this. prof. barnett: at this time, unions were mostly white. there were mostly white, some blacks. mostly male. they were also pro-white male to the disadvantage of blacks who were resentful of some of the randy: they were also pro-white male, to the disadvantage of lacks. you always have to keep that in mind. we think of unions differently. the progressives like unions. the court was aware of union agitation. which is why the court in lochner refers to other motives. like the rest of the bill, we might suspect other motives were responsible for the passage of it. this was pro-union as opposed to management legislation. the courts said the legislature

is not to put their self on the side or the other which is what , paul was saying was going on. susan: our guest said there is beginning to be a revisiting of lochner among libertarians. our final clip is senator rand paul in 2013 on the senate floor talking about lochner. sen. paul: the lochner case is an 1905. the majority rules 5-4 that the right to make a contract is part of your due process. someone cannot deprive you of determining how long your working hours are without due process. so, president obama is a big opponent to this, but i would ask him among the other things i am asking him today to rethink the lochner case. the case in lochner is whether a majority rule, a state legislature, can take away your

due process. your due process to contract. can it take away your life and liberty without due process? the court rules no. i think it is a wonderful decision. it expands the 14th amendment and says to the people that you have unenumerated rights. susan: as we close, we told folks the court ended the lochner era. you said in your book, it is not dead. what should people know about lochner's importance today in the body politic? paul: i think the two of those together show the importance. rand paul is talking about judicial activism's and importance. rand paul is talking about a certain view of liberty that i don't think everybody shares. that notion that you entered into this contract completely free. at arm's length from the

contracts professor. it does not hold in a lot of people's minds. as regards the era of progressive philosophy either. susan: you get the last word. in that speech which was part of his filibuster, he also favored restoring the lost constitution. the presumption of liberty. our liberty should be presumed to be valid and government should only restrict our liberty if they have a good reason. if they have a good reason, they should be able to present a reason in court. they were unable to do that according to five justices with respect to the maximum hours lot. that is what judging should require of legislatures. susan: so ends our program on lochner v. new york. this is the fourth in a series of 12. we will do this until the middle of november. if you're learning like we are and you are not a lawyer, we have a book available we're selling at cost. it is written by tony mauro, the

selected forave our series. if you go to our website, you can find out how to order it so you can follow along. as we close, let me say thank you to randy barnett and paul kens for helping us understand the 1905 case lochner v. new york. the, thank you. ♪

our landmark cases series continues next monday. we will look at shank versus the schenck versus-- the united states. justice oliver wendell holmes wrote a unanimous opinion that the espionage act of 1917 is constitutional, even when used to punish speech that would be permissible in times of peace, meaning that the first amendment is not absolute. you can learn more at c-span.org/landmark cases.

on the landmark cases website, you will find the history, impact of each case in this book "landmark cases," written by tony mauro. available for $8.95 plus shipping. that is at c-span.org\landmarkcases. >> coming up, as a special addition to our landmark cases, an interview with senator charles grassley. then the democratic presidential candidates talk to the ian seat women's forum conference. later we will look at immigration policy. >> senator chuck grassley, thank you. let me start by asking you about your committee role with the

supreme court. what is your responsibility? sen. grassley: we would have everything to do with the approval of judges that go on court. it is an important process we go through. court. it is an important process we go through. the supreme court is a powerful ranking government. madison, theing to least to worry about. the least powerful. but they have turned out to be more powerful than madison indicated. the role of ours is to make sure the people on the court are qualified and that they have judicial temperament to leave their own personal views out of the cases they decide. decide them according to the law or the constitution and according to the facts of the case and basically, just to make sure that they do the job of being a fair referee of the constitution both between the

government and the people and within the branches of government. set ofou have a specific responsibilities as the chair? sen. grassley: that we have a fair hearing. very seldom do we interact with the justices. a couple times a year i am invited to talk to what is called a judicial council. recently i had a five minute presentation to them, just like the chairman of the house judiciary committee or the attorney general. it is kind of just giving them an update of what we're up to in the congress of the united states. it gives me an opportunity to speak about cameras in the art room, which i know some supreme court justices do not like. i have been an advocate or. i brought that up again said

they know i am pursuing something they disagree with, but we are going to be the final determinant of that. tracks that is an interesting thing to describe to people. how can the congress be the final determinant of cameras in the court? sen. grassley: because if we say the supreme court has to have cameras, they have to have cameras. i don't see how they can declare that unconstitutional. i do it in the spirit of the bill of rights, where the courtroom has to be open to the public. of course, it is open to the public for those who can squeeze into the courtroom. the extent to which certain cases in the courtroom is open to the public on television, everybody has an opportunity to participate in that case. just like everybody has an opportunity to participate in the congress of the united states through the television of the house and senate.

