions from their constitutional position. you want to be voting in cases in ways you might not vote if you are a legislator. upholding laws you might not have voted for. interpreting the constitution is a different job. guest: of course they are political and they always have been. court and several court systems decide cases that affect every aspect of our lives from the water we drink and the air we predict to whether we have protections in the workplace. particularly modern-day presidents, going back to ronald reagan, made a determined effort to choose justices and judges who would carry out their

agendas, their social agendas. right to abortion, school prayer, racial equity. are our courts political, but the way in which we choose judges is political. we choose judges -- we have a president that enjoys the power of sending a name to a senate. then we have the senate, who has a choice as to whether to confirm that individual or not. so it's not just that our courts are political, but the very process by which we choose and confirm judges is political. host: how much do outside forces contribute to this? we are coming up on a term that is going to be overshadowed by a presidential election. we're in a news era where it is a training -- 24 hour news cycle. how much of it is coming from outside the court versus inside? all thet the moment,

noise about the court is coming from the candidates themselves. the republican candidates for president -- every single candidate has talked about the kind of justice they would like to see. and some of them have gone out of their way, particularly ted in blasting john roberts because of one decision last term. the health care decision. so the noise is really coming from the candidates and that is very intentional. all of that noise from the candidates is designed to pump up the right-wing base of the republican party. i'm sure kerry will have a different video that. it is very intentional and very well-designed to inject the issue of the courts in the election. host: before we get carrie severino's thoughts, here is a

clip from that debate last month in which both jeb bush and ted cruz talked about john roberts. >> john roberts has made some really good decisions. but he did not have a proven extensive record that would have made clarity the important thing. and i'm willing to fight for those nominees to make sure that they get past. you can't do it the politically expedient way anymore. you have to fight hard for these appointments. this is perhaps the most important thing that the next president will do. >> do you like what you just heard? >> i've known john roberts for years. he is an amazingly talented lawyer. but it was a mistake that he was appointed to the supreme court. he changed the statute. he changed the law and order to enforce that failed law on millions of americans for a political out come. we are frustrated as conservatives. we keep winning elections and

then we don't get the outcome we wanted. let me focus on two moments in time. 1990, david souter and edith jones. george herbert walker bush appointed david souter. and then in 2005, john roberts utig.ike loo george w. bush appointed john roberts and these are the consequences of that. if the other judges had been appointed, obamacare would have been struck down and the marriage laws of all 50 states would be on the books. carrie severino, your thoughts on justice roberts? is he a conservative? guest: i think we have a right in talking about this issue for starters -- all of the candidates are talking about

this and frankly they should. ands very happy to see bush cruz talking about it. i think roberts has been a focal point because of that recent decision, but that is not a unique decision for him. of decisions he makes that are very conservative. he also has a tendency of pulling his punches and trying to avoid deciding issues that would be really contentious. sometimes i think doing so in illegitimate ways. there was an abortion clinic hetest case recently -- really reinterpreted the law rather than come to a hard decision. much in the same way he did in the obamacare case. something everyone

should take into account. he is conservative in many ways, but he doesn't stand up for it when it counts. host: bloomberg businessweek talks about his credentials in their story this week on the court. , roberts has a resume that would bring tears of joy to barry goldwater and william f buckley. nominated by george w. bush in the supremerked at court for his predecessor, nixon appointee william rehnquist, came of age professionally in the reagan administration. guest: i think we can all agree that being really smart, wicked as john roberts is, is an important credential. but it's not the beginning and the end of what we look for in a

judge. for someonewe look with excellent credentials, but we look for people of impeccable honesty. we also look at one's view and division of the role of the court. do nominees believe that the courts are there to merely serve the 1%, the wealthy? someone's vision of the courts interpret the constitution as giving access, a hearing, not just to the powerful, but to everyone in america? and when john roberts appeared at his confirmation hearing, there was certainly no question that he was well credentialed. the issue was what was his vision of the constitution? at there were many of us time who said his vision of the constitution was such that the little guy, the everyday

american, would really have a hard time getting a hearing before the supreme court. host: you mentioned people's view of the court. how much do you think people's view this term is going to be seen through the prism of a same-sex marriage case and the health care case? guest: i certainly think that those two cases have dominated the debate since june. but i think going forward, we just heard adam liptak on your so pleased that c-span is going to be having other programs on the court. i think we're going to learn a lot more about this court. it's not just two or three decisions from last term. explainedourt as adam is granted a number of hot button cases. and i do think these cases and the decision the court renders will influence public opinion

over the next year. want to learnou more about the historic cases before the supreme court, our landmark cases series begins tonight with marbury versus madison at 9:00 on c-span. it is the kickoff to a 12 part original series here on c-span. we're asking you to join in for the next 45 minutes. we are talking to nan aron of the alliance for justice and carrie severino with the judicial crisis network. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. (202) 748-8002. what are the most important cases? guest: fisher versus university of texas. it is a racial preference case.

they say we need to have strict scrutiny if a university wants to bring race into its admissions process. university of texas was not doing so. so now we will see what the court says about that. another one that is really important is fredericks versus california teachers association. that is about the first amendment rights of government employees. do you have to check your first amendment rights at the door to join a government job? because if you are forced to join a government union, you can be forced to pay for what is effectively political lobbying. host: would you agree that those are the top two cases? guest: i would say fredericks is probably the top case. fisher i don't know. it is the second time it is going up. texas has an amazing program of admissions.

10% of the top class of high school students are automatically admitted to the university of texas. 75% oftudents comprise the schools in texas and then went texas is done it says, for the remaining students, let's use race as just one of several criteria. it seems entirely reasonable. it was challenged a couple years ago. it went back to the fifth circuit. the supreme court said, get this right. circuitingly, the fifth was a republican judge in the system for texas's admitting students is fine. it's perfectly constitutional and now it is being relitigate d. the fredericks case is very important. it is an effort by corporations

to strip unions of public service workers to charge nonunion members dues when those benefit members profit, , work done through collective bargaining agreements. court struck a wonderful accommodation and said, unions represent everyone. you can join and pay dues. but those people who don't join have to pay their fair share because they benefit just as members do from all the negotiations related, to wages related to promotions, and most importantly, they benefit from training unions offer their workers to provide better services to americans throughout our cities and counties. so it is a critically important issue.

