program to rebuild the decaying infrastructure we have or a major effort to cure major diseases. like heart disease, cancer, diabetes. some of these things would kind of give people confidence that the system can work. you need a few of those. yes, right here. >> hi, my name is christopher and i come from seton hill. seton hill is in pennsylvania and we are having this huge , like basically a 6-7 month now state budget standoff. ofis basically cause a lot problems because my mom is a teacher and i so feel the effect that home even more. also i go to school and i rely on the money that the state gives out to the schools. what are different ways that the average citizen can encourage politicians to compromise on this kind of issue? because this is clearly outrageous. dan: in some respects, you are

giving me the bad side of the equation. in some instances, the local and state governments have done a better job reaching compromise because they have to complete a legislative slus session during a year, and in many cases they , have to operate within a balanced budget and limits. i have seen more in recent years my own state of kansas is a classic example. they have become incapable of solving major problems. the same issues that affect our national government are beginning to affect some of our states as well. the only thing i can tell you is citizen action and citizen involvement. isa democratic system, there no other magic answer except for people like yourselves to organize and to try to push their political system. and then perhaps get opinion leaders, media, academics engaged as well. you are still free to vote and you're still free to try to influence the system. let us see, last question.

>> my questions have to do with similar questions regarding state government. my name is joe and i am from the university of massachusetts. i study history. modern politics is not really in my realm of expertise. the creation of the constitution and the first political parties, which was anti-federalist and federalists. it was bigger government versus big government -- which is better? which do you think is better healing -- state government or federal government? dan: that is interesting because you have some of the same principles of federalists and anti-federalist today as you did in terms of the role of government. most cases, the closer the government is to the people the better it responds because you can call the school board president of or call the city up so they areent o

andg to make decisions by large and live the consequences that you the citizen have tried to challenge them. the further you get from the local system, the more problematic. the bigger the issue, the more you need a national response. if you are trying to deal with isis, you are not going to get the state of massachusetts to do with that particular problem. national security issues, you're not going to get that. largely, civil and constitutional rights, we have a national country so we need a set of national principles on that kind of thing. what worries me is that people lose trust in their national government to operate. and then you have a system of many states, some do better and some do worse and people by and large are treated unequally in this country. this is why the country has been such a because the basic rules and principles that apply to your securities and liberties are national and not state-by-state. that is why we have all powers

not enumerated are reserved to the state. i think most people take that pretty seriously. anyway, i think we are about done. i am seeing a lot of nods. thank you all. good luck to you and i appreciate you listening to me today. [applause] we would like to make sure everybody leaves with a little flag. dan: that's great. i have my briefcase with me. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> students around the country are working on c-span student cam contest, telling us which issues they want the present for candidates to discuss. through social media, we are following students as they produce a social media. here's a tweet from indiana. canterbury fourth-grade students were excited to hear

real ben carson address maryland." and marilyn kress tweeted, "too weak to the msdn's interview u.s. attorney general eric holder for a project. while." him tweeted, "at ending high school alieta eck, i was interviewed by students for their c-span project." the winners will be announced march 9. for more information, visit our website at student cam.org. >> the planned parenthood action fund is endorsing democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton. the organization's president, cecile richards, joins the secretary of state and event today at manchester. it is the first time the organization has endorsed candidate during the present of primary. we will have live coverage this afternoon at 4:00 eastern here on c-span. republican presidential

candidate donald trump was on the campaign yesterday and i an island. one of those stops was at clear lake. he spoke to supporters for about an hour. ♪ the tiger" plays] trump: wow, beautiful. what a beautiful part of the world. a little bit cold out, but we will take it. thank you, everybody. we have had so much fun and i love iowa. we have done really well here. the polls have just said we are even. you're the only one where i'm even. we are winning every single national poll. we are winning every civil state poll. we are even here. that's not going to happen. we do not want even. even is no good.

we are going to surprise a lot of people. a lot of people are going to be surprised. i have little doubt about it. i want to thank you for being here. the owner just said this is a record. we have big crowds. usually people are sitting. we usually get more people in. our country is in trouble, very serious trouble. no matter what aspect of her country you look at, whether it is the military which is not prepared, the general when he left said in terms of preparedness we are the worst we have been. i think he said since inception. let's take it back to world war ii or world war i. we can't do it. we need strengthen our military. i'm going to build our military

bigger and better and stronger than ever before. bigger and better and stronger. hopefully nobody is going to mess with us and by doing that in many ways that is the cheapest thing you can do. instead of ending in these protracted wars, they are always been interviewed on television. do you think general macarthur is a big interviewer? do you think general patton went on television? they get interviewed. they say what we are going to do, how we are going to do it. he is saying how tough isis is. how are we going to do it? i don't know. they are very tough.

the enemy is watching this. they are saying is this what we are fighting? we are quite have the toughest, smartest people. we will have security in our country. by the way, i never mention the military without mentioning the fact our veterans are going to be treated great. they're not treated right. we have illegal immigrants treated better in many cases. it is not going to happen anymore. the veterans administration is a mess. it is corrupt, it is run poorly. our veterans are going to be treated well. put it down and guarantee it. it is going to happen. one other thing i have to say, there has been talk that i was going to go in the back of the pack. not going to happen. this has been a great tradition. people talk about putting iowa -- then you won't see me as much. that will be terrible. and i will not see you.

it is not the same thing. i'll will remain where it is. you can bank on it. the polls came out last night. we did great. we have been doing good from the beginning. my wife said if you run you are going to win. nice have a wife who feels like that. she said if you run your going to win. from the beginning we announced june 16. almost from that week we are like a rocket ship. these characters, some the most dishonest people in the world. waved to them. some of the most dishonest -- seriously dishonest people in the world. i've never seen anything like it. no matter what you do, it doesn't matter. i have to say, 25% are good. the number is giving up. time magazine wrote a cover

story of me. you have to go out and buy time magazine. they wrote a cover story. i got a couple of covers. they said i should have one they said i should have one person of the year. they gave it to chancellor merkel who has serious problems. that was not a good move made in germany. everybody said he is going to win. i said no i won't. i'm not establishment. they don't have the guts to give it to me. i was right. that's ok. they wrote a story before that. that was ok. this story is so well written, i never spoke to the rider. he just took the campaign, no matter where i go, dallas, 21,000 in dallas.

we go to alabama, 35,000 people. we go to oklahoma, 20,000 people standing in a field. a convention center that held 10,000 people. we took a field. it was very windy so i put a hat on. no matter where we go. then in iowa we always have the biggest crowds. at our last venue, i just left another place. one of our top competitors was there. they had 150 crowd we had. no matter who you get, it is a movement. it is called make america great. we are going to make a greater than ever before. we have a chance with what we have going, with how great the people of this country are, to make it may be greater than ever before and i mean it. it was exciting. it is exciting to see what is

happening. the crowds and the love. he said you are speaking tonight in front of a different area, 20,000 people. you saw massachusetts. we had 14 or 15. she followed us here. that's amazing. but we did something that has never been done before. it is too big. it was packed. they sent away 5-6000 people. my friend said to me how do you do that? you have all those people. i insist on not using a teleprompter. honestly it would be so easy. like our president. he reads. it is wonderful to be in iowa today. goodbye everybody. i would love to do it.