it gives people an opportunity to understand the judicial branch of government. they have the opportunity to understand the president, the judicial branch's, the legislature, but i don't think they have an opportunity to understand as much what the supreme court does. them anit gives opportunity to understand. in lower courts, it stands to --e sure that judges are have more decorum and do not tend it to be did tatars quite so much. >> there is some concern that supreme court hearings have become politicized. that this is a history series. so i want to ask you if it is more politicized than it has been in the past or it is a new phenomenon. or have court appointments about

level always had politics? sen. grassley: i think you would -- andbecame politicized then in the 1990's with breyer and ginsberg to go back to being less political. that is why you have seen ginsburg and breyer confirmed by overwhelming majorities as opposed to pork being rejected -- bork being rejected. -- ledhere was rejection by senator schumer giving speeches led by the fact that ideology got to play a more important role in de-selection of judges. it has become more politicized and that time. particularly for the supreme court and circuit court judges.

not so much for district court judges. this is bad for the country. because i think that if you go 200 years without the selection of judges and approval by the supreme court inc. so -- i mean approval by the congress being so political, we got along pretty good for those 200 years. tags and other question about the selection of supreme court justices, throughout history it has not always been necessary for supreme court justices to be lawyers. you yourself are not a lawyer. unusual but not exclusive. these days, is it absolutely necessary for a superb -- supreme court justice to be a lawyer? sen. grassley: i think so. i know the law does not require it, i think only once in our history a justice from lee county, iowa, was appointed by lincoln or someone succeeding

lincoln will stop i think they eventually ended up being considered lawyers by how lawyers were created in those days, reading the law and getting approval. i think he was a medical doctor at one time. other than that, every justice out of the 120 or so that have served up and lawyers. i think in understanding of law is very, very good. i don't think that means you could not do it, but i am much or i would recommend that now. i would be open to people convinced me otherwise, but right now i want to leave it the way it is. >> i want to delve into some of the cases we selected. starting with mulberry versus madison, a case in every high school civics text book. it is still being debated by some on your side of the aisle who believe the court should not have jew just to review power.

-- should not have judicial review power. what is your belief? you grassley: my belief is need a referee. that is what marr barry versus madison said. the supreme court was going to assume the role of being a referee between the two branches of government and be the final authority on what is constitutional or not and what is legal or not. finalg as that is not the answer, and for her five times the constitution is been amendment to overturn supreme court decisions so in a sense the people or the people's representative have the final say if they want it. fair to say the court is absolutely the final say will stop in most instances, that is right.

an and time it is congress many times has overturned supreme court's cases by overturning the law when they felt it and interpreted the law wrong three or four times beginning with atkins versus georgia in 1790. >> earlier you referenced james madison. sen. grassley: i think it is what he wanted, the least dangerous. action likeinitiate the president of the united states under the constitution or laws of our land can and initiate some action. in the case of the legislative branch, we can initiate almost anything we want to. next, another, a judge said

he thought it was one of the worst decisions ever made. when you think of dred scott and what it did to the history of the country, what do you think? affrontssley: it was an to common sense that african americans not be citizens of ,his country it was an insult it was such an insult that the civil war was bought over that and started because of that. also, because it was going to spread slavery into anyplace in of the 1820priority and 1850 compromises. so it led to what turned out to .e good the constitutional amendment is one example of congress moving ahead and the people of this country moving had and overturning a supreme court decision. in turn it has done a

great deal of good every time -- over time taste on a case law which the court interpreted the bill of rights to be affable to states and most censuses, except for one or two, in most instances applicable to the states. so, what restrictions there are on government or what projections there are for the american people against the federal government, also protections for the people that are applicable to the state. >> when we spoke to senator leahy, he describes the amendments to the constitution 13, came out of dred scott, 14, 15, as the second founding of the country. you see it like that? all, itssley: first of did the right thing by giving african-americans the right to vote, which they did not get in

reality until 100 years later. that at least it was in the constitution, the right to vote and be citizens of the country and that you could not have involuntary servitude in the future. so, that is very important. but, i think it is important from the standpoint that it's gave to the citizens of every state a lot of protection against government that the bill of rights gave to the people of the country only against national law as opposed to state. against national government as opposed to state government. >> as it turns out, we had help from the national constitution professor law selecting these cases. it was difficult to find 12. 14thrns four of them are

amendment cases. is that a coincidence that the 14th amendment is reviewed so often by the court? sen. grassley: yes, because it is so sweeping. every person being guaranteed the protection of the laws and due process and things like that. that is very basic to the freedom that the revolutionary was fought for. and why the constitution was written in the first place. not to have the government give rights to the people, but the rights belong to the people and certain of those are given up to the mutual benefit for the government to offer instead. it is the principle of limited government that is so important. i do not think the 14th amendment does anything more thing in fortify that original position of the constitution