has beenn issue that brought by corporations. they are hoping at the thatation of sam alito, they will prevail. i'm hoping and thinking they may not get a majority. host: cases we will be hearing a lot about this term. we want to hear from viewers. what are the cases that are going to be important to you this term? up first in virginia. for democrats. good morning. thanks for taking my call. we are part of the problem because we are divided. judges can see what is going on out there. is ted cruzi have criticizing judge robert but

he's not criticizing tentative. -- kennedy. that if youealize judge like this all the time, then we should have term limits for the judges. can definea judge marriage, i don't know what judge can be. because i have the law that a god tells me that something is not acceptable. so i'm not denying people their rights. but we do have to respond sometimes for god. you make a decision, you make a decision that you are not going to make one person happy. and you make one person unhappy. and that's not -- going to let carrie severino jump in on the issue of term limits. is an i think term limits interesting idea. it has been proposed for a while. the challenge is how do you

start to implement them in a way that is not going to give a ig leg up to one party. there have been discussions of having very long term limits for example. it is a matter of figuring out how to make it happen. ourt: i would just say that caller reminds us of something very important that we often overlook. and that is judges and justices serve for life. ofle presidents serve terms four years. for 20, 30e there years. i think chief justice william rehnquist was on the court through the terms of six or seven different presidents. so judges and justices have awesome power. and therefore, we have to take this factor into account when we think about who we are electing

president. host: one comment on twitter, during the nomination process, the only question should be, would you enforce a clear and unequivocal law even if you personally disagreed with it? lydia is up next in illinois. caller: good morning. thank you so much for this opportunity. i am a person who feels that the court is dysfunctional and political is a word that is used to describe that dysfunctionality. represent the not magna carta, which is the cornerstone. and chief justice roberts was when susannet asked him about the citizens united case. he said, what are you going to do, impeach me?

while at this point i am pushing for a magna carta charter ship. and that word should be official. honoring the magna carta so that who wasike tom hartman, on c-span yesterday, writing a book on equal protection -- writing and excellent book on equal protection, -- clerk's note was than the preston for the citizens united authority that the supreme court used for their case by corporations are people. this is malpractice and the citizens need to not just react but to act through their local venues. which is what my corporation -- i have represented for 20 years -- is going to do. and push back through a venue

that is the authority given to us which is the magna carta. severino, for people who want to see changes, what is the best process to do that? guest: it is the one the constitution gives us. thatve a president appoints justices and we have senators that are going to confirm them. and making sure that those people have a clear understanding of the kind of judicial philosophy. it shouldn't be a conservative versus liberal person. it should be there judicial philosophy. their judicial philosophy. you would need a constitutional amendment to change the system. the president is going to make a decision that will affect the court for generations. long outlasting how long they will be in office. this is one of the most important things the next president will do.

we have several justices who could easily retire during the next president's term. that could impact the court for generations. in new jersey. line for republicans. caller: good morning. we need this. it is no longer the supreme court. it is now the supreme lawmakers. the gigantic ego of these people that think that they can destroy our civilization. civilizations are destroyed how? because they fail from within. these people aren't the supreme court. they make up laws. that is not their job. host: what rulings are you specifically talking about? caller: anything. starting with roe versus wade. there is nothing in the constitution that permits a court to make up a law. our representatives should do that. that is to be done in the

congress. the supreme court has eliminated the congress and they have -- civilization -- how did they all destroyed? they destroyed from within. there is no way that a man and another man can have a family. if we don't have a family, we don't have a civilization. well i would say, judges and justices do the best they can with the cases that are brought before them. and we do have a magnificent document that gives us some guidance. it's the constitution. not the magna carta but the constitution. justices do their best not to make law. although i would say some often err in that direction. their job is not to make law.

their job is to interpret the law. the roe versus wade in 1970's. justices did their best to figure out a way, interpret the constitution, in order to give women the right to make a decision whether to continue or and a pregnancy. and it was a critically important decision and i would say it all goes back to the constitution interpreting the constitution. we may not agree with every decision, but that is basically our lone star for making decisions. victor on twitter says, these social issues are driving people in same. we collectively need to step away from them. earl in georgia. line for democrats.

good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is a very interesting conversation here. i have three things i would like to say. first of all, if congress would have done their job, the judge wouldn't have to step in and put this law afford. the one that made the law, but they were sitting on their behind. make no lawwant to that the judge stepped in and made the law. host: are you talking about the health care decision? theer: i'm talking about man versus man law.

that law is a padlock -- bad law. we cannot fight the judges for that. we fight congress for that. because congress is the one that makes the law. man is against the word of god. i am a child of god and that is against the word of god. republicans are so against that obamacare that they want to tear down that obamacare. they want to take that out of there. and this is for people that don't have health insurance. that's a lot of people. they are so against this theident -- this man is most hated i have probably ever seen in my life. and they are the ones that separate this country. host: carrie severino, do you want to pick up on the first part of that? he said congress wasn't doing their job.

guest: i think sometimes justices feel that way. that if congress is in passing the laws they would like to, that they will step in. but that is actually not the court's role at all. the court's role is to simply interpret the laws the constitution has -- that the congress has passed. toetimes it means having check those laws against the constitution. his is the root make laws and that is their job. -- congress has the right to make laws and that is their job. guest: i can think of two instances where congress took meticulous care in crafting laws. one was the voting rights act. there were thousands of pages. of legislative history on the act. timeawesome how much

congress spent on that act. what was truly deplorable is the supreme court that disregarded years of congressional authority, congressional work, to strike at the heart of the voting rights act. just simply overlooked it. case, health care congress worked day and night. obama administration worked diligently to draft the law. that covered almost every aspect of health care. those republicans who were unhappy with the law brought a lawsuit in the supreme court. and what was most surprising was -- there wasourt no conflict in the circuits. there was no major legal issue. for justices on the

court decided they were going to take one more try at gutting the health care law and failed in doing so. host: carrie severino is shaking her head. guest: that is exactly the opposite of what was happening. they were being asked to enforce the law as written. the law provided subsidies under plans that were established by the state. we can argue about whether or not that was a good decision. because -- in part contrary to how you described the law -- everyone knows obamacare wasn't one of those laws that was slowly deliberated. it was actually pushed through. it was jammed through congress very quickly. in fact quicker than they wanted to because of the political things. so congress sometimes isn't doing its job when it passes legislation if it does so when the legislation isn't complete. the court's job is not to go back and try to fix that. that: you know and i know when that law was drafted, no

republican objected to that provision. it wasn't until the law was enacted that a couple of republicans got together and scoured that legislation from beginning to end, found a tiny little provision and said, we're going after that. roberts said, no, this is ridiculous. host: this is a topic we want to hear from viewers on. how much our cases from the last going to influence how you watch this term? the justices arriving on capitol hill this morning to start the new term of the supreme court. 2016 --f will end in this term will end in 2016. joe is in maryland on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i have a quick comment and quick question.

i would just like to respond to the liberal commentator guest. what she just said was completely disingenuous about the health care law. the law was passed without the house and senate going to conference as nancy pelosi famously said you had to pass a law before you could read it. so to say that the republicans only objected to a very small part of it, they never had a chance really -- but i'm very interested in fisher versus texas and i have to ask, i can only call the conservative commentator, i'm in a car and i cannot see anyone names. the other guest mischaracterized that decision. it didn't say it was perfectly -- justice roberts didn't say it was perfectly constitutional. the fifth circuit court didn't do what it was supposed to do which was to examine if university of texas used the least intrusive means to achieve this so-called critical mass of diversity. it is really a hard concept.

