about the constitution, and the cases. oath, testimony, under he was taking an entirely different position. i asked him, are you having a conscience conversion? i voted against them not because of what he said, but because the inconsistency bothered a greatly. one of the specifics cs things we're looking at, you came to the senate as a prosecutor. one that you don't with was the famous miranda case, and the mack decision under exclusionary law. would you talk about how your work as a prosecutor changed the process? sen. leahy: they both came down

about the time i became a prosecutor. i became prosecutor and chief law enforcement officer for about one quarter of the state of vermont's elation. i have been practicing law for two to three years. i was asked on a friday if i would take over the job on a monday. there were all kinds of problems office.tate secretary's i took it over. i realized the police had not been realized on what to do with miranda or m.a.p. have retired police officers come to me and show me a miranda card with my name on it. i had them printed at my own expense.

them, try to point out to following the rules of m.a.p. following, and saying if you do the wrong thing, it will be excluded. or, following the rules of miranda, if you don't inform them of their rights, you cannot use the confession they make. these are rules that protect you as well as the person you are arresting. noyou have a good case, matter what, you will have them. so make sure that people's rights are respected. i also know, from my own work, sometimes you get the wrong person. i want to show that you respected their rights all the way along. that time, it was very controversial. what do you mean i have to read

this guilty, accused, that we have here? a former attorney general once used that expression -- the guilty accused. what do you mean that we have to tell them their rights? i said, of course you do. what if you were arrested for something? and you may think, they got the wrong guy. wouldn't you want to know what your rights are? that sunk in pretty heavily. before, cases were being thrown out. none of my cases where thrown out, except for a couple, but they follow the rules. now it is inconceivable, certainly in my state, to not follow those rules. the: with m.a.p., exclusionary rule had far-reaching consequences aside from criminal prosecutions. certainly in the age of people accused of acts of terrorism in

the states. it'sare some of the ways tentacles have affected the current age? sen. leahy: we have a nation of laws. we're supposed to follow the constitution. if you don't have an exclusionary rule, the temptation says of course we follow the rules, but not this one time when it is so important that we have to ignore the rules. that is a very easy and treacherous road to go down. who determines what that one time is? remember some members of the laden'swhen osama bin and wasaw was captured, going to be prosecuted in new york city. they would say, it's terrible, you can't have him come there. worse than that, they read him

his rights. we are ase to that is, nation that believes in laws. don't we want to show that example to the rest of the world? frankly, if you are a prosecutor in new york city, and you had osama bin laden's , andn-law being charged whether he confessed or not, you would do anything to be the prosecutor on that case. of course he was convicted. we also said to the rest of the world, we follow the rule of law . that is why i worry about guantanamo as not the image of the united states we want to give. ultimately it lays against us. -- plays against us.

you can always find a case somewhere, that by following the rules, somebody might get away with something. it happens so rarely. if you don't follow the rules, and that is what you do, then none of us get away. we are all hurt by it. host: another area in the current age where m.a.p. has precedent is warrantless wiretapping. you are so involved in privacy issues and digital and internet issues, how does that decision affect the government's interest in public safety there? sen. leahy: we have gone through some great debates on this, and we just had another one on what we are allowed to get there it it becomes more important. prosecutor, if you get a warrant, you hook alligator clips to a telephone line somewhere.

here, with electronic devices and all, you might not be able to. but the idea is we have a blanket sweep of all of us. in the long run, that is going to hurt us. we have to go back to the rules. the example i use is this, if you had papers in your desk at expect that the police will come into your home, to look at those papers. you will have to get a warrant, and you have to come and look at them. with the same files in the cloud, somewhere in the internet, shouldn't they have to follow the same rules? it is your privacy we are talking about. everybody says, we need this to be safer. especially since 9/11. we had all the information before 9/11 to stop that attack from happening. they just didn't take the

information they had, and appropriately had, and connect the dots. if you collect everything, in many ways you have nothing. learn to do better analysis of it. had veryme of 9/11, we few people looking at this material who could speak the languages of those in the wiretaps. we have learned from that. todoesn't make us less safe have to follow the rules of law. host: changing subjects, you referenced earlier that the voting rights act, one of the cases that we have chosen is baker vs. lecar. chief justice earl warren: his most significant during his tenure on the court. sen. leahy: i was in law school

at the time. we all have a right to vote. in vermont where you assume that. i came down here and i realized it didn't always work that way. i also realized, that the way you can have things where you have disproportionate voting, and earl warren says, no. we are americans. americans can vote, and americans should be allowed to vote. host: the impact over time has been what? sen. leahy: i think it probably changed much in the united states. one of the impacts is, you see it.le trying to erode