writers. >> in recent years, as this issue has been so prominent, you suggested legislative clarification of the 14th amendment vis-a-vis emigration. i do not want to get into the politics of immigration, but the need to clarify an amendment through legislation, can you talk about that? this,rassley: i have said if you could do it by legislation, to say what subject ,o the jurisdiction thereof which then determines whether somebody born in the united states is a legal citizen -- if you can do it by legislation, i would try to clarify that. said, if you have to do it by constitutional amendment, you might as well forget about it. >> i am going to jump ahead in history. tubestown sheet and

company versus sawyer. you have referenced that with regards to president obama and executive action. we found this on your website. you are talking about the guantanamo detainees and you wrote, it is difficult to square with the limited as. in youngstown sheet and two company versus sawyer, otherwise known as the steel seizure case, precedent.et a clear it helped president truman's executive orders besieging steel during themills korean war was unconstitutional. it established the executive was not above the law. sen. grassley: do most important a president is strongest in exercising his powers when he has congress with him and in this particular instance, the supreme court made a decision that the executive

iner exercised by truman seizing the steel mills under the war powers act -- i mean under the commander-in-chief authority that he has, was a step way beyond it. it has been used to justify several cases since then. going to guantanamo and one instance, and to nixon's papers in another instance and the nixon problems at the time of watergate as another example. it is frequently cited, because it is a landmark case from the standpoint of the support being a to referee between the branches of government and making sure the president of the united states, or in some cases the congress, are living within the constitution. in that particular case, the most important thing is not the opinions of eight justices, but the most important thing is a

concurring opinion of justice jackson that is so often quoted now in several supreme court decisions since then. i do not know if it is dozens or hundreds, but he is frequently quoted. particularly when there are is disputes between the two branches of government or a president exceeding his authority. >> there is an interesting sidebar told by tony mauro in the book landmark cases. president truman might have actually gone to the chief and gottenore assurances from the chief justice the case would be found in the president toss favor. can you imagine that happening today? sen. grassley: at no. but we talked about dred scott, buchanan,at is what president of that time, was insinuated. i don't think it has been proven, but it was insinuated there was a great deal of discussion between buchanan and

the chief justice at that time. i do not think harry truman would do that. if he did, i do not know if there was any records, but he obviously did not get the right message he wanted. >> let's go back in time. shank. first world war. phrase, you to the cannot be -- you cannot scream fire in a crowded the editor. ist i would like to share the discussion about the first amendment and our rights to communicate in the digital age and the post-nine\11 age. think you can't yell fire in the theater -- what that shows is there are very that citizens have under the constitution, but they are not absolute rights. there can be legitimate limitations.

of can't yell fire in the theater, because you are concerned about what that does in that exercise of free speech to the lives of people that might yet trampled as you are running out of the theater. there are some restrictions, but you have to assume the spirit of the constitution. it is very extraordinary to have any restrictions on first amendment rights. where do youlator, draw that line when people in the judicial system raise concerns about their need to be what people are saying on the internet, monitor phone calls, that sort of thing falls cap sen. grassley: what you do is, a lot of times you have got to find a balance. unrestricteding freedoms, hardly ever, that we talk about. in the case that to you

mentioned, you are trying to find a balance between national security on one hand and fourth rightsnt privacy and that you have as a citizen not to be tormented by your government. that is what you are trying to find a balance. it is difficult to find that sort of a balance, but i think we eventually do it. the most recent action by congress of restricting the federal government from accumulating phone numbers under what we call metadata is an example of finding that balance. we thought we had the balance previously. then, if you ever wonder, does grassroots make a difference? yes. there was very much concerned there was too much invasion of privacy. so, you still do things to protect national security, but maybe do greater things than you had thought you needed to do in the past to protect privacy.

from terrorism, you have had some interest in constitutional amendments to preserve the flag over time. people who believe burning the flag, for example, is an expression of first amendment rights. what is your response? sen. grassley: my response can only be the first amendment was meant to protect verbal speech. that is an example of where the supreme court has said the first amendment protects nonverbal speech as well. i have to accept that. if you do not like that, we have to overturn it right constitutional amendment, and i doubt it will be overturned. >> let's move to another case. rights in the post terrorism age. the miranda decision, 1966. we all, and society, are familiar with miranda rights. the cop shows always talk about it. you have had some concern about

how the miranda rights have been used by the administration. particularly in guantanamo. can we talk about how that -- cts the way we treat sen. grassley: it is simple. when people take up arms against our country, they are enemy combatants and they are not protected by the constitution of the united states. modified by recent supreme court decisions which say they at least have a right trialad this corpus for a before the courts. i think the protection came from the geneva conventions. that has been modified by statutes we passed and modified by court decisions. at that is where i come from originally. things have changed. we have to abide by the increased protections that people have under recent congressional -- congressional enactment and what the court