how much diversity is a critical mass? i think they failed to do that. it's hard to do. my question to the conservative that is what is the chance the supreme court will go further than maybe some people expect and completely overruled the way tond say stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discrimination on the basis of race? host: carrie severino, that thetion is to you with judicial crisis network, joining us alongside nan aron of the alliance for justice. guest: that's a great point. with the supreme court is acting is for strict scrutiny to be applied. that was the question in the previous case. the problem is race cannot be taken into account by government

agencies like the state unless there is a compelling interest in doing so in its narrowly tailored to fit that interest. there is a compelling interest in heaven diversity in the classroom. but it also said this is something that we should be decreasing the use of. even said, over 25 years i expect this to not be necessary. we see even more race of -- more use of race in the classroom. and the increasing empirical evidence is that it isn't even doing what people think. it could be hurting the minority applicants it is supposed to be helping. students are in universities they are not prepared for and don't do as well. so there are a lot of reasons to be concerned as well. the fifth circuit didn't take that into account. i hope the supreme court will

articulate a little clearer this time the standard of how to apply scrutiny. because this happens in universities across the country. host: go ahead. do we i would just add -- really want to be relitigating and relitigating the issue of racial equity and racial diversity? we all know that it has benefited our universities, colleges, i work basis. every institution. in fact, most every corporation in the country supports a diverse work lace. i would say let's move on. we acknowledge the significant benefits it brings to every institution in american life. let's go on. let's not be bringing these cases back time and time again. let's go forward. let's not go back. host: do we know when this is

going to be argued? guest: that one is set for november. but to point out, we are relitigating this, but that is because something people have seen as a characteristic of this court lately. rather than making a very clear decision in an attempt to make the narrowest decision possible, which you can argue whether that is good or bad, but it results in cases like this having to come back ache as they were clear enough. the weren't clear enough in fifth circuit. these baby to take steps, you have to recognize we will start seeing these issues over and over again. host: let's go to phyllis in boulder. line for independents. caller: good morning. other than citizens united,

to behas clearly become regarded as a reckless decision by the roberts court, under, i might add, very politicized bush regime, i want to adamantly disagree with carrie severino with regards to the allegedly .oliticized scotus citizens united was a decision made by the majority of the conservative a pointed judges. appointedative judges. that remains well to the right of where it was in the warring warren hearsrs -- for years. i am in total agreement with nan aron. thank you for your points. the supreme court decides on matters to interpret the

constitution for the public good historically. with regards to women's right to choose -- host: are you saying that each term is influenced by the high-profile decisions of the previous? that they are looked at it individual vacuums? caller: they shouldn't be looked at in individual vacuums. sometimes they are. but that was not my point in the least. inould agree with nan aron that the supreme court, when it comes to environmental issues, health care, the death penalty, racial marriage, same-sex marriage -- those things that are very important, like roe versus wade.

the affordable care act this last year. if this conservative court were thatve scrapped the aca, wasn't jammed through congress, because obama gave an entire summer of town halls, the republicans helped write that up ,- regardless, the outcome was it would have been -- had they scripted it would have been disastrous for those uninsured. and the american medical association who supported it and the public. so there is -- host: that was phyllis. she mentioned you. did you want to respond? guest: i agree we need to have a court that is not behaving in political ways. but i think that also means not trying to bring in our external policy views into these

decision. aboutan aron was talking the supreme court doing its best to try and interpret the constitution to allowing them to have a right to choose. the justices should never be interpreting the constitution in order to do anything other than effect what it was originally meaning from its founders. many of thesee on decisions, i think we can all agree that we hope justices at what theking constitution means and not bring their own political decisions to the bench. guest: the let's be real. presidents look at the justices. reagan and both bushes put on the supreme court. those justices were put on the court in order to implement a social agenda. a republican social agenda. it was very clear. none of those presidents

publicly said anything otherwise. so president obama and clinton put moderates on the court. in an effort to bring about some balance on the supreme court. presidents get who they want and what they want on the court and whenst means that in 2016, we go elect a president, we need to know we are not just electing a president, but that president will appoint a supreme court. there will be four justices in their 80's and that court will be with us the rest of our lives. it is that important. if it's a republican president, we know the kind of justices here she will appoint. democrat, we have an idea of the justices he or she will appoint. it's critically important that we pay attention.

host: several callers wanting to chat with both of you. guest: i just have to take issue with calling someone like justice ginsburg a moderate member of the court. she is by far the most liberal member of the court. there are many conservative justices that republican appointed justices who clearly don't vote as conservatives but as constitutionalists. at the death penalty cases for example where justices scalia and thomas are leading the court in keeping really robust rights to a jury trial for example. that is something that is not about pro or con. if viewers want to look at the voting records of the different justices on the court, here is that score we have been showing you. the higher up a justice is on this court, the more

conservative their voting pattern is. johnson has been waiting to chat with us in silver spring, maryland. obviously both sides take issue when it really comes down that they don't like. but the current makeup of the court is so nakedly partisan and a nakedly in favor of ,ro-conservative, pro-corporate anti-worker, and the individual agenda that they have really reshaped through their decisions and potentially further through labor decisions coming up in this term, they have really reshaped the individuals,of corporations, and the government in this country and they have basically elevated corporations

above individuals. thank you very much. host: carrie severino. guest: that's simply not the case. i think you are alluding to citizens united. corporationt free-speech rights. because corporations are groups of individuals. also recognized the free-speech rights of unions. so on the political front, those fall on different sides of the aisle. but you would hope that in the supreme court that the same legal standard would apply. and as they showed in citizens united, it does. the laws apply equally to corporations and individuals. guest: i think sadly, this caller is absolutely right. of the nationsue

magazine, which documents the trend of the roberts court, we find time and time again this is a court that rules in favor of the wealthy and a corporations, the expense of everyone else. a court that has made a much more difficult for a plaintiff to even get into court in the first place. this is a court that has drastically limited the ability of people to band together to bring class-action litigation. this is a court -- even academic courts indicate that this sides with the chamber of commerce almost nearly every time. host: paul is in pennsylvania on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. that last caller is absolutely right and this court is so far right wing. the whole country moves so far

to the right that moderates seem liberal. and one thing i would like to explain to people. we don't live in a theocracy. -- ireligious beliefs respect them, but you can't impose them on other people. whether it is gay marriage or abortion. nobody is going to make you get an abortion or make you get marry, but you can't impose your views on other people. it's so simple. host: how would you fix the court? is there a solution? caller: citizens united has to go. it's horrible. and when they gutted the voting rights act -- oh my god. why aren't people up in arms about that? oh no, they are up in arms because some guy can marry some other guy. host: you're calling me on the line for republicans. caller: i'm sorry. i should be -- i'm a democrat.