i would love to read a speech were you take a speech and you read it and then you leave. i told this person when you do that, number one after a little while -- the biggest thing on broadway, as great as review would be in the near times of potential, history and word-of-mouth. the word-of-mouth for us has been amazing. the word-of-mouth on these rallies has been incredible and they have just grown and grown. the only thing that stops them is the size of the arena or the place or the rules. it has been incredible when you look at what is going on. we haven't had a non-packed

house almost at all. it is a movement. i think actually when it comes time we are going to actually over perform. i have a feeling for more people are going to vote than they even think and we are going to set a record in iowa. i have to tell you, chuck and sam and stephanie have done an incredible job but i will tell you that on february 2. that's what it's all about. i was told by a great writer on the other side of the table from most of us, he said i would like

to ask you one question. how does it feel? i said i don't know what you are talking about. when you've done -- the summer of truck. the entire summer, nothing like this has ever happened in american politics. you have changed the dialogue, everything about running a campaign. you've spent no money. jeb bush is $68 million in and he's at the bottom of the barrel. and he likes common core. educating children by bureaucrats in washington. with the border they come over as an act of love. remember that? i said he's gone.

he spent $69 million. i spent nothing. i almost feel guilty. he said to me how does it feel? it doesn't feel anything. i haven't one. he said even if you don't run, what you have done has never been done in politics. i said if i don't win i will consider this a waste of time because we are not going to be able to make our border strong. politicians can't do it. all they care about is running for office. i said to him, and i mean that by the way, some of these guys, they are big people.

they do a great job. they running get 1%. they leaving get nothing. they stay too long. they don't do that. we have done an amazing job. i really mean it. if we don't when i will not consider it success. it is so much easier if i said i want to do well in iowa. in new hampshire we are leading by a lot. i don't concede anything. south carolina we are leading by 24 points. in nevada we are leading by a lot. and by hispanics by a lot. we're going to get the hispanic vote. i'm going to take our jobs back from china, from everywhere. people know that. so we are leading by a lot and by a lot in the sec. georgia. we have places that are unbelievable.

the me go to florida and i met 32. a sitting senator is at 14. jeb bush was their governor and he is in the twos. i love florida. it's a second home for me. i have a great relationship with the people of florida. that's going to be tell. you have a senator, sitting senator and you have a governor who was there for eight years and i'm saying that's going to be tell. the first poll came out and i was clobbering everybody in florida. then of course you look at massachusetts. i had 152%. tom brady loves me. tom brady said great things about me. he's a great winner. i will tell you. i think he help me a little bit. we are doing well everywhere. i just feel that this would get the ball rolling. if we win iowa, such a big event for me. i'm going to tell you, even my people say why don't you just say we want to do well here. second, third, fourth. i don't want to say that. if i want to win, and we don't it is because you're too lazy to caucus. if we want to win, they're going to say he wanted to win.

it is a miserable upset. they will show every speech where i say i want to win. i don't care what they do. i want to win iowa. i want to win iowa. so here is the story. you have to go back to time magazine. i haven't promoted a magazine like that and a long time. that guy got it. he has the understanding. he knows about the movement, the noise majority. we are angry at stupid people, people who don't know what they are doing. we were in south carolina, and amazing thing. we had an arena packed and they

turned away more than 5000 people. i was saying last night we are all angry at what is going on. we want to get it sexton we are going to get it fixed. it is going to be so good and so much fun. it is fun. i will go saturday and friday night all the time. i'm in iowa. next couple of weeks, i'm going to be seeing you so much you are going to be so sick of me. i said do you think it is too much? maybe they are going to get sick and tired. so, you know, we have a lot of energy. we want -- i don't want to waste any time.

we are on the cusp of something that is so great. reuters, trump is 42 percent. by the way, this is by 15 people. i take 42%. i started out with 4%. then i go to a percent. than 12%. then i went to 26%. they were saying he has reached his plateau. that's his plateau. then i went to 28. then i went to 30. now we have reuters. 42%. carson at 12%. bush is so low. what is going on with that guy? 69 million. you can't buy elections anymore. people are too smart for it. i view it as something you

should think about. he is a nice person. that was a badly described candidate. he is a little low energy. we don't need low energy. we need high-energy. do you think isis wants to know about low energy? you need a lot of energy. china, what they are doing tonight and trade, the richest people in china. the biggest rank in the world is

from china. they by my apartment. they are killing us. it is one of the great robberies of all time. maybe the greatest theft in the history of the world. the money in the jobs and everything china has taken. we have rebuilt china. they have taken it out of our country, out of the united states.

we have rebuilt china. we don't even know. the head of china comes here, they give a steak dinner. they say don't give state dinners pretty have to get to work. we will have the greatest negotiators. we have the best business people in the world. the greatest business leaders. they are going to represent us. they don't want any money.

they will represent us. we lost $505 billion last year with china. think of it. 505 billion dollars, with one country. japan and the cars, pouring in millions of cars.

never seen ships like this. go to los angeles. the cars pull off like it is the long island expressway. just one after another. we give them practically nothing. look at the trade deficit. we have the power over these countries where we can do right, we can come out ahead. they shouldn't be happening. we having carbon that people negotiating. we have donors, we have hacks. we are not using our best. you go to china, vietnam, hot as a pistol. vietnam is taking business from china. vietnam. not us pray they don't worry about us because our people don't know what they are doing. and mexico is going to be the new china. what they are doing to us is unbelievable. they did catch el chapo. good? they did catch el chapo. that's good. he better not escape a third time. right under the toilet. pretty amazing when you think about it. but, anyway. put him on the fourth floor this time, right? no more first floors. mexico, i have a great relationship with mexico, with the mexican people. i have thousands of people that work for me, thousands of mexicans that are incredible people that work for me. but their leaders are too smart. what's happening is we don't

have a border between the anchor babies, -- i was right on the anchor babies. we don't need a constitutional amendment to stop this craziness. you have a woman she is pregnant, she walks over and has the baby and we take care of the baby for 85 years. it doesn't say that. the best lawyers in the world agree with me. when i first made the statement that it makes sense. if you read the fine print they came men, they are here illegally. they have a baby. they don't leave the baby. the baby is an anchor baby. we don't care for that maybe for 80 years. we don't need -- we don't need a constitutional amendment. we don't need it. it is there. i need a vote of congress and people thinking maybe we don't even need that. we should be evil to get that, frankly but we probably don't even need that. fox news comes out last night, 35 for trump national. ted cruz at 20. i'm winning by a lot. they say winning by a lot, here is one that i love. they don't cover it. they don't what to cover these great numbers. donald trump, did anyone hear of hillary clinton? this is just last night. trump 47, clinton 44 and i haven't even started yet. i haven't even started yet. some would say a couple of days ago i started. that is not even starting. that is a warm-up. here is what happens. the commentators, the hillary clinton people say we would love to run against donald trump. i called them and said the reason they say that is that they don't want to run against me. they don't get the last thing she wants to be doing is running against donald trump. they would love to have somebody else who was a little more mild-mannered. who will not bring up the truth. i just tell the truth. believe me. i know clinton. i have been friendly. when i was a businessman. can i say that i'm still a businessman? i hate to say i'm a politician. they are so bad. nothing ever gets done. you're not going to make it. you put some politician in there, i know them all. i've contributed to most of them. one of them said no, i don't think you have contributed to