said. >> i understand a personal decision for you you were serving in the iowa convention. sen. grassley: we thought we had an answer that was copied directly from the united states congress. one house based on area, one house based on population. we passed a constitutional amendment in the legislature, you have to do that with two different legislatures and it has to be voted on by the people. we passed in one house based on geography and the other house based on population. it happens that to before baker versus car was decided, that was turned down by the voters of the state of iowa. if it had not been turned on by the voters of the state of iowa in the referendum, it would've been overturned by baker versus it has toh said that

be based purely on one person, one vote. so that is the way the 50 state legislatures are now determined. at thechief justice time, earl warren, describe the bigger decision is the most in the vegan during his tenure. which is quite a statement to make, considering the cases during his tenure. why did he make that statement? sen. grassley: and has been a long time since i read baker versus carr. this is the way i look at it. there is an obscure part of the constitution that says the federal government has to guarantee a republican form of government in each of the states. that is probably the only immediate control the federal government has over the states. and it is thereby the constitution. republican form of government does not mean the republican party, it means representative government.

know if he meant this, but he would be justified in saying that if you have mala push and legislature, the people are not properly represented and a representative form of government is not exist. for instance, in our state we would have a county with let's 250,000 people, two representatives. i was a representative of a county of only 17,000. so, i frankly, deep: one county were not guaranteed a republican form of government under these eight legislature. that is why baker versus carr was so essential. the only disagreement i would have at that time, not sure if i would have it today, but i thought, based upon what the federal government had done, based on geography and the other based on inflation, that if each of the 50 states had decided to

do it that way, it should have met the constitutional requirements. but, obviously, the court thought otherwise and nobody argues with baker versus carr today. >> apparently, justice thomas thinks there should be further clarification >> no, i think total duration. i think i would disagree. it is based upon people whether they vote or not vote. case, me get to our final roe versus wade. this congress is still tied up over planned parenthood. the supreme court as agreed to hear another abortion related case. what did the court to abortion? why are we still debating this?

>> because social change ought to be made by the representatives of the people. it is something that started with dred scott. the courts are getting involved in social maneuvering and they thatwrong by declaring african-americans can never be citizens of the united states. they should have left it to the elected representatives of the people. that is a lesson for a lot of social cases. look at the successful social change in america that has been done by legislative bodies in a bipartisan way, social security, >>icare, civil rights probably a lot more it. the one that hasn't been decided in a bipartisan way -- these are

.ery bipartisan decisions they were genetically changing things in a social way in america. he have all been fully accepted. one that has not is roe versus wade. the division now is greater as and when it was passed. another one would be obamacare. it is an example. to do things through the elected representatives of the people and do it in a way that is bipartisan. >> would brown versus the board be an argument on the other side ? >> that has been accepted by the american people, not immediately . you have to realize that brown has been modified by supreme court cases in the last 20 years that has not -- originally, it

was busing children from one part of the town to another. had court decisions that said you don't need to go that far. even the court has made modifications of brown versus -- the brown case. >> we are out of time. what to you want people watching the series to know about the supreme court? >> get the supreme court televised so the entire people can see what is going on and have more respect for law. >> we hope on c-span, the 2016 candidates speak at the dnc women's forum. after that, a look at u.s. immigration policy. after that, education secretary

arne duncan talks about schools. journal"xt "washington republican tom cole on the house speaker election. after that, wednesday's deadline to fund the highway trust fund. after that, the cost of congressional perks and new rules that will affect how congress handles expenses, bradford fitch. a.m.every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. you can join with your calls or comments on facebook and twitter. crisis isian refugee the focus of the house foreign affairs subcommittee on tuesday, witnesses include department of state and homeland security officials. that is live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three. has your coverage of

the road to white house 2016, where you'll find the candidates, speeches, debates, and your questions. our year, we are taking road to the white house coverage into classrooms across the country with our student cam contest, giving students the opportunity to discuss the issues they want to hear most from the candidates. tv, radio,rage on and online at c-span.org. the democratic national committee held its annual women's leadership forum conference last week. presidential candidates spoke to the group, and lincoln chafee announced that he was dropping out of the presidential race. this is just under two hours.

♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage debbie wasserman schultz. ms. wasserman schultz: good morning and welcome to the national issues conference at the women's leadership forum. thank you so much. [applause] i am thrilled by the dynamism of this year's participants. thank you for your support, president barack obama, and democrats all across the nation. [applause] looking out into the audience, i see new faces and familiar friends.

i want to take a moment to eight knowledge that we are holding this conference during breast cancer awareness month as new guidelines are causing confusion for women across america. there are three different groups saying 50, 45, and 40 are the recommended ages to begin receiving mammograms. i cannot say it loudly enough, women in america must be their own breast health advocate. keep their awareness continually on the rise and ask questions and seek information from their doctors. wednesday, when vice president biden made his announcement, he talked about his desire to engage in the fight to cure

cancer. for millions of cancer survivors, those words rang so meaningfully. we can expect great things from him. please join me in honoring the service of our vice president, joe biden. this is an exciting year for the conference. [applause] all of our candidates will be addressing is to share their thoughts and visions. we have lined up incredible women and we are all looking forward to a special address from president barack obama. [applause]

since its founding in 1993, and of course then first lady hillary clinton, and second lady , we have worked to end the gender disparity in politics. raising millions of dollars and recruiting women to work in public office. we have developed a network of democratic women who are leaders in their communities at grassroots levels. so many of you have given your time and money and advocacy to helping us advance our candidates, initiatives, and values. i am thankful to each of you. thank you so much for your long-standing commitment because that is how our party has been able to help america move forward together.

when looking at this powerful network, we see a diverse party. some see us differently. someone took to foxnews airwaves and said the dnc was run by an estrogen cabal. [laughter] i am not saying that just to be funny. that is actually true. i love it. damn right it is. let me acknowledge some of the fine pairs of ovaries. [laughter] present company excepted. who make up the leadership of this organization, we know how to get things done. [applause]

that is why women lead this organization. the democratic party recognizes that. we would be here forever if i named all of them. i want to name a few. our wonderful, fabulous ceo. the women's leadership forum director. who deserves a huge round of that has beenll done to make this form a success. our remarkable senior staff. to the leadership in our office. we have smart and dynamic women taking our party to the next level. quite frankly we have some pretty fantastic men working at the dnc, too. let's hear it for the men, too. [applause] eight round of applause for the men.

-- a round of applause for the men. i will take us any day of the week compared to the gop presidential candidates and their leadership. i will refer to them as team testosterone. [laughter] wait, wait, debbie, how can you call them team testosterone when carly fiorina is running for president? newsflash having the same parts , does not give you credit if you are wrong on every important issue. [applause] when you oppose paid leave requirements and when you live out women's health organizations in public, to name a few you are no better than any , of the other republican candidates.

i just had to get that out of the way. let's get on with our business of the day. for those of you were not able to join us yesterday, we had an all day training session. that effort was to recruit and train women at all levels of democratic activism. from voting and volunteering to fundraising and staffing, committee one-day running for office themselves. i know i attended so many of those trainings as a young college student when i was first beginning my career and those activities are what eventually helped give me the confidence to decide to run for office when i was 25 years old, and eventually win. that focuses on fundraising, civic engagement training. participants have the opportunity to engage with some of the brightest stars in our party. into short years -- in two short dwa has owned the

important work of mobilizing, engaging, and training democratic women leaders. we should be proud of our collective efforts these past two decades. but we should be clear about the work ahead of us. it is women voters who will put our democratic nominee in the white house as the 46 president of the united states of america. women voters make up more than half of the electorate. many of the issues in the public discourse are women's issues and family issues. equal pay in the workplace, increase in the minimum wage, access to affordable and quality child care, a solid education, and paid family leave. those are real issues. this is about paid family leave, as paul ryan tries to cobble together enough of this conference to be the next speaker, he was very clear about his concerns about his family time. because of his young children.

isn't it great that paul ryan can have that conversation in public and not be criticized for asking for more time with his family? i wonder if his name was paula a ryan, it would have been as easy to speak out? every mother and father in america deserves that time, too. you deserve quality time with your family. i especially know how precious that is. but every mother and father in america deserves that time, too.

every family. democrats will be loud and clear in calling on you to make -- democratseave are the party of inclusion. empowerment, opportunity for all. our candidates walk the walk on a number of issues important to women and families. for example bernie sanders has , made the passage of the paycheck fairness act a pillar of his campaign. martin o'malley has been a strong advocate for making paid leave to be available for all families. lincoln chafee has highlighted

the importance of early childhood education and environmental integrity. republican presidential candidates want to bring back the tired, old trickle down policies that benefit the well-connected at the expense of women and families. look at their record on equal pay for example. jeb bush does not think more laws are necessary to ensure equal pay and did not know what the paycheck fairness act was when asked about it. chris christie vetoed equal pay legislation. he called senseless bureaucracy. he vetoed it. marco rubio said the paycheck fairness act was about scoring political points. wasting time, and was a show vote. and of course rand paul compared it to the soviet bureau. that is just one issue. ted cruz was all about shutting the government down over planned parenthood funding.