[laughter] host: we will go to art in washington. caller: good morning. i don't know what these two colors are talking about. if they are right wing, why did they change the wording to fit the president and obamacare. my insurance has gone through the roof since that has happened. in the gay marriage issue did they say, technically it says this but they think they mean that. let me say something. how many cases in courts at every level every day, cases are thrown out on technicalities. but the supreme court changes it to fit obama's agenda. i was thought that the supreme court -- that was the last stop i would always have a chance. but i don't. because they fit the obama agenda. president obama is a disgrace and has made a disgrace of our

country. we are laughed at and now we are told we can't even flight for syria. syria.ver syria gayn they put floodlights in front of the white house. host: what do we learn about how the supreme court is going to deal with challenges in the wake of the kim davis case? guest: i want to agree with art that this is clearly not a conservative right wing court the way that the previous democratic caller indicated. some of the decisions had been a push back on the really liberal nolicies of the war irrern court.

you bring up an interesting issue because this issue of religious freedom is where that is going to be decided and there is a very likely chance that the supreme court will take a religious freedom case. that will be the little sisters of the poor case. they are nuns who take care of an exceptionwant from the hhs mandate requiring them to provide contraceptives to their employees. can we live and let live is really the question. can we still have room for different religious beliefs or are we going to have the government trying to force everyone to do things one way? host: nan aron? guest: i think that is one important case going up. although i think the mandate was very clear and exempted synagogues, churches.

i was really disappointed to see the supreme court open the door to private corporations, closely held corporations in the hobby lobby case. there is another important abortion case going on. it may be coming out of texas. this case has the potential of getting rid of all abortion clinics in the state of mississippi. and getting rid of almost all clinics in the state of texas, leaving only 10. the state legislature came up with some cockamamie regulations, saying local doctors had to have hospital admitting privilege. to be like needed surgical centers -- ridiculous and expensive and unnecessary procedures all designed to make

it impossible for women to make a decision as to whether or not they want to continue a pregnancy. host: and one of the key cases on this issue, -- guest: those are both important cases. i would take issue with the faculty called the sake cockamamie law. -- i would take issue with the act that you called this cockamamie law. i think it is actually advancing women's health. happens when you have substandard medical conditions. there are many cases when women do have to have follow-up at a hospital. it is important that the doctors have admitting privileges and that standards are kept to the level of the surgical centers. we shouldn't have lower standards for women's health.

guest: even legislators who wrote those laws said, these laws are designed to prevent women from getting abortion in our state. they have nothing to do with public health. these clinics are incredibly well run. even the american medical association is opposed to these laws. only because, under the supreme court's standard, they would place an undue burden on the ability of women to seek reproductive health care, which under the constitution, women have a right to do. certainly a divisive issue in this country as we have seen in the debates over the budget battle just at the end of last month. we are taking your calls. the allianceron of for justice and carrie severino of the judicial crisis network

here to discuss the upcoming term of the supreme court. gary is in kentucky. a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. sotomayor havend performed same-sex marriages. should they have excused themselves or was it legal for them to vote before hearing all the evidence? i have no knowledge that -- i think they have done that since. they may have done it before. guest: no i don't think that's any kind of argument for recusal. it certainly suggests that we know where their position was, but i don't think a lot of people were in the dark about how they were going to vote on that case. i don't think that rises to the level of recusal in these cases unless perhaps they had performed a marriage in a state that was at issue in the case. host: what's an example of something that would rise to the level of recusal?

guest: the one issue that came up that skirted the line was justice ginsburg's comments on the issue. she has become much more vocal lately. maybe she is enjoying being the senior liberal on the court. she talked about the issue before it was decided. she talked to a about how she thought it was time for this issue to be decided. justicesomething shouldn't comment on until the case is decided. let the record reflect, we agree on something. but i would just add one thing. to note thatnt supreme court justices, unlike lower court justices, do not have to abide by a judicial code of conduct. we won't go into that. maybe for another program. host: certainly time for upcoming debates on this issue.

shirley is in new orleans. a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say that the court became activist when they elected george bush to president. democrat christian. i don't believe in abortion. but i also don't leave that i have the right to tell another woman what to do with her body. or to tell a gay person that they shouldn't be married. what about older people to get married? they have no chance of producing babies and they are a man and a woman. lady that is sitting there, ms. carrie severino, that the koch brothers have gotten their return on her interpretation of the law.

very well. thank you. host: i will let you explain what the judicial crisis network is. guest: i wish i was getting money from the cook others. -- koch brothers. we don't talk about our donors. all of those issues -- the court actually shouldn't the telling states how to run their abortion laws or how to run their marriage laws. i think we probably are in agreement about that. my concern is that the court in both of those cases stepped out and overturned a bunch of state laws on the issue. thee are both issues that constitution doesn't comment on. and when it doesn't comment on something that leaves it to the state. there's a lot of diversity of opinion in america on those issues and that is why we saw a diversity of state laws on those issues. that's the way the court should have left it.

that would have helped us on the divisiveness. ann you constitutionalize issue, we fight at the court level rather than being able to have a democratically elected laws that address it in a more nuanced way. do you want to play what you do with the judicial crisis network? focus on judicial nominations at the state and federal level as well as major supreme court cases. we are hoping to see more judges who are going to be faithful interpreting the laws as written. host: do you want to talk about the alliance for justice? you have a project coming out tonight on this fredericks versus california case. guest: yes, we have a film. it has been seen as law schools and public universities around

the country. it involves the friedrichs case involving the issue of public sector workers and whether they will be able to continue to unite and organize and provide incredibly important services for our community. it is on our website. it 17 minutes. i hope people will look at it. instructs guide that people about the details of the case. ,ts goal is to do two things one, let people know just how important unions are in this country today and how we are all benefited from them, and two, go vote. host:

on the series premier, we take a look at the real story behind the famous marbury versus madison case, delving into the heated political battles between outgoing president john adams, the new president, thomas jefferson, and the newly appointed president -- justice john marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution in his famous decision. -- andury and medicine madison is the most important court case ever decided. and author of the great decision, lives of sloan, landmark cases, exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings by revealing the life and times of the people in these cases. landmark cases from ears live tonight at nighthawk p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3 and live tonight at

9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio. >> all caps campaign long, c-span takes you on the road to the white house. news conferences, rallies and speeches. we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone. every campaign event we cover is available on our website at c-span.org. hillary clinton held a town hall meeting in manchester, new hampshire. the former secretary of state talked about last week's last inoting -- mass shooting oregon and spoke with a mother whose secure old son was killed --the sandy hook shooting six year old was killed in the sandy hook shooting.