you have to ask why. host: i mentioned chief justice earl warren. four of the cases we have chosen for the series are from his tenure on the court. when you look back at the warren period, what is his significance on the court's history? sen. leahy: i think the fact that he tried to get a unanimous quorum on difficult -- take brown versus board of education. when -- first look at where that was going. it was going to be a split court. it was going to be a couple of years, and then they had it in animus -- unanimous. i don't think that president eisenhower would have felt the authority, or the need, to

enforce it. segregation if it had not been unanimous supreme court. when i was a law student at georgetown, the honor society law students invited the supreme court for lunch. and they came, under the insistence that they don't have a head table. that they sit at tables with some of the students. withfe and i got to sit hugo blythe. he was a man who had been a segregationist from the south. and he joined in these historic things. if we are going to do something significant in this country it

will have to be done unanimously to otherwise people will question what the court is doing. you and i know that is not always going to happen. i think the war it court tried i thinkd to do that. when you see some of the bitter dissent in some cases, it is because you have justices who know, why didn't we work harder to make this unanimous? bush versus gore is very hard for people to agree to, because it was a split court. citizens united. these were cases. shelby county. notes, i'm just going over some of these things. it so split the

court that justice stevens read his dissent, it was a scolding dissent from the bench -- sca lding dissent from the bench. justice davis was a republican nominee. he felt very strongly about this, and one of the reasons why it created so much for her, people don't trust it. they see it as a purely political decision. i think it damaged the supreme court. host: one of the other consistencies of the series, is four of the cases we have

chosen have to deal with the 14th amendment. is that coincidental? on 14thhe court taken amendment cases more friendly? sen. leahy: is interesting. rs now since the second founding. host: why do you call it that? sen. leahy: well, i think we had the founding, with the initial fathers. those cherries of remembrance came through. that united states became more aware of what they are, and more aware of the fact that slavery was ending and so on, that we had to treat all people the same. know, it took a long time, and in some places in this country it is still going on. it was a second coming of the

united states. why they picked so many, i really don't know. i do know, even among those who claimed to be strict constructionists, they have gone way off the reservation. citizens united. are say that corporations citizens. if you push that to what it means, then general eisenhower president,d why can't we elect general electric? wass as absurd a concept as citizens united, but the corrosive effect means just a handful of people, with huge amounts of money, can influence all of us as americans, too. -- you oncere once

referred to as a notorious era. the lochner case. why did you call that a notorious era in american history? sen. leahy: well, we are not going to look at everybody in this country, we are going to look at only those, the wealthy, the well-connected, we don't have to care about the others. host: the lochner era was about 32 years long when the supreme court was favoring employers. sen. leahy: not only employers, laughter] you have the threat from franklin roosevelt. i have to assume that president roosevelt knew it would never happen, but -- what was the expression? the supreme court reads the papers, and then suddenly started changing. there was this sense that we all

come from this privileged class, we have to take care of ours. i thought that, if you are a supreme court justice, or u.s. senator, you are supposed to take care of everybody. obviously, they were not. that is a distinct improvement. but it also showed the same members of the supreme court who said, we cannot do anything but this. they thought, we may get replaced if they expand the court, and they suddenly say, oh, those ideas of protecting employees? of course, they are ok. host: one of the cases that was on our list was the youngstown deal. harry truman was set to rights

by the supreme court. there is a big debate in congress over executive power now. i wonder what you think of the supreme court's role in this checks and balances system about making decisions with second of power. sen. leahy: for the supreme court on checks and balances, you can go all the way back to marbury versus madison. it is well established. but any president has used executive power. the easy answer is, if congress doesn't like it, pass a law. there has been president -- criticism of president obama using executive power on immigration. well, the senate, two years ago, assed by a 2-1 margin, comprehensive immigration bill. been passed through

the house and signed into law, the president would not be doing executive power. a few in the two party told him -- in the tea party, told him not to bring it up, so it was never brought up. it must be frustrating to the president who said, i still have to run this country, and used his executive authority. any time that the president oversteps his authority, then the congress can pass along. but among the 40 to 50 who seem to be running for president this year, they will talk about that, but i don't see them talking about passing a law to change what the president did. host: i am wondering, if you look back over the ark of this court you have -- arc of this

court you have studied for so many years, and worked with on capitol hill, what is the greatest period of the court's history? the early days or after that? sen. leahy: i think you can pick all these different times. i'm mentioned marbury versus madison. that was -- some would have thought, what in heck are they doing? but it established the supreme court as an equal power. then you see things like fred scott where it -- like dred scott where it was a terrible decision. it ebbs and flows. i could talk about others. there were some bad parts. rights wereividual brought, during the war, that was a good movement. talking about one person, one vote.