he of course would know how to do this since he was the architect of the 2013 shut down the cost our economy $24 billion and put thousands of families economic security at risk. marco rubio has indicated he would ban all abortions even in the case of rape and incest. the front runners, donald trump and ben carson -- don't get me started. [laughter] i mean what are they even , talking about anyway? let me know if you figure it out. [laughter] trunk with his outright misogyny sought to shame and blame women you cannot make this stuff up. the bottom line is that we can't let republicans get away with

their distortions and warped visions in the 21st century. if this crowd has anything to do with it, we won't. our democratic candidates delivered a strong performance last week. our candidates and the support of more than one million donors from all across the country in record time. our candidates have strong visions for moving america forward. they are so set in their ways, the only thing we have heard is they want to drag america back to the policies that contributed to the great recession. you know what is at stake and you remember what it was like

when we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. when the middle class was brought to its knees. we fought back, didn't we? our country is stronger than that and we fought our way back thanks to democratic leadership. more than 13 million new jobs. millions of americans have health insurance that did not have it before and opportunities are being expanded to more and more families across america. that is what we want the american people to see.

wlf is a premier platform to do that. i join you in your excitement to hear from all four of our incredible candidates in just a moment. make no mistake there are , elections in many states in just 12 days, including virginia and throughout the south. there are important local elections in many of your home states. i hope all of you will commit to knock on some doors. peopleome money, point to the early polling locations. make sure we get people out to vote. we can make sure that candidates all across america will be building momentum until we elect a democrat as president of the united states. because when democratic women vote, democrats win. ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for your ongoing support with the women's

leadership forum at the democratic national committee. we have our work cut out for us. it will not be easy, but nothing worth fighting for is ever easy. i look forward to fighting side-by-side with you. we will make sure that a democrat is elected and sent to the white house as the 45th president of united states of america. thank you so much. enjoy the forum today. ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen,

governor lincoln chafee. ♪

gov. chafee: what a pleasure to join so many of my fellow democrats. we are all dedicated to keeping the presidency and winning back the house and senate. [applause] chafee: we all know the republican agenda set back women's rights and i pledge all my energy towards a 2016 victory for democrats all across the country. we do have a winning message, building a strong middle class, investing in education and infrastructure, extending health coverage to more and more americans, granting a path to citizenship for those who have lived in the shadows for too long. excepting the science of climate change and helping the

leadership to cut back on. fuel consumption with sound policy. we defend our civil liberties and women's reproductive freedoms. we respect the rights of our lgbt friends, and understand the black lives matter -- [applause] chafee: -- and we do need to do more for native americans. [applause] most of all, you can be sure that democrats will make good appointments to the supreme court. [applause] something that this country needs and deserves. as you may know i've been , campaigning on a platform of prosperity through peace. after much thought, i've decided to end my campaign today. thank you. i would like to take this opportunity one last time to advocate for a chance to be given to peace. since today is all about women's

leadership it reminds me of one , of my favorite greek plays. a comedy from 400 bc. by aristophanes. in that play, a group of women fed up with the warmongering of their husbands agree to -- how do i say this appropriately? withhold their favors until these returns. and it worked. they ended the peloponnesian war. anyway, let's talk about the present. studies show that women lead differently than men. and that women or more likely to be collaborative and team-oriented. it is undeniable the women's benefits provided to the pursuit of peace. when i was a senator, a general from the pentagon testified on global military powers. i asked him, who is second to the united states in military

might? he thought for a bit, and then he said probably the u.k. ago, that was a few years but the point remains true. no real rival to the united states exists when it comes to total weaponry. now we make virginia class submarines in rhode island. i have been on an overnight patrol. what a phenomenal piece of technology and craftsmanship. a machine bristling with the most advanced power unimaginable. submarines are just one instrument and are staggeringly efficient arsenal of war. and yet we are sinking ever , deeper to an endless morass in the middle east and north africa. it is evident that all this military power is not working for us right now. [applause] let me share a story from vietnam.

the city has some any memories for my generation. just this summer, former viet cong and eczema american gis were laughing, -- and ex-american gis were laughing and celebrating the fourth of july together. the article quoted a pilot who spent years in a hanoi prison. he said vietnam and united states have so much in common. why did we do it, he was asked. i have thought about this for a long time. i am convinced the war could have been averted had we made the effort to understand the politics of the place.