>> latest gentlemen, please welcome aaron stevens calling, and hillary clinton. [applause]

>> first of all, i want to thank you all for your patience. patience is a virtue. thank you very much. you're in the 20th send it district -- senate district. always think of luda lisandro. today to listen to a woman who has every credential possible to lead this country as we move forward. [cheering] a woman who is not afraid to talk about guns. address thefraid to on.e had on -- head you are in a community college

today, we know what happened to the community college in oregon. we know, with great sadness, that those who passed away passed away for no reason at all. none whatsoever. we have a woman who has within herself the ability to make a difference. [applause] opportunity ton vote for her in the new hampshire primary and the general election. [applause] ado, i willher introduce aaron curran who is the woman from the north and -- she has those two children, worker,y major, social said it did not pay a lot of worker -- a lot of money but she loves it because she was taking

care of people. isn't that what life is all about? -- weitate zero people have to take care of people in the country is better off because of that. [applause] >> hello. i will have to cheat a little bit with my paper, i am not as well practiced. i am the mother of two children and i have the honor of introducing hillary clinton today. i live in manchester and my home is about three miles away. it's a beautiful community and in another time, we could have posed in a norman rockwell painting. to me, the devastating consequences of gun violence have always been a concern. what deals like a past life, i was a social worker and i handled mostly domestic violence

and sexual assault cases. what stressed me over and over was the immediacy of gun violence. when guns enter a conflict, there is no chance to reconsider, it is just over. the assault weapon brent -- band expire in 2004, i could not understand why we could not make progress or an act policies to prevent gun violence and death from guns. last month, everything changed for our family. a woman not so different from myself or anyone else in our neighborhood was shot and killed on my street. it was a sunday evening and there is no information. my first thought when to my kids. thomas who is too wiggly to be here today is in first grade and eleanor is in -- the night before the shooting, our neighborhood had a cookout for everyone on the street and the kids were running around the neighborhood playing hide and seek into the night.

what a difference 24 hours might have made. if you are a parent, gun violence prevention has to be an issue for you. [applause] if you are a husband, a brother, a sister, a wife, gun violence prevention has to be an issue for you. [applause] carolinaon to south and everywhere in between, gun violence is leaving families struggling with unimaginable grief and loss. as a nation, we can do better. person,ect the right this is a fight that we can win. i think hillary clinton is the person who can win that fight

for us. [applause] she has the tenacity to tackle gun violence and she never gives up and she has a record of achieving results. andse join me in this fight join me in welcoming our next president, hillary clinton. cheering]and hillary clinton: thank you, thank you very much.

i'm delighted and honored to be here. luda lisandro has been a friend of mine for a long time, and a senator representing this district. much for hisery support and his friendship. i want to thank erin and eleanor for being with us. erin's story is unfortunately way too common. we are here on the campus of a wonderful community college, very much like the one in oregon. where young people were going to school, and some not so young. the victims i read are between 18 years old and 67 years old. people attending classes and

improving their skills, teaching, learning, thinking about the future. which was so ended, senselessly, tragically. on that very same day that those people were killed in oregon, a five-month-old baby strapped into her car seat in the back of a car was killed by a stray bullet in cleveland. the third baby in just a few months to be murdered in cleveland. between 88 and 92 people a day are killed by guns in america. the last figures we have for a whole year is more than 33,000. it is the leading cause of death for young african-american men, the second leading cause for young hispanic men, the fourth leading cause for young white men.

this epidemic of gun violence knows no boundaries. it knows no limits. and when this happens, people are quick to say that they offer their thoughts and prayers. that is not enough. how many people have to die before we actually act? before we come together as a nation. [applause] hillary clinton: you know, on the republican side, mr. trump was asked about it and said something like you know, things like that happen in the world. governor bush said yeah, stuff happens. no. that is an admission of defeat and surrender. to a problem that is killing 33,000 americans.

it is time for us to say wait a minute, we are better than this. our country is better than this. and there are steps we can take -- [applause] hillary clinton: that improve gun safety and further the prevention of violence by guns. am proposing -- i what i consider to be common sense approaches. a majority of americans support universal background checks. in fact, a majority of gun owners support universal background checks. we had a bipartisan bill that didn't make it through the senate. but we need to go back and, with all of our hearts, working not just in washington, but from a

grassroots up, demand that we have universal background checks. and we have to also -- [applause] hillary clinton: we have to close the loopholes. you know, we've got what is called the gun show loophole, and we've got what's now being called the charleston loophole. when the brady bill was passed, which wasn't easy, as you recall, but it did pass. exceptions were made for gun shows, and then later, it was extended to include online sales. 40% of guns are sold at gun shows, online sales. we need to close that loophole. so that when we have a universal background check -- [applause]

hillary clinton: it will cover everybody. another loophole is what happened when the young man who murdered the nine people at bible study, in the church basement in charleston -- applied for a gun. the loopholes that they don't get the background check done in three days, you can still go by the gun. it turns out he had a criminal background, and you know how record-keeping is. people will start -- were still searching through it. at the end of three days, he goes and buys a gun, as we don't have it automated enough, we don't have information shared from all levels of government. and he got his gun. and was determined to go and use it to kill nine innocent people. we also must address the very serious problem of military style weapons on our streets. [applause]

hillary clinton: you know, people don't really have a chance. lots of times, when terrible murders like this take place, someone will say if we only had more guns. you walk into class, you are driving your baby around in a car seat, you are going to church. and somebody has an automatic weapon, or even worse -- an assault weapon that is a military instrument of war, and you are somehow supposed to be able to stop that with your own gun? that has never made any sense. [applause] hillary clinton: and so from my perspective, we have got to keep

guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. domestic abusers, people with serious mental health problems, there's got to be a better tracking and record-keeping. i remember the terrible massacre at virginia tech. the shooter there had been involuntarily committed. and there was no record of it. and if there is information about people who are excellent, -- ex felons, who are suffering and serious mental illness, who are domestic abusers, you got to get that information into the record-keeping, so that the universal background checks will actually show you that here is somebody who shouldn't have it. people say to me does this really work? i can tell you this. the best data that we have is that since the brady bill implemented background checks,

more than 2.4 million people have been stopped from buying a gun. and over one million of those were felons. there were records of those particular potential purchasers. [applause] hillary clinton: and i want to work with all of you. i want to work with sensible gun safety advocates as well as gun owners. i want to work with people from the grassroots up come all the way to washington. because how much longer will we just shrug? oh my gosh, something else terrible happened. whether it's in your neighborhood, or a community college. or, the murder of children in their classrooms? we are to go to the town hall portion of this.

but i want to ask one of the mothers from sandy hook, if you wouldn't mind, to just come join me for a minute. because i want you to hear from her. because so many of the parents -- [applause] hillary clinton: you know, so many of the parents of these precious children who are murdered have taken the unimaginable grief that they have been bearing, and have tried to be the voices that we need to hear. i want you to introduce yourself and maybe talk about what you and other parents are trying to do to get the changes that are necessary.