choose, iright oto believe, was a very good vote. others would disagree. now, we are going into a very shaded and concerned era, where the right to vote is being diminished greatly, and if that continues, this country will be badly damaged by it. untraveled amounts of money to control the election? that will hurt us and put us back to the age where only the wealthy, and only certain individuals, have power in this country instead of one person, one vote having real substance. it will also bring about a cynicism and disillusionment among voters, and this country will suffer by that. host: right now the supreme

court, along with the congress, is suffering in public approval ratings. what is the genesis of that? sen. leahy: it is suffering because some see it not as reflective as it should have. i hear from voters, how do we stand up to all of this money? how do we stand up to the and accessibility -- inaccessibili ty? how do we stand up to the fact that the supreme court makes decisions that totally ignore what congress has passed? how do we have a voice? country,t a homogenous we have all kinds of grounds -- backgrounds, where we live, what our backgrounds are racially, age, education. they are seen as not being reflective of this great melting

pot, to use the older expression. reflecting only a certain privileged few. unless we get away from that, the actions of the congress, the actions of the supreme court, are not going to be respected by the people in this nation. host: thank you for your time. sen. leahy: hopefully i will get -- it will get better. host: that is an optimistic note. thank you. >> c-span presents "landmark cases," the book. a guide to our "landmark cases" series. including marbury versus madison, korematsu versus the united states. brown versus the board of education. miranda versus arizona. and roe versus wade. the book features backgrounds, highlights, and the impact of

each case. published by c-span in cooperation with cq press. landmark cases is available for $8.95 plus shipping. get your copy today at c-span.org/landmarkcases. address, thekly president outlines his efforts on climate change and the environment. house speaker john boehner of ohio delivers the republican address. he discusses the education system and how it affects students from low income communities. everybody,: hi, our country is home to some of the most beautiful, god-given lance gets in the world. we are blessed -- landscapes in the world. we are blessed with -- it is our responsibility to protect these treasures for

previous -- future generations, just as previous generations protected them for us. i am setting aside 260 million acres of land and waters. last month, we announced 11 states had come together with ranchers and industry groups to protect the threats to species, without jeopardizing local economies. we announced we are creating one new marine century on the potomac in maryland, and another in wisconsin. part of unprecedented efforts to restore the chesapeake bay, and the great lakes. we joined a coalition of countries cracking down on illegal fishing that threatened jobs and food security around the globe. i will keep fighting for the things that make america special and the livelihoods of those who depend on them. we will also do what we can to prevent the worst effects of climate change before it is totally.

-- too late. we have led by example, lowering carbon emissions. our efforts stepped up in a big way, including this last week, some of our biggest company's made new impacts on the fight against climate. this is how america is leading on the environment. because america is leading by example, 150 countries representing 85% of global emissions, have laid out plans to reduce their levels of the harmful carbon pollution that warms our planet. the world is to come together and build on these individual commitments with an ambitious, long-term agreement, to protect this earth for our kids. now, congress has to do its job. even this month as the pelicans and congress barely managed -- even this month, as republicans in congress barely managed to

keep the government open, they shut down the water conservation fund. it has provided water to 5 million acres of land from priceless parks to landscapes, all without costing the taxpayer dime. nearly every single county in america has benefited from this program. it has bipartisan support in the house and senate. republicans in congress should reauthorize and fund the water conservation fund without delay. as pope francis reminds us so eloquently, this planet is a gift from god. we should leave it in better shape than we found it. thanks, and have a great weekend. r: education on to the a civil right of the 21st century. american people

took another step toward fulfilling that major goal. a small group of republicans and democrats came together to create some thing called the d.c. opportunity scholarship program. it is the only thing in america where the governor of -- federal government allows low income families to choose the schools best for their kids. the program has truly made a difference. over 6000 students have gone to better schools using these scholarships. last spring, 90% of 12th graders in the program graduated. that is much higher than the city's average graduation rate. of the 1400 students this year, in a87% would otherwise be school that the government has identified as a need of improvement. these are the results that parents dream of. there is a reason this is the only program of its kind. our approach gives equal support the public schools, charter schools, and low income families. but the unions and education establishments see school choice as a threat.

more than once, the obama administration has tried to eliminate this threat altogether. here is what the status quo does not seem to understand, if you have the resources, you already understand school choice. but if you are poor, and stuck in a bad neighborhood, your child will not have that chance. to me that is fundamentally unfair. your zip code should not decide your fate. be,ation, can and should the great equalizer. senate will soon follow suit, and we can get to the president's desk. this bill will not solve all the problems in our schools, and it is not designed to. education reform is another big job ahead of us, but this is a chance to keep doing something eating a difference for our kids. if we can't -- making a

difference for our kids. if we can do it here, we can do it anywhere. if you come together for the right reasons, good things will happen. thank you, and god bless the greatest nation on the face of the earth, the united states of america. >> coming up next, a discussion on cyber security and >> she is vice chair of the energy and commerce committee and our guest on the communicators. then, a look at the supreme court 1873 decision in the slaughterhouse cases as part of our original series, landmark cases. and later this evening, he will take you live to des moines, iowa, for the democratic hardee's jeffers -- democratic parties jefferson jackson dinner. c-span, created by america's cable companies