had we made the effort to understand the politics of the place. from what i have heard, none of the republicans want to understand anything about the middle east and north africa. they prefer more bellicosity and more macho posturing. when i hear all this tough talk, i have deja vu about the evil viet cong. we should be different. democrat should insist on learning from the lessons of vietnam. it all could have been averted. i am not saying all countries are right. we must hold them accountable, but we cannot do that if we do not hold ourselves accountable and change our entire paradigm. the united states is so strong, militarily, economically, culturally, if we have courage, we can have prosperity through

peace. not just in the united states, but all over the world. do we want to be remembered as the bomber of weddings and hospitals? we want to be peacemakers. if american war veterans and viet cong fighters can laugh together on the fourth of july -- president eisenhower counseled us that only an alert citizenry can ensure both security and liberty. it is up to you to demand from your leaders and end to the endless wars and the beginning of a new era for the united

states and humanity. go democrats in 2016! [applause] thank you, democrats. thank you, women. [applause] ms. wasserman schultz: i know that was a special and important message for all of us here and i would like everyone to join me in thanking lincoln chafee for his remarkable public service. [applause] as i was standing backstage and thinking about what words come

to mind when i think about lincoln chafee, class act was the first one that jumped into my mind. i want to share with you in a trip down memory lane what it was like when i heard that lincoln chafee decided to become a democrat. that was a big deal. when he joined our party, he made it clear that his former party had left him and they had gotten too extreme for him to be comfortable remaining as republican. lincoln chafee has been a public servant, has stood strong, and used his voice and made sure the people of his state, the great state of rhode island, had a governor who knew it was important to invest in education, to stand up and make sure that people who had no voice had his. and to make sure that he sounded a clarion call for peace as he

did here with us this morning. i thank lincoln chafee for his service in his commitment to electing a democrat to the white house in 2016. thank you so much. [applause] ♪ [playing "happy"] ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome nina turner. sen. turner: good morning. good morning, ladies. i just want to have a keeping it real moment.

i want to keep it real. is that all right with you? i will forward all of my written remarks and just speak from the heart. i was here in 2013 and i want to thank congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz, her leadership. ladies, the struggle is real. to turn this thing around, it is going to take women to make a difference. if i could take you back down memory lane in this country's history just for a moment, when they founded the country, there was not a lot of diversity around the table. as a nation, despite all of our flaws, the one thing we can say

about this great nation of ours is that we have been a nation of progress. unfortunately, we've got some folks who are so stupid -- ladies, we refuse to go back because it is too important to the nation of this country to make sure we unite based on what we have in common and push this country to its greatest greatness. we do not need titles to do that. titles are good, but purpose is better. i am a mother jones kind of

girl. she would pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living. we need folks who are committed to doing that. mother jones did not have a fancy title, but she stood up for coal miners, she stood up for babies to make sure this country had child labor laws. i think about women, a sharecropper from mississippi. she did not have a title, but she understood that it was important to symbolically show by her sweat and tears that african-americans had a right to control their own destinies. [applause] titles are good, but purpose is better.

it is not just about our reproductive health. we do not need legislative daddies and executive daddies to tell us what to do with all of this. we do not need it. in the great state of ohio, i got so fed up. working-class folks deserve good and great. this is not about decent. it is about time we get the whole damn dollar. i introduced legislation to deal with erectile dysfunction. i was over it, sisters.

i was over it. we have got to find creative ways to push this nation because only the future is at stake. only your future and the future of our children, that's all. when we live in a nation where we have to fight for voting rights again, only the future is at stake. when women have to beg to have access to high-quality health care, that is all. when we have to deal with

whether or not -- can you imagine this? sisters, it is up to each and every one of us to use what we have to make a difference in this world and you do not need a fancy title to do that. titles are good, but purpose is better. [applause] we can do this thing. if i was at a sunday morning -- i know we have some ministers in the room. if i was at a sunday morning -- if god made anything, any little thing better than a woman, he must have kept it to himself. can i get an amen?

folks are going to give you the facts and figures. i want to tell you this world will not be right unless you are fulfilling your purpose and we have plenty of folks who did not have fancy titles, but they did that daggone thing. every single election is important. from school board members to the president of the united states of america. in closing, titles are good, but purpose is better. being the oldest of seven

children, having my mother die at the age of 42 years old. for some of the young women in here, that may be old, but that is awfully young to die. i had a conversation with the creator of the universe. she died -- she did not have a life insurance policy and she had no money in the bank, but she loved her children. when we have elected officials who do not understand they have to care about the least of these, it is personal for me. had somebody written me off, i would not have a fancy title in front of my name and fancy initials behind my name. we are a country who lifts people.

democrats, that is what we do. titles are good, but purpose is better. if your hair is on fire, you need to act like your hair is on fire. there is no halfway way to be. there is no halfway way to be for women to control their own bodies. women need to make the whole damn dollar. one woman, one vote, it is the way the country ought to be and everybody should have the right to live a good life.