>> thank you. my name is nicole hockley, and the managing director at sandy hook promise and also the mother of dylan, who was six years old when he was killed at sandy hook elementary school. gun violence prevention was nowhere on my radar. before losing my son. i wish it had been. i wish i had done something long before something that i thought could never hit my community hit me. as part of sandy hook promise, we focus very much on gun safety legislation. and the commonsense practices you are speaking of, so thank you for taking this on and speaking out. we also very much focused on what can we do to get ahead of the violence? to get upstream of it and help identify and intervene, help people learn how to know the

signs ofomeone who is at risk, and get help before they even get to the state of picking up a weapon to hurt someone else. i think it is a comprehensive solution that is needed between gun access and responsibility, as well as mental health and wellness. and working together with all of the other organizations, and all the other people, as well as yourself, i have absolute faith that we can deliver the solution and protect children across america. [applause] hillary clinton: thank you. you know, i think we just heard really reinforces how nobody

knows what might happen. because we haven't done what we need to do. to try and make any of us, but particularly our children, safe. that's what behind the proposals i'm making. they are not new. there's nothing unique about them, other than the fact that i am so determined we're going to do everything we possibly can to get this done. [applause] hillary clinton: i know there are a lot of people here. we have a big group from moms demand action, and from dad's as well. i want to commend them. they are grassroots organization that is really trying to bring these issues to the public attention.

we need more of that. i have said we need a movement, that people really will be part of, no matter what other issues that is on your mind, that you care about -- our safety. the great hope that we can protect people who are going about their daily business should be at the top. and therefore, i'm really asking everybody, regardless of politics or partisanship or candidates or anything else to think of the ways that each of us can do more to try to provide that measure of gun safety that will save lives and prevent violence. let me start by asking people, if you want to say something where you have a comment to make on this, or any issue, i would like to start this issue because i know there are people here specifically on this issue and i

want to be sure to hear from them. former congressman dix sweat, hello. >> it's wonderful to have you here, always a pleasure to be with my good friends the clintons. i want to give everyone a background on our relationship with regards to guns. in 1994, i voted in favor of a crime bill that had in it an assault weapons ban for 17 assault weapons out of nearly 800 weapons that were on the street. [applause] >> i'm not looking for any attention, but i received a letter prior to the vote that i thought would be worth sharing with the people here. i shared it with hillary earlier. it is a letter from ronald reagan, and it is dated may 5, 1994, and it's written to congressman dix sweat. he writes -- here's a copy of the letter. i'm reading off of his own handwriting.

" fred ryan told me of your conversation, and i know you were thinking very carefully about the assault weapons bill. as a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, i too have carefully thought about this issue. i'm convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary. i know there's a heavy pressure on you to go the other way. but i strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. it must be passed. sincerely, ronald reagan. " " [applause] >> i've watched hillary and her husband bill worked with people on both sides of the aisle for nearly 30 years. she is someone who is going to solve this problem. she is going to be a leader who will make this problem ultimately, go away. i have every confidence that as

our president, hillary, you will be able to tackle this problem that we began trying to tackle back in the 1990's. and i'm so grateful for your leadership, and i look forward to supporting you in the upcoming elections. thank you. [applause] hillary clinton: thank you, thank you very much. well, we have a lot to talk about, that's for sure. this gentleman in the green shirt. to >> thank you. we are all the way from arizona, i grew up in tucson, arizona. i am a gun owner and the support of the second amendment. but i couldn't give you more credit that we need to deal with the wrong people getting guns. especially with mental illness. as you know, in tucson, we had a

person who had all kinds of trouble and was able to buy a gun, as you said, virginia tech, louisiana, that person had been committed. auto from a gun owner, from a red state, and a person who owns guns, more power to you. [applause] hillary clinton: thank you. thank you. yes, the lady right here. here comes the microphone. >> thanks for picking on me. i have a question about the cdc, and research that was cut off early in the 90's by the republican party. i think that if you can bring that back, if we could convince legislature to fund research into gun violence, what causes it -- i think we're hitting a lot of marks with that because we are getting mental health issues, we are getting what role guns play, how quickly people

can off someone with a gun when they want to. if we can just analyze that data, i think we will be a lot better place. hillary clinton: i agree with you. what she is referring to is that the centers for disease control is responsible for looking at public health issues. if there is dirty water that is making people sick, we are expecting them to tell us what to do to prevent that. so, they were researching gun and violence and trying to figure out who is more likely to commit's violence? what kinds of warning signs might there be? and for very sad reasons, basically, you're right. the republicans stopped the research.

it even goes further than that. there is a law in florida -- i want you to hear this because it was so shocking at first that i really didn't believe it. there is a law in florida that makes it a felony for a pediatrician to talk with families about being sure they keep guns safely away from children. literally, a doctor can go to jail in florida. if you are a pediatrician, and you are running through checklists, are you keeping the household poisons out of the wave your kids? especially if you have toddlers exploring everything. you make sure your sharp knives are kept away, are they high enough up so kids can't accidentally get them? it seems perfectly reasonable to me to say if you have guns in the house, are you sure they are really secure? because too many little kids get a hold of them. we read about it every week. they kill themselves, they kill their friends. i think it is a doctor's

responsibility to try to work with the family so that the family can try and keep their babies safe. if you are in florida, you could go to jail. i want to make the argument and you will work towards the and will work towards the results that we can learn a lot more about what are the characteristics of people who should not have guns? in your as we were just hearing you r-arizona and or from the gentleman from arizona, as we and you are gentleman from arizona, as we are learning you more, certainly what we know about the killer from sandy hook, now the killer from will and oregon, there probably were some comments, some actions that might have set off some will alarms and people. -- in people.ple but if we don't have the good information so that people can be better informed, how do we help them?

i agree with you. no issue should be beyond study in america. that's like a denial of everything we believe in our country. [applause] hillary clinton: going along with that, so far as i know, the gun industry and gun sellers are the only business in america that is totally free of liability for their behavior. nobody else is given that immunity. and that just illustrates the extremism that has taken over this debate. i was really struck when he was reading the letter from ronald in reagan. and the fact that when he was facing a very hard choice, which many people believe cost him his seat in congress, because he will voted for the crime bill which contained the brady bill, which led to the background checks, which led to more than 2 million people not getting guns who were felons or domestic abusers, or otherwise ineligible

-- he paid a big price for that. and here's a letter from ronald reagan. in when the nra was on one of an their tirades, calling the is an alcohol tobacco and you as you you are firearms enforcers jackbooted you thugs, president george h.w. and bush resigned as an nra will member and said no, i'm not going to be associated with that. [applause] hillary clinton: ideally, what i would love to see is gun owners, responsible gun owners, form a different organization and take back the second amendment from these extremists. [applause] hillary clinton: ok. [laughter] thank you.