me. i did. i have given to democrats. i've given to hillary. because that was my job. i have to give to them. when i want something, i get it. when i call, they kiss my ass. they do. they kiss my ass. it's true. [applause]

think of that. trump 47, hillary clinton 44. i love it. in iowa, a cnn poll. i think it is the most accurate. donald trump 33, ted cruz 20. the one last night has us statistically even. i don't want it to be close. we have to have a mandate. we have to get out there. i want to win by so much. i have to tell you, new hampshire we are doing so good. look at this. we are up 21 points. i mean we are up 21 points. here is one in south carolina.

donald trump 38. do you know what that is? that is a massive difference. we are doing good. ted is a nice guy. i like him. he likes me. i like him. why? he's been nice to me. here is the problem. he is talking about natural born citizens. if he ever got the nomination, the democrats are going to bring a major suit. he was born in canada whether we like it. he lives there. he was born in canada. his parents voted in canada. a lot of things. if you're born in canada, it may be a problem. he gave up his citizenship 16-18

months ago. lawrence tribe is from hartford. very great lawyer. a constitutional expert. he's on television last night. he said about now to born citizens that this matter is not a settled matter. it is wrong to say it is a settled matter because it is not. just so you understand, that means there is a question. he was born in canada. i say to ted, as a republican, i think it's important, you have to get it straightened out. go for the declaratory judgment where you say there is a problem where there is a problem of interpretation. you get a ruling from the judge.

because you cannot put somebody there that is going to go in and be immediately sued by the democrats because they are saying he was born in canada. there is that doubt. who knows more about lawsuits than i do? i'm the king. they take 2-3 years. you can have somebody running and have a lawsuit and people have artie said they will bring a lawsuit. as to natural born citizenship. honestly, i don't know. some say have to be born on the land. that is what i always thought before. he was born in canada. john mccain had the same problem. the differences his parents were both in the military and he was

both in the military and he was born on a military base. i understand that. what you going to do? say you should have taken me back home to be born? he was born on a military base. by the way. lawrence tribe represented john mccain on that. he said he was troubled by it. it bothered him. but he also understood it. with ted cruz it is a problem. if it is a problem, they have to work it out. you can't give somebody a nomination. i think we are going to win. i don't want to win this way. i don't want to win this way.

i want to win fair and square. based on the polls i am doing well. but, you can't have a person running for office even though ted is very glib and he says i'm a natural born citizen. the point is you are not. you've got to get a declaratory judgment. you have the courts, with a

ruling for you have a candidate who just cannot run. the other side will immediately bring suit and you have that clout on your head and you can't have that cloud on the head. the republicans have a structural disadvantage. speaking of that, i think i'm going to do great in new york. a state they don't even talk about. you have to win florida. you have to win ohio. i do great in ohio. i'm killing case sick -- kasich

in ohio. i'm killing him in the polls. it's the same thing in florida. why did you pick one of them? it's interesting. pennsylvania, we're going to do great. for they have done in the industry's, i guarantee you i'm going to do great in pennsylvania. i think and want to do great in states not considered in play. i think new york. they came out with a pull, upstate new york loves trump. i do well in manhattan. i lived there. the truth is whether it is

liberal or not liberal, democrat or whatever, people want safety. they want our country to be great again. they want lower taxes. [applause] so i think that i'm going to win states that these people up there with the cameras don't even talk about. states that aren't even talked about. the other people are not going to win those states. there is not a chance. all these people are not going to win new york. i have a good chance of winning. they like me. i have employed thousands and thousands of people. i have built projects in new york from the littlest to the biggest buildings. tens of thousands of people. they like me in new york. a place like new york which is an even thought of, all of a sudden they are saying trump would have a chance because upstate new york, which is set

with a have done with that, it is in serious trouble, because it in such trouble i have a chance of winning. nobody else does. it just came out and one of the magazines that if trump gets the nomination they think he is going to take 20% of the democrat vote. i think so. [applause] do you remember the old little group of people -- some are still around. democrats for who? reagan? remember how many voted for ronald reagan. they are not polling that stuff. then, i'm going to do great with the hispanics. i told you about nevada where i won the pole because in one to create jobs. i'm going to do great with african-americans. they know i'm bringing the jobs back from china and japan and mexico. i want great with african-americans. there was a poll that showed i had 25% with african-americans. 25%. a republican gets 5%. 7% tops. this came out and said 25% for trump. the commentators were talking about it. if he gets 25% of the african-american vote this election is over. he wins. it is over. i don't know if i'm going to get 25%.

i have a great relationship with the african-americans. they love me. i love them. we are doing great with them. we're going to do great with every group. it is just a very exciting time. it is it is exciting to see what is happening. when i first announced, it was amazing. i have never seen so many cameras. it looked like the academy awards. i said to my wife it takes guts to run for president. i'm not a politician. i've always heard from day one, i've heard you can't run if you are a successful person, you can't run for president. i said it doesn't matter. committee stupid things are happening. they don't know what they are doing. they are either corrupt, incompetent or they have another agenda. i don't really think so but maybe there is another agenda out there we don't even know about. there is something going on because there are so many things that are so simple like the iran deal. how do you give $150 billion and we get nothing of that deal? we don't even get our prisoners back. now, i ran wants to start negotiating for the prisoners. they said we want very much. you just get sick when you see it. they are getting $150 billion and what we should have done is right at the beginning, in the middle, at the beginning of this thing, you go and say you want our prisoners back. they never asked for the prisoners. you know kerry. the worst negotiator. the persians are great negotiators. he is a master negotiator. kerry said he never wanted to do that or ask for the prisoners

because he didn't want to complicate the deal. that is what he said. he didn't want to complicate the deal. they are still there. one is a christian pastor, a pastor, a christian. the washington post has one of the reporters there. they are hostages. what happens is you go in, you made the right men say to them we have to have our prisoners back. whenever it started. got a have them back before we start negotiating. they will say no, and we will say bye-bye, we are leaving. with goodbye, get up and leave. they should have left that four or five times instead of sitting there. you get up and you leave. now what you do is ratchet up the sanctions and bring them up a couple of steps. you double them, triple them, give them nothing. you bring them up, double them. i guarantee you within 48 hours

they will be calling saying three years ago, saying we will give you your prisoners, when can we start negotiating? you wait till the prisoners are on the plane, you wait until they are over american soil, you wait till they are landing and you have your next meeting. now you are not giving them the $150 million because we don't have it. we want to give it a we don't have that. we can't give you the money, we don't have it, i'm sorry. let's put that in your head. they will be angry but don't worry about it. they will get over it. you make a good deal. you have your prisoners. if i'm going to go in, i'm not going to have that $150 billion. it will drive me nuts. i hate the concept of giving away that much money so stupidly. now they call and they say we are now prepared to negotiate for the prisoners but we want a lot. can you believe the stupidity of these people. this is one of the greatest deals of all time.