not decent. a good life. i want to send you out of here on a mission. to do what ever it is you can put your hands to to make a difference in this world. three things i want you to remember. fierce women shake the world. we have to get our shake on. the creator of this great universe has given us two hands, one to reach forward one to reach forward. we cannot ask folks to do more for us than we are willing to do ourselves. you will work for everything

that you get. sisters, we know all about that. in the words of my grandmother, who was born in 1913, to a country that did not recognize her gift and talent because of her gender and her skin had been kissed by the sun. my grandmother could not read or write, but she could count her money. when i asked my grandmother what does it take to be successful in life, my dear granddaughter, all you need are the wishbone, the job own, jawbone, and the backbone. the wishbone will keep you hoping and praying. hope is the motivator.

the dream is the driver. we hope and believe that tomorrow will be better than today. the our people counting on us to make sure that tomorrow is better than today. the jawbone will give you courage to speak truth to power. sisters, we cannot be neutral. we cannot be neutral. if our hair is on fire, we ought to act like our hair is on fire. all of that stuff is good, but it means nothing unless you have

the backbone. the backbone will keep us standing through all of our trials and tribulations and we will go through some stuff in this life, but you cannot have a testimony without a test and we are being tested about whether or not we are brave enough, bold enough, strong enough, human enough, passionate enough, to stand up and do that daggone thing on behalf of ourselves and of generations to come. titles are good, but purpose is better. god bless you. titles are good, but purpose is better. [applause]

♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome senator bernie sanders.

sen. sanders: thank you, good morning. you asked me to follow nina turner, thank you very much. cannot do that, but i will do my best. let me begin by thanking all of you, not only for what you do in fighting for women's rights, but for what you are doing to expand and improve our democracy. one of the reasons -- let me be very blunt about this -- one of the reasons i am running for president of the united states is that i worry very much that both economically and

politically, our country is sliding into oligarchy. [applause] i know this is not an issue that you will see discussed much on tv, but it is the reality of what is happening in america. we are the wealthiest country in the history of the world. as we speak here and meet here this morning, millions and millions of families are struggling to feed their kids. we have the highest rate of poverty of any major country on earth and 40% of african-american kids are living in poverty. all of the same time as 50% of all new income is going to the

top 1% and the top 1/10 of 1% owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. as a nation, we are going to have to ask ourselves whether it is morally acceptable, whether it is economically sustainable, that so few have so much while so many have so little. in my view, that has got to change and we need an economy that works for working families. [applause] it is not just economics, it is politics. as a result of the disastrous citizens united supreme court decision, millionaires and billionaires are pouring unlimited sums of money into the political process through

independent expenditures. in the last election last november, 63% of the american people did not vote, 80% of young people did not vote, and in today, millionaires and billionaires are buying the elections. is that what democracy in this country is supposed to be about? i think not. the truth is as all of you know, republicans win when voter turnout is low, when they look to washington and they say, i am looking longer hours for lower wages, what are you doing to me?

when they do not have health insurance, what are you doing to me? cannot afford to send my kids to college, what are you doing for me? when people give up on the political process and don't vote in large numbers, when republican governors suppress the vote, republicans win and we lose. what do we do? what we do is make it clear that in this country, we need a political revolution. [applause] establishment politics, the establishment economics is not going to do it.

if you want to win an election, you win an election from the white house on down, you rally working-class people who have given up on the political process. you rally young people who have given up on the political process. you bring people together who are prepared to say loudly and clearly, enough is enough. our government belongs to all of us, not just a handful of billionaires. [cheers and applause] if we do not do that, and if this is a same ol'type of election and of millions of working people and young people do not participate, republicans will win and we will lose.

i'm extremely gratified in my campaign so far that we have hundreds of thousands of people to come out to our meetings and events, that we have 750,000 individuals who have made come pain contributions, not billion-dollar contributions, but $30 apiece. more individual contributions than any campaign in american history. we win when people come together, when we reject the division of men versus women, of straight versus gay, of black

versus white, of people born in this country as opposed to people born in another country. that is what they want. we win elections when we stand together and we say, you know what? in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, the wealthiest people and the largest corporations are going to start paying their fair share of taxes. we win elections when we say to the working people in this country, we know you can't make it on eight or nine bucks an hour, and that is why we are going to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. and that is why we are going to win the election when we say to

women, there is no rational economic reason that women make $.79 on the dollar compared to men. we are going to have pay equity. we win an election in which we say to working families, yes, when you go to work, you are going to have quality childcare and pre-k. we win this election when we say to the unemployed, we are going to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and create millions of decent paying jobs. where are good to win -- we're going to win this election when we tell the world what world the republicans are living in when they deny science and refuse to go forward and combat climate change.

we win this election when we make it clear that women have fought too long and too hard to lose control over their own bodies. we win this election on we stand up and say, no, you are not going to cut or defund planned parenthood. you are going to put more money into planned parenthood. so, sisters and brothers, we are in an historical moment in american history. the crises that we face today in many ways are worse than at any time since the great depression of the 1930's.