this lady right there. here comes the microphone. >> i'm so glad to see you, mrs. you clinton. i know this is a big issue in the united states, but i'm from you the united states, but i'm from afghanistan. i'm thinking about my country, every day, more than 200 or 300 people died over there. people died over there. i want to know what your opinion after you become president of the united states, do you want to pull out all united states soldiers or are you thinking they are going to stay there? her we wanted them to stay there for afghanistan, for protection. will for afghanistan, for protection. and you and i will i want to i will i want to know your opinion about that. and in thank you. and hillary clinton: thank you. first, i want to say how distressed i am by the bombing of the hospital. in and i know that defense

in secretary carter has said her there will be a full thorough investigation to try and get to the bottom of that. but it is deeply regrettable. it came within the context of and the taliban taking back over you go a city in the north, and to the door the afghan army, and he the afghan army, which has performed very bravely -- has performed very bravely --and this is not an army the runs i and away. this is an army that stands in will a lot of -- and fights. but they don't have the experience, they don't have a lot of the support that they need to be as successful as they are trying to be. i think that we have got to continue to work with the afghan government and the afghan military to support them. because they are fighting. it's a different story in other parts of the world, but they're in afghanistan, people are fighting for the gains that have been made in the last 13, 14 years.

there still is a lot of conflict, there still is a lot of danger. but taliban is not going away. we know that. but there has been so many positive developments. number the number of girls and women in school, at work, studying in the united states, going home to try and help their country, businesses that are now able to operate now as opposed to being under the sum the -- under the thumb of the taliban and being forced to basically pay tribute all the time to the taliban -- or have been a lot of advances in health. afghanistan had the worst maternal mortality rate in the world, and things to help for not just the united states, but other countries, working with afghan doctors and nurses, mothers are surviving and childbirth. some of the things that are so basic, that are now so much better in afghanistan. i don't know the specifics of what i will be facing in january of 2017. but afghanistan is a country

that has tried. and the people are really focused on getting beyond the violence in the extremism from the taliban. and i don't think we should just walk away. i will do what i can to help. [applause] hillary clinton: here comes the microphone. >> my name is jeannie, i was born on belmont street right here in town. it is no longer the city i was raised in. a lot of that is because of drugs, and because of gun violence. in my question to you, hillary, and in if i can call you that -- hillary clinton: or you can ahillary clinton: or you can call me val. [laughter] [applause] >> or val.

my question is, last week a reporter asked dr. ben carson one question. that question was, as president of the united states, what would you do in advance to assist the folks of a horrible events like letter hurricane joaquin. he kept a very short and do -- succinct and his three word answer was -- i don't know. along with that, as you said last week, a reporter asked jeb bush what he thought about the tragedy in order on -- in organ -- in oregon. his response to that horrific tragedy was stuff happens. i would like to know from you -- you explain to this audience and

to the nation, why those would not have been your responses, and why, as president of the united states, you are ready to lead from day one. thank you. [applause] hillary clinton: let's take the natural disaster question first. because hurricane joaquin was on everyone's mind. thankfully, it didn't hit as hard as they feared, although south carolina is getting battered with terrible torrential rain. i think one of the most important decisions any new president has is who is going to run fema, and who is going to be prepared to work with cities, states, and the national government to get prepared for incoming natural disasters, to and get pre-positioned the equipments and the food and the

experts that you are going to need to be able to help people. i will take that very seriously. looking for someone who has real, hands-on experience, not from 30,000 feet flying over it, very will but who has been there, who is had to go in and figure out what to do to help and figure out what to do to help people evacuate, what needed to be done to try to do i as much as possible to help will people save their homes, but not stay in their homes. there's just a lot of hard-won are wisdom. in because of climate change, we your are seeing an increased number of weather events. will all over the world, not just in our country. we need a mapping project. and will and i will give you a perfect example of why i will disagree so profoundly with the current republicans, we've heard the letter from ronald will you and reagan, i told you about president george h.w. bush. the current republicans in the

i congress are trying to cut dramatically the money the federal government puts in to weather forecasting. to me, that is so penny wise, and pound foolish. a wide we have got to have the best possible weather forecasting. not only for agriculture and you will know, everyday occurrences, but also to get ahead of natural disasters and events like big storms. and you are more than i will a i will will appoint good people, i will look across the government to figure out what we need to do better so that we have excellent communication with states and local governments, and that we keep people well-informed, so they can make good decisions for themselves. and that we move really quickly to come in after something's or happened, because we can't will you and their stop the weather, we know that. but to be really ready to get in there to help the cleanup and the recovery. i think that people need to be

empowered to help themselves to. i'm a little worried that are a sometimes the federal you and government has the you message of don't do anything will message of don't do anything until we get there. that's not my message. help each other, help fix the you and problem, help work, take pictures and report things because people are afraid to do that because then they say i want to get some help from the disaster assistance funding, they are told we should have left it alone. no, you shouldn't leave it alone. should be out there helping your neighbors. everyone in the world has a cell phone. keep a record of it so when the federal government, fema, small business a administration, will others show up you can say here is what we had right after the storm, here is what we've been doing to clean up. here's what we spent on why -- what we spend on plywood and boarding, and the big vacuums to clean up the dirt.

i'm very hands-on, very practical, very let's get it done. that's how i view that. [applause] hillary clinton: all my goodness. this young lady right there. >> thank you. i was going to say, it has nothing to do with the weather. [laughter] by the time i go to college, what would you like united states to be like? hillary clinton: that's a great question. can i ask you how old you are right now? >> 10 years old. hillary clinton: so i have a little time, but not a lot. [laughter] [applause] hillary clinton: first of all, i wanted to truly be the country we all love and cherish. and has given so much to everyone of us who is here in this room today. that still holds out that same promise to you, but if you work

hard and you do your part, you will be able to get ahead, and stay ahead, and pursue your dreams. that's what i want for every young person in our country. that means we got to get the economy working better so it it produces more jobs with rising incomes, and i have a lot to say about that. but it's really critical, because i want you to feel like whatever you choose to do, you're going to be part of this great country of ours. i want the education system -- is that like it's working pretty well for you. i wanted to work for everybody. and particularly, starting with our youngest kids to get them off to a better start so that they can be successful in school. and i want college to be affordable for you, so we got to get the cost down. [applause] hillary clinton: i have outlined what i call the new college compact to do just that.