the greatest you of all time, i just started figuring this out, what do they get in addition to this great deal with the money? 24 days for inspection. so we say we had that building was nuclear. let us know. before they hit to the 24 days, they have to go through a process. it could be forever. they have certain areas where they have self inspection. think of iran with self inspection. we hear you are building nuclear. let us go and inspect. we will call you back tomorrow. mr. president, i promise we are not building nuclear there. this is madness. how we could have agreed to this is insane. it will lead to nuclear proliferation as sure as you are sitting there. you already see saudi arabia. if you think that iraq, and what is going on, the greatest deal they have made is iraq. they have been fighting for iraq

forever. since i was born they have been fighting. they have two equal countries in terms of militarily -- they go this and they fight. 10 feet this way 10 feet that way. they rest for a couple of years ago back and fight. saddam hussein with the gas, and the other one with gas, we take a truce, they rest. what the hell? we should have never been there i said that. we have to rebuild our country great we have to rebuild our infrastructure, our roads, schools am a bridges and we are pouring money. i said in 2004 and 2003, donald trump opposed to the war. i am more military -- i'm more militaristic that anybody in

this room. i want that strong military. i wanted so bad because we are not going to have it. we have to have it. we have to build it up. i'm in the real estate business. all the time i am getting these listings of naval base for sale, air force for sale. how many places do they have? we are always selling these bases. we need a strong military. we need a powerful military. we don't have it. we just don't have it. we are going to change things in this country. we are going to use our heads and be so smart, we are going to be so cunning, we're going to win so much. we're going to win on militarily. we are going to knock the shit out of isis. [applause] we are going to win with health

care. if you look at obama care, obama care -- the premiums are up 25% 35%, 45%. it is a disaster. it is going to collapse in 2017. in 2017 it has to collapse. we are going to terminated and replace it with something better. cheaper for you, cheaper for the country. it is no good. did you see your deductibles? we have to be dying for years before you get any money. you have to be so bad, you're not going to get any money. the deductibles or through the roof and premiums are going up so fast it is a disaster for everybody. we need health care. we need some the different things. we need a strong border. we need the wall. we're going to build the wall. [applause] so when i came down trump tower with my wife, she was very

elegans and i'm waving saying what am i doing, why my doing this? they have a lot of people back there. it looked like the academy awards. i mentioned i talked about illegal immigration. i took he like nobody has ever taken heat. rush limbaugh said donald trump has taken more incoming that any human being i've ever seen. i took a lot of heat. two weeks later it started dying down. then you have the killing of jamille in los angeles, getting ready to go to college, football player, great father, an amazing guy. shot in the face by an illegal immigrant who should have never been here.

you have the woman killed recently in california, a beautiful 66-year-old veteran. she was raped, sodomized, and killed, by a person that should have never, ever been allowed to be here. and many, many more. this is just many, many, many more. and people started say, you know, he's right. he's right. and now that's not even controversial. now, the other day, i'm watching ted cruz, and he's saying, yes, and we will build the wall. i said, where the hell did that come from? [laughter] >> it's true. and my wife said to me, darling, you have to hear this. and if it wasn't for tivo, i wouldn't have been able to hear it myself. i ran it back. she said, somebody just said he's going to build a wall. she's really into this. everybody is.

i can tell you names. people that you wouldn't belief. they watch it. they love it. we had 24 million people at the debate, biggest in the history of cable television. not debate, i mean show! 24 million. cnn had 23 million people watch! the biggest audience in the history of cnn. this isn't me talking. this is cnn putting out a release. the biggest audience! now, let's say trump isn't involved. okay? let's say it's rand paul -- aye! jeb bush -- oh! i don't want to mention everybody, because some people i like so much.

but let's say, okay, a cast of characters. those debates used to draw flies. they didn't draw anybody. [laughter] >> nobody wanted to watch the debate. networks didn't even want them. i think they had to take them as part of their license. they didn't even want them. now they say, can we make them three hours, ten hours? i mean, it's crazy what's going on, the debates. and everybody knows why. variety is the story, the trump debates, right? all of the different places do a story. the hollywood reporter, good magazine. they do a story. beautiful story on me. but they call it "the trump debates." it's great! and the beauty is that if i run against hillary, they say it's going to be the largest voter turnout in the history of the united states. and i believe that. and they also said, and cnbc said it, not only is it going to be the largest voter turnout, but many of these people are sick and tired of these phony, corrupt politicians, like hillary -- [cheering] >> and they're going to vote for trump and we're going to have a big victory.

we're going to have a big victory. so when i started, i came down, beautiful building, trump tower. go check it out sometime. gotta buy time magazine first, then check out trump tower. then log on and come on to @realdonaldtrump. between twitter and facebook and instagram, i have like 11 or 12 million followers, sort of like owning the new york times without the losses. can you believe that? it's incredible. it's incredible. i just -- i did something the other day. i did a tweet on something. and i'm watching.

i'm home, taking it easy, reading the paper. i did a tweet. and cnn breaks out, we have breaking news! donald trump is just -- some little thing about somebody not doing a good job someplace, right? donald trump has just announced that jeb bush is low energy. [laughter] >> breaking news. no. it's like crazy. it's the most incredible form -- it's so quick, so incredible. and they watch it. they watch every tweet. you gotta be careful a little bit. if you make a spelling mistake, they kill you. if you make a typo. if i do a little typo, it's like death! they just go wild. they put it on. look at this man! look at this man, this is a horrible typo! but it does give you a tremendous amount of power.

so @real donald trump. adding a few thousand people doesn't mean anything, right, when you have millions? but they're people from iowa. you have tremendous power, because you're going to be setting the agenda. it's so important what you're doing. >> so when i began, when i began, it started off and i was talking about the border. i was talking about trade. i was talking about china and i was talking about all of these countries that have been ripping us off and taking our money and destroying us and leaving us poor, leaving us without jobs and all of the things that have happened. all of the things that are true. newtown, iowa -- newton. are you from newton? she's not, but she knows. they took businesses out of newton. i felt badly. these were great people where a daughter wasn't able to go any further in college and things. so i helped them out. and i feel really good. i didn't know i would be doing this. that was years ago. the people of newton, they like donald trump. but it was very unfair.

jobs were taken. companies were taken. it was vikd. but that's happening all over the country. when i first came down, i said it was about trade and about the border and it was about obama care, repealing and replacing obamacare. then we had paris. and then we saw hatred. hatred like we've been watching. don't forget, the world trade center was hatred. in my book, "the america we deserve," i talked about bin laden. and joe scarborough said, wait a minute, when did he talk about this? a couple of years ago before the world trade center went down. no way! show it to me.

and they looked. they found out, i talked about osama bin laden. i said, don't go into iraq. i said osama bin laden, you gotta take these guys out. the reason i talked about him, i saw him on television, and i saw him in the papers. i said, this guy is a bad guy. a couple of years later, he knocked down the world trade center. they should have knocked him out. bill clinton had a chance to take him out and he didn't do it. if he did it, you would have the world trade center probably standing right now. so i said, amazing. people said, that's amazing, he was talking about bin laden before the trade center. i was talking about these different things. then what happens is you have a very horrible thing and we know what that is. paris was terrible. then you had recently california. which was horrible. 14 people, just killed, by people that threw wedding receptions for them and an anniversary. it was friends of theirs and they walked in and killed them.

there's something going on, something wrong here. then paris. and formerly, the press, they were -- fortunately, the press, they were calling him the -- the dumb guy with the dirty hat, you have to demean these people. they, isis and others, are using the internet to take our children's minds and to radicalize our children. and we won't even know about it. and they're going to places and they show up at the places -- i mean, they become -- they join isis and they join al-qaeda and they join -- it's disgusting what's going on, right? so i said, we have to get to the bottom of all of this.

and i said it very strongly, very vividly. i told the anchors, please don't call the leaders masterminds. call them people with very low i.q.'s, no good. the guy with the white hat, i call him the guy with the dirty white cap. he had the white ski thing on. why is he a mastermind? he sends guys in. you go there, you go there. think of this, because i'm big for the second amendment. we've got to save our second amendment, folks. [cheering] >> we've got to save it! so... [cheering] >> so if you go in, if you go in, and you have paris, where you have a number of places, and they put these thugs in there with guns, the toughest gun laws in the world, they say, is france and paris. the toughest in the world. you can't have a gun, unless you're a bad guy, you have a gun. you walk around with a gun, right? but if you're a law-abiding person, you're not allowed to have a gun. so in paris, these thugs, these dirty rotten, very stupid demented people, walk in. and they say, get over. boom! get over. boom! not one gun in the room, except for the bad guys. they kill 130, with more to come because you have some really

badly wounded people in the hospitals, many of whom won't make it. you have 130 people, a hospital load of horrible, horrible injuries. for what? i guarantee you, if that guy right there had a gun on his ankle and if that guy right there had a gun on his waist, and this one over here, the tall one with the glasses, or even the short one, or the woman -- she looks tougher than all of them -- [cheering] >> -- but if there were guns on the other side, where you'd have bullets going in both directions, it wouldn't be that way. same thing in california.

with these two horrible people, right? these two horrible people that knew everybody in the room. they were sort of friends, i guess. but they knew everybody in the room. and if you had a gun on the other side, it would have been a fight, and you wouldn't have the kind of carnage and horror show that you had. we have to protect our second amendment. remember that. and with me, it's going to be protected. [cheering]

>> we love you, trump! [cheering] >> and just one other thing, you have gun-free zones. that is like bait to a bad guy. a gun-free zone. we had the five military killed, not so long ago. on a military base, signs all over the place, this is a gun-free zone. one of the five was one of the all-time great soldiers, has >> so... just to finish, there's so many >> but... when i brought up -- when i brought up radical islamic terrorism, words the president of the united states refuses to say -- now, if you don't say the problem, and if you don't know what the problem is, you're never gonna solve the problem. you're never gonna solve it. there's nothing wrong with him saying "we have a problem." i mean, the world trade center got knocked down. people are being killed all over the place. by the way, when i left today, cologne, germany, people have been beat to hell. women have been raped. what's going on in germany is unbelievable. and we have to be smart. we can't take these people from the line that we have no idea who they are -- [cheering] >> you know, we all have heart. and the migration is a terrible thing, caused to a larger extent by obama and hillary with their policies, so stupid, so totally and grossly incompetent.

caused really by them. so what happened -- and others, but really by them more than anything else. you look at what they've done, with libya, with syria, the whole thing, everybody. i don't think they've done one right thing. even a few things. look, 50 soldiers. we're going to send 50 soldiers, okay? two months ago. so obama gets up. he announces, we're going to send 50 people. first of all, he thinks it's wonderful. 50 doesn't sound -- these are elite soldiers, great people. these are unbelievable men, women. these are the finest. what the hell does he have to say it for? because now they have a target on their back and the enemy is looking for those 50 people. if he would have just kept his mouth shut -- and you know what? for the purpose of p.r., when you say 50, people say, 50? it's actually bad! it's not even good! but why does he have to say it? why does he have to say, we're getting out, we should have never been in iraq, folks. but we shouldn't have gotten out the way we got out. we shouldn't have gotten out the

way we got out. i mean, i hated what they did. i hated what they did with iraq! but we shouldn't have gotten out. and he goes out and he announces -- he announces the date that we're leaving! and i said, oh, that's smart, because i think of it as camouflage. he leaves that day! so the bad guys -- don't kid yourself. they don't want to die. you read all about they want to die. bull shit. they don't want to die. okay? they don't wanna die. and let me just tell you another thing. their families know everything that they're doing, just like your families know everything that you're doing. their families know everything! and they care more about their families than they care about themselves. they don't want to die. but they care more about their families than they care about themselves. and their wives know.

and their children know. and they knew everything about the world trade center! and they knew what was going on! and those people in california, they had pipe bombs all over their place, all over their apartment and there were numerous people that knew. and they could have reported them to the police and you wouldn't have had the problem. but they didn't wanna do it! so something bad is going on. and before we do anything, and before this country goes totally to hell, we better get smart! we better get away from these superpoliticians that don't have it. and we better do it right, because we're not going to have much of a chance. we're not gonna have much of a chance. [cheering] >> so... so it's become largely, and even at the rallies, everybody has great confidence in me, with china, with all these places. and don't worry about it. we'll take great care of that whole situation.

we'll get along great with them. it will be fine. we're going to do great. but we're going to strengthen up our borders. we're going to get along with mexico. they're going to respect us more. they don't like us now. they take advantage. they don't even like us. ford is building a plant there. nabisco, closing their factory in chicago, moving it to mexico. that doesn't help us, folks. i went to the greatest schools. i went to the wharton school of finance, an ivy league college. but it does nothing for us. we're going to have respect. we are going to be respected by other countries now. we're not respected. it's funny. we're like the big, fat bully that gets his ass kicked all the time. nobody -- nobody respects it. that's what we are. we don't win anymore. and what i said before is this. we are gonna win so much that you people are going to get so tired of it. you're going to beg me, please,

please, no more victories, mr. trump. [laughter] >> no more victories! we can't take it anymore! give us at least one or two failures. and i'm gonna say, no way we're gonna have failures! we're gonna win all the time! and we are going to make america great again! i love you! thank you! get out and vote! ♪[music] ["eye of the tiger" theme] ♪[music] ♪ rising up ♪ back on the street ♪ did my time ♪ took my chances ♪ went the distance

♪ now i'm back on my feet ♪ ♪ just a man and his will to survive ♪ ♪ so many times ♪ it happened too fast ♪ you trade your passion for glory ♪ ♪ don't lose your grip ♪ ♪ on the streets of the past ♪ you must fight just to keep them alive ♪ ♪ it's the eye of the tiger ♪ ♪ it's the thrill of the fight ♪ ♪ rising up to the challenge of our rivals ♪ ♪ and the last known survivor ♪ ♪[music]

>> a petition to ban donald trump from entering the u.k. theodore 550,000 signatures. that will take place at westminster hall and is open to any member of parliament. we will have it live, monday, january 18, 11:30 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> as president obama prepares for his final state of the union address, he released this video on twitter. that is whatma: makes us great as americans -- our ability to pull ourselves closer to the america we believe in. it is it we are. coverage starts at 8

back attern, looking the history and tradition of the president's annual message. then the republican response to the present's speech by south carolina governor nikki haley. your tweets, facebook comments, and e-mails. and we will re-air our state of theunion coverage in republican response starting at 11 p.m. eastern, 8:00 this effect. also live on c-span2, we will members of congress and statuary hall in their reaction to the president's address. >> next, a group of lawyers discuss a teachers union case

and what it could mean for nonunion members who are required to pay certain fees. this is an hour and a half. >> hello, everybody. hello, everybody. can you hear me? ok. i would like to welcome you to our briefing today on the upcoming supreme court case, friedrichs versus california teachers association urine i'm caroline fredrickson. i am the president of the american constitution society.

it is so great to be here among so many friends. for those of you who may not be familiar with the american believetion society, we that the laws should be a force to improve the lives of all people. acs works for positive change by on finally debate important legal and constitutional questions through the development and promotion of high impact ideas to opinion leaders and the media, and by building networks of those dedicated to those ideas and ultimately via countering the activist legal movement that has sought to erode our in during -- uring constitutional values.

we will discuss the looming important case, friedrichs versus the california teachers association. at issue in this case, whether unions can collect so-called fair share fees, the cover for non-union members. and whether that constitute speech under the first amendment. the role ofuss collective bargaining in maintaining peace and the historic impact this case may have on workers and public sector employment in the short and long term. to understand these issues and talk about what is at stake, we have a wonderful moderator, professor garrett epps.

teaches law at the baltimore school of law. he is a contributing editor to "the atlantic," "the american prospect." the author of several books, and i have just learned, among them, two novels. if you are feeling inadequate already, more so. garrett also published "nine clashing visions of the supreme court." he is also a former staff writer "thethe washington post," new york times." a jd from duke, a ba from harvard, where he was editor of "the harvard crimson." but maybe most importantly for us, he is a great friend to the american constitution society. andse welcome garrett epps

our esteemed panel. thank you, garrett. [applause] thanks for the introduction and thanks to everybody for being here. we have a great panel on the issues in friedrichs and its importance in first amendment , andublic employment law it is such a good panel that even though i am a law professor , i am looking forward more to listen to them than talking myself. ,et me introduce them quickly and we will get some talk knowing back and forth for 50 minutes to an hour and then we will have your questions. stay out of the way in the discussion, but we did agree beforehand panelists

would try to keep their comments to a couple minutes so we can do back and forth and it's possible if someone forgets that i may start going like this, but i'm not choking. here are our panelists. immediately to my left, anisha --dasgupta, deputy journal deputy general solicitor of new york. she has served in the white house counsel's of this and the white house chief of staff. left, marian parker is the lead counsel with the services division and practiced and was once the program coordinator at the carnegie endowment center. i bet there are stories that can come out of that. to her left, and a sense, is jeff harris -- [laughter]

he is a partner at bankrupt, specializing in supreme court advocacy and has cases several important before the supreme court. during 2008 he was a chief clerk for chief justice roberts. , andy pincus. argued cases before the supreme court. before the panel i asked the panelists to imagine they got a phone call from someone very important, justice kennedy, adam looked at, whoever you consider to rank higher who said i have one question for you and what question would they want this

person to ask them? each person is going to give a brief answer to his or her question, and then we are going to move into more back and forth. anisha, you said that you would like to fill this person in on what the fair share states have as far as collective bargaining and utility to them. so, if you want to go ahead -- anisha: that's exactly right. i would like the caller to understand the benefits that public employers generally get from union representation arrangements. these benefits include government services, but the benefits i want to focus on is courtsruption of

government services. many of the services are not provided by the private sector at all or they are not provided by the private sector at cost affordable to the vast majority of citizens. we're talking about public safety, public education, public transportation, institutional welfare the elderly, services for the needed, that's for the needy. and the experiences of new york and many other states showed us before, public employees had a place to air grievances about workplace conditions. there were often expressions resulted in work stoppages and strikes that in turn caused disruptions in public services and ways that really had a dramatic effect for the public. following on the model of federal collective bargaining,

states, many of them, choose to adopt collective bargaining from public employees. the important second piece of the puzzle are fair share fees fees supportshare these modes of collective bargaining. from the perspective of the public employer, what the state is looking for is a negotiating partner in a position to negotiate effectively and to ateract employee concerns the source. and that requires expertise of all different kinds. expertise, legal expertise, managerial expertise, and that costs money. what fair share fees to, they go toward differing those costs. another piece of the puzzle is why the experiences of right to work states or different approaches do not dilute the

story. garrett: that's great. you indicated that you would like to indicate to the color that our society is in the seriousf a complex and debate about work place equality and you would want the caller to see friedrichs within the context of that debate? maryanne: i would. i would want this caller -- you can call any time -- to realize that we are living in the worst the best of times. we live at a time when the american economy is out of balance. people are working harder than ever and they still find themselves struggling to provide

for a recent life for their family. -- that ising people 64 million american workers -- are less than $15 an hour. these are really grim facts, but it still feels like the rules for a wealthy few at the expense of the rest of us. yet it is a time of incredible hope and change. as this audacious $15 an hour among fast food workers. since that time, 11 million people have one themselves a raise at work. in addition, there is a growing understanding it's just a demonstrated fact that when workers come together, when collective actions rise in a workplace, economic opportunity and mobility are the result.

again, seen time and they have middle-class jobs, close wage gaps, and they have brought their frontline expertise to solve real-world replace problems and to help a look sector employers with issues of reducing cost and equality and these are problems that are every bit as important to soften the public sector as the private sector. arguably more important. in astonishing study came out. it was a national study by many well-respected economist and it was looking at income immobility, particularly children born in the bottom quintile of our economic system. it showed no matter where they lived, they had considerably up in theof moving

economy -- this was true even if the child was not from a union household. so, we have this incredibly fraught moment, a time of great inequality and opportunity and we are here to discuss a case that would limit the ability of people to come together in do work that has been done in many workplaces where they have the capacity to do that work. i see this case as part of a the larger attack on ability of working people to band together and provide a key resource in the fight against equality that so many of us are engaged in right now. garrett: thanks. , you said you would be interested in talking to this person about the overarching theme of the first amendment as it has developed before the

supreme court and whether there would be anything anomalous about a decision for the friedrichs or the responders, and it's either there is one first amendment or a lot of different specialized areas? for that., thank you i think the one overarching point i would make is there is and ite first amendment does not include an exception for labor law. there is no exemption to the prohibition on compelled beecher association just because individuals are being forced to associate with the union as opposed to some other private organization. to illustrate that, is most theful to look at government employment context and one out of that context. patronage political system. texas governor

said we only want to hire republicans and we only want people who share our values to do the public work. it's pretty well-established apolitical hiring process at that -- like that would be unconstitutional. but once we accept that, i don't to how we can allow states coerce employees into financially supporting a unions. both require payments to subsidize organizations that people would not join if left to their own devices. issue of mandatory agency fees -- and this is not about the right to collectively bargain. this is not about exclusive representation. it's only about the compelled payments to the union. and so, i think the problems

without her even clearer when we and getther step back outside the employment context altogether. to stick with texas for life of a better state and say texas is worried about children spending too much time indoors on computers, so texas makes the boy scouts and the girl scouts it's official outdoor education providers. no one is compelled to join the scouts, but if you have a school themhild, you have to pay $100 a year for access to outdoor education services. i don't think that would be constitutional, because you would have the government parents support a mission they may disagree with. and the state cannot make it constitutional by saying, oh, we will also have the boy scouts

give you a service in exchange for your compelled money. for adam wouldy be this case is about unions, accept that the government has this extraordinary power to compel individuals to subsidize a private organization, i think it can lead to a lot of other things that would not sit well with progressives as well. garrett: thanks. iny, you're also interested the first amendment context, from a slightly different point of view, discussing how the first amendment applies in the context andyment whether there is something and i the fair share rule. probablyf and i could have a conference call with a pretty good exchange of views on the first amendment. [laughter] andy: let me back up and say, while there is only one first

amendment, it is quite settled that it applies differently in employee contacts. there is a special first amendment context and the court said a bunch of years ago in a case called pickering that the government has an interest in regulating the speech of its employees that differs significantly from those professed in connection with the range of the speech in general. so, whatever the rule might be join forcing children to the boy scouts -- i personally did not like the boy scouts. a little too militaristic for me when i was a kid. i think jeff is probably right. the government could not force anyone to join or pay them. that has nothing to do with the public standard and the public employee contexts. let me talk about two examples. this cased with

called pickering and it dealt with the question of what is the government's ability to regulate speech of government employees? after all, a lot of what they do during their day is speech and there could be complaining about workplace conditions or signing on to certain tasks because the worker disagrees with the policy and do not want their name associated with it. the court develops a special standard for assessing to the extent the first amendment regulates the ability to act as an employer with respect to the speech of employees. that says if the speech is not about a matter of public concern, then there is no first amendment balancing it all. if it is on a matter of public the compelling

means test does not apply. it is measured against a balancing test and it is a balancing test where the court has several times said there should not be a lot of second guessing about the interest of employers, especially in running government employers. so, in the workplace speech which seems most analogous to what we're dealing with here, i first amendment claim related to the individual's status as an employer, we have a very different in deferential rest amendment standard. jeff mentioned the patronage cases. there, too, a very different standard. what the court has said is the it iss whether or not reasonable for the government to require political affiliation as

a condition of employment. there was -- justice brennan test in the 1970's, but talksst recent court about reasonableness. again, this would never apply to actions burdening employees in a non-first amendment context. i think it is important to look recognizeue here and what the court said and what the rule has been for 35 years is exactly the same principle, that the court adopted in the workplace context, which is to negotiation -- wages, grievance conditions, grievance standards, lots of , we are going to treat them in the employment context. we will recognize there is no as anamendment protection

actual speaker, so the government can require financial thoset with regard to activities. labor negotiations may move into areas of public concern. even then there is a deferential standard, and the question is does the government have an interest in operation of it workplace which justifies the fair share requirement. i think that the brief filed by new york and other states makes the point that there is a great an effectiveaving negotiation partner, but even more in the fact that representation and bargaining activities, the union's take on significant obligations in terms of workplace safety

partnerships, training for inloyees, and particularly the first responder category, in terms of providing for rehabilitation and other services for injured first responders, that otherwise employers would have to take on. there is clearly a huge government interest in that. i'm sure we will get into that more. thanks, andy. i do want to say before we go on, i spent the three years in the boy scouts is a second class scout, which is a literal category because i could not pass -- you talk about controlled speech. i'm not bitter. i think it sets up a really at hand inssue being iss case, in that this

compelled speech because any activity by a public employee union, any collective bargaining by a public employee union is inherently political because it has to do with the conduct of public affairs. sure everyone probably has interest in talking about that. do you want to tackle that first? sure.ne: fantasticng the briefs with this case, the law here is not unsettled. we have a standard by which nonmembers cannot be compelled to pay for speech by nonpolitical unions. there was a case upholding the amendmentrst

principle. so, what we have seen is an attempt to characterize more of the work that happens in labor management relations as political. there's not an anomaly. there's not something that has to be fixed here. it's just a different way of seeing the world. we had a particular impairment in this case because we don't case cameord. at this up to the supreme court in a particularly odd way. it has reached oral argument and listen two years, and this is because the petitioners asked ninthstrict court in the circuit court of appeals to roll against them. -- to rule against them. the world is against them. we have no discovery. we have a very abstract conversation going on and we are

required to accept the plating, so what is on the record in terms of what the union does is and theh in this case facts in this case. but we have a great deal of content. and particularly whether the court ought to decide everything employers being political, there's a lot of evidence in the amicus brief to the contrary. a study doneng up by the two largest hospitals in the country. collectively they serve almost 2 million patients a year. the study was done with the largest unit of health care workers in the country. when you read this brief, you understand the extent to which the work going on is not

inherently political. it is inherently about the business of running the hospital. and what is happening is what is happening at kaiser, a private sector hospital chain, that is figured out it's a very good business decision to engage with frontline nurses and doctors and cleaners, to reduce infection rates, to make sure emergency room's are turned around, to reduce wait times, to make sure occurrences of pediatric asthma. without aot be done well resourced union that has the ability to take on the work that requires. 28 public officials as attesting to the work that they do -- everything from putting less garbage trucks on their route to figuring out how to invest in

the water authority over the course of many years, figuring out how to reduce health care costs send pension costs. these are done more effectively with a well represented worker force. not every city and county in the country signed onto this brief. there are 25 states that do not allow these types of arrangements. but the idea that the district and states covering half the population of the united states do and they do with reference to a well-established law and on reliance of that law. garrett: jeffrey, do you want to go next? i think probably everyone will have something to say on that issue. jeff: i don't dispute that unions do lots of wonderful things that help their members and the public at large, but so naacp and some would

say the national rifle association. particularly in circumstances where the union is providing extra insurance or benefit, if that is the case, that looks like a perfectly compelling reason to join the union voluntarily of the record. the other point would be there a lots of private organizations that do lots of wonderful things that support themselves through private, voluntary contributions, and the third point i would make -- if the union is not able to pay for these things, of course, the government can always pay for it themselves. establish that with the union and i do not disagree with any of the good justs that maryanne was talking about, but i do not think it follows that we need to be compelling people who do not

support the union to pay for its activities. a, do you have a dog in this fight? --rett: i -- jeffrey: anisha: i do. from the standpoint of a public employer, we do not see this as political or ideological. people are always willing to open their pockets to pay for things that help them. the reality is that free writing is a problem whenever the rules allow it because people may underestimate the benefit they get from important public services and collective bargaining is no exception to that. in circumstances where fair share fees don't have to be paid, people sometimes don't contribute for the benefits they workplaceat can cause tensions. the supreme court has discussed this. it's a matter of common sense.

people feel bad when they are oring for something conversely when they see someone eliciting from -- benefiting from something where they are not making a contribution .hemselves fair share fees are important to get everybody's skin in the game in a way that reduces tension, benefit to public employers. public employers would not on therily want to rely goodwill of people to determine core public services could be provided. garrett: andy, do you want to take this on? andy: a couple things, just to point about the

everything being encompassed in the collective bargaining is political, if that is true, the basis for the petitioners in this case, then the court is really going to have to grapple with the fact that that totally undermines the dealing withre for these many, many hundreds of workplace speech claims that are filed annually against government employees. probably thousands. a matter of public concern or not? many are dismissed. these are not matters of public concern and there is no first amendment right, no need for balancing, case dismissed. if everything is a matter of public concern on the theory that it ultimately impacts, for example, government

expenditures, because everything is in some sense a government willion, all of this cases have to be assessed on the balancing test. . so, i think in terms of whether the court'ss into first amendment jurisprudence, i think it clearly does, because the laws are not consistent. on the other hand, if it is found to be inconsistent with the first amendment, there will have to be massive restructuring of all of these other areas of the law. interestingly, though we are talking about the government as a employer, and there is special legal principle, that not to theplied, aclu and the naacp, but to other

organizations. bar associations. the supreme court has upheld contributions to bar associations. it is a regulated profession and therefore those transactions, even though there are lawyers that would prefer not to associate themselves maybe with the local bar association, too bad, you have to pay. the associations are restricted. engaging in the legal profession, they can be forced to pay for it. if our rule is no one can be required to pay for anything, that entire line of jurisprudence will have to be filed -- reconsidered. which is why the amicus brief d.c. bar by two dozen

associations because that is a very big issue and the d.c. bar. who are just for those little unclear, there is a case that approved fair share fees and the public employment context on the totext that they have represent the interest of all of the workers, whether they are members of the union or not. can be required to join the union, as we all know, that can be required to pay a fair share fees for these services in terms ofves them negotiation and collective bargaining and grievance and so forth. because the court said otherwise there would be the problem of free riders, that people would simply say, i want the benefits, but i don't want to pay. it musters insist that

be overturned. there is no conceivable way it go forward if it is not. jeff, you have an interesting take. why don't you go first? i'm starting from a place where there is a serious associational interest in compelling someone to financially support a union. be of overriding importance. i do not think this gets to that level. at the end of the day, i do not think anyone seriously contends this will cripple unions. all it means is they will have a totle less money or have operate more efficiently or

change things at the margin, but i don't think there is any reason to believe that the sky will fall and we have several natural experiments to prove that. the federal workforce, there are hundreds of thousands of federal workers who are full, committed union members, even though the agency fees are outlawed. same thing with the u.s. postal service. same thing with public and private workforces in right to work states with no agency fees. -- again, i don't think this is an existential threat to unions. i think when you look at jurisdictions that do not have agency fees, again, i am not going to dispute it may be a little harder or there may be get pavement pounding to the fees up at the same level where they were without agency fees, but i don't think that this is an existential threat.

i think the free writing rationale proves too much. by the same logic, all of the people who do not make the political contributions under street areansen and free writing off of the members who do pay for the activities, so even those who checked the box and got their political fees back will free right off of that. i think empirically it does not hold up. i think also it would get to a point where it would justify compelled political speech, too. maryanne, how about that? is free writing not really a problem? maryanne: there's a lot of assertions in the brief on the petitioners.

free writing -- these are all pretty basic intro econ type but i'm not going to expound on them, because we are that two have a brief of the leading economists in the country explaining the nature of the problem and free writing, while it may work for the isitioners in friedrichs related to some objection to what the union does and often it's just a result of this economic paradox that if you do not have to pay for something, even if it is good for you, you tend to not pay for it. americaworkstogether.org is a great resource for this case. i would leave it at that and turn to anisha. anisha: some of those examples

are not quite comparable in the sense that the states and the federal government has taken approaches to managing labor relationships and those have implications for the cost of collective bargaining. thene sense, it proves point about supreme -- about free writing. .o, only a third do but one of the reasons why this does not have a dramatic impact on the efficacy of federal context,g in the federal employees are not allowed to bargain about wages and certain other things like the number of them leave in the workplace. and another thing is federal law actually subsidizes collective-bargaining activities by permitting individuals who on theirding services

official work time. in terms of a right to work not helpful to see them in this unitary way, right? there are some states that have gone all the way and there are some states that adamantly oppose it. states of taken different ofroaches and the types employees they allow to collectively bargain, and those decisions have implications for the cost. some of these right to work states, they actually allow a certain kind of employee, like public safety employees or public school teachers to collectively bargain because they made the decision they do not want to face disruption of those kinds of services.

although they are in a right to work state, they represent theyc safety officers and say, we want to save the public from disruption. it's too important. i think free writing, in addition to being a well documented economic phenomenon is something that is empirically documented in the literature, but also shown by the experiences of different employers. garrett: andy, you brought abood into the conversation. you want to finish this up? sure.ndy: policy nerd point.

this is about whether they want to strengthen collective bargaining relationships with employees. they have gone so far as states saying we will have fair share fees to the other end, stay saying we will have no bargaining with employees, we will set the terms of the implement unilaterally. , that's great. -- if you want to come work for us, that's great. talkinge here, win about the policy, free rider are not, could the services be provided by the state, these are decisions that they are making on what works best for them. level, itc policy seems to say that the constitution should dictate that unless there is an important

constitutional right that would be infringed, which takes me back to my nerd point. are we going to change the rules and say in this context there is a constitution -- and it goes -- theythe intrusion rooftops from the about how terrible they think the union's position is. on one hand, they are not demanding enough from the government or they are focused on the wrong things -- there is going to be a vigorous public discussion in which those people can participate and air their views. context, thisce is about silencing people, a intrusion on rights

and no one seems to be challenging it. it just seems very odd to say in this context where, to be sure there is compelled support, but there is not a limitation on what people can say, we're going to limit even greater what the state can do compared to where we are dealing with actual speech. the federalism issue is kind of a sleeper in this one because states have made decisions and the court is notionally respectful that states can diverge within our federal system. we have someone from the state right here. sha, do you want to talk about the federalism issue? anisha: sure. i think the most important thing and thefrom abood federalism standpoint is it does not force and approach.

they can authorize public employee unions. states are not compelling and negotiated process between the union and the employee. and states that have chosen to