i just don't want to see young people with ambition, talents, a good work ethic, not be able start school or finish school because it's too expensive. and they can't afford it. we have got to deal with that, and we've got to get the cost down so that people don't go into debt. i and i know that this is a problem in new hampshire. we have to refinance the death of people have so they can be more free to pursue their own interests, and they can actually move out of their parents homes and maybe rent or buy one. and get on with their lives. with health care, i want us to have more and more people who have insurance, so they have quality, affordable health care. i want us to deal with the big substance abuse epidemic, so that we begin to turn the tide on heroin and pills, and other addictions that are ruining peoples lives. and going back to the gun discussion, we have got to have more treatment for mental health, we have to figure out

how to help more people get the treatment, assuming it is available. [applause] hillary clinton: i want the world to be safer, i want the world that you will become an adult in the still be led by the united states, because there is no alternative. the united states, if we don't lead, nobody leads. we have a vacuum. the vacuum is filled by a lot of bad actors, including terrorist groups who will take advantage of their neighbors and eventually even threaten us. and i want to protect our rights, our civil rights, human rights, gay rights, women's rights. i want to protect the rights of americans. [applause] hillary clinton: we have a lot of work to do. i can't possibly, even as president, do all of that. it has to be done by everybody working together. everybody standing up for the kind of country that we want to live in, that we want to see for our children. i'm a grandmother, as maybe you

know. i will just say this. i am the granddaughter of a factory worker. my grandfather worked at this grand lease meals -- mills, and he did it to support his family and so his sons of have a better life. and they did. all three of his sons ended up going to college. my dad started a small business. it was really small, but it provided a good middle-class life for us. here i am, third-generation, asking all of you to elect a president. that is the american story. i will do whatever i can, as will my husband, to help our granddaughter have the best possible life. but you know what, that's not enough. it's not enough. and that's what i want people to understand. you shouldn't have to be the granddaughter of a former

president or secretary of state to believe you can fulfill your dreams in our country. you should be able to be the and granddaughter of a factory worker or the grandson of a truck driver and have that same opportunity. so every single day, i'm going to wake up in the white house and i'm going to say to myself, what am i going to do today to make sure every child in this country has a chance to live up to his or her god-given potential. that is my mission as president. [applause] hillary clinton: so many hands. right there. i will give you my microphone. >> good morning. thank you for taking my question. you are right. every day or every week we're hearing about children dying on the streets or in their schools at the hands of strangers with guns. we are also hearing about children dying in their homes by the hands of their caregivers. we are seeing child poverty

continued to increase as children slept through the shredded safety net. and we're hearing from college professors and employers that young people are coming to them not ready to learn or prepared for 20% three jobs. -- four 21st century jobs. as president, what policies would you look to move forward in your first 100 days to protect our children, and prepare them for their future? hillary clinton: thank you. sadly, her question really points to what's been happening in our country, where over the last 10 years, because of the great recession, because of the huge loss of jobs and wealth that people had built up before 2007, 2008, poverty is on the increase. today, 51% of the children in

our public schools are eligible for low or reduced cost or free lunches. and we were on a good pass, may -- we were on a good path, may i say, in the 90. -- 90's. we were on a good pass to lift more people out of poverty, and by lifting families out of poverty, you helped to lift children out of poverty. we are going to have to redouble our efforts, do all of that again. i give president obama enormous credit for taking us out of a deep ditch that he was in when the republicans left. there are a number of things we have to do. the top of the list is more jobs, raise them in wage so that people who work full time are -- raise the minimum wage so people who work full-time are not still living in poverty, and they can provide a better life for their children. more jobs in general, and there are a lot of great projects, we have a lot of roads and bridges and rail track and airports and ports and everything else in our

country that is deteriorating, entities to be built up, you -- and it needs to be built , so we are more competitive economically. that would put millions of people to work. and i think we can combat climate change by more clean energy jobs, which would be millions of jobs and businesses, if we shifted the incentives that are still in the tax code and other parts of our government for fossil fuels to wind and solar and advanced biofuels, we would be a head on the climate change front, and we would be putting people to work, and we are already seeing that in some parts of our country. we just need to do it all the way across. i think people who work for corporations should be able to share in the profits, not just the ceos, but everybody. up and down the line in those companies. very much like market basket, place you all know, because they now have profit-sharing for

their employees. i think we need to do more to support small business, which creates 60% of the jobs in america. right now, we're behind in small business creation and growth. we used to be number one, we are now not even in the top 10. i want to do more and more credit, get rid of regulations and licensing in the barriers that stand in the way for people to start their business, like my dad did. and be able to provide a good middle-class life. and once we get the economy moving again, then we can turn our attention to how we can be good partners with families with children are at here are some of my thoughts, and i have worked in this area for a very long time. first and foremost, we have to keep them safe. and free from violence by strangers or those within their own homes and families. we also need to help kids who

may not have the opportunities that many of our kids, and my grandchild has to get ahead, that means you have to have early childhood education. [applause] hillary clinton: it's not just a nice thing to do, if you don't prepare kids in their first five years, when they get to school, they will be behind. there will be an achievement gap. and then it's really hard for the kid in the family of the school to close that gap. i happen to think talent is everywhere. but i don't think opportunity is. i don't know what we're losing because we have poor kids who are not given a chance to really get off to a good start, whose brains are not being stimulated thin -- in the way that will help them get a vocabulary so that they can be successful in school. i think the early childhood peace of this is very important. health care is essential. i helped start the children's health insurance program back in the 90's to take care of 8

million kids. [applause] hillary clinton: and that's why i find states that don't want to expand medicaid to be really missing the boat. we need to have people healthy. how can we have a competitive economy if they can't get their basic health needs met? that's particularly true for kids. my first job out of law school was with the children's defense fund. we would go into areas in the schools and kids couldn't see, we stopped having school nurses, we stopped testing their eyesight. i found out that i couldn't see in fourth-grade. because i didn't know i couldn't see very my mother would have taken me to find out, but i thought the world was a big impressionist painting. i just got up really close to the tv set. then we had and i examine school inthen we had an eye exam

school and i found out i really can't see. there are so many kids that are not getting those basic health needs met. that also holds them back. and then of course, once we are in school, i think we should start respecting teachers again who are actually in the classroom with the kids, and try to help them help the children. i literally could go on all day. i will just say one more thing. we now have a hunger problem again. a lot of us thought that was behind us. we have both a hunger and a nutrition problem. we have maybe not the kind of hunger that turns people into what is obviously physical malnutrition. but we don't have adequate nutrition in a lot of neighborhoods and communities, and we don't have a lot of families who understand how to best feed their kids, because what they can afford is not necessarily good for their kids. but it's affordable. you know we need to do more work on this to get back to where

there isn't that sense of either hunger or poor nutrition i can really affect a child's developed. this is something i would do as president, but i would ask everybody to help me do, because there is work to be done in every community, including manchester. the gentleman in the blue shirt. [applause] >> hello. i guess i'm wondering what we're going to do about mental health in this country? this come up so much with substance abuse to various shootings -- just the general state of our lack of funding for all of the service providers out there. i think this all happened after we de-institutionalized mental health, and we had a promise to fund it, but we never did. how are you going to change that? hillary clinton: you are absolutely right. some of you are member that.

-- some of you remember that, right? back in the 1980's, we had a lot of debate over big institutions, where people were housed, but in many cases, they were warehoused. and the results of a lot of investigations which showed how people were not be adequately cared for was to shut down a lot of the institutions. at the same time, those who are worried about what would happen to people if there were no place for them were guaranteed we would have funding and timidity alternatives for mental health. so we shut down the institutions, by and large, and we never really invested what we should in mental health alternatives. that's going to be something that i push very hard. as you mentioned gun violence, which is something that is often directly related to mental health problems. the addiction issue, a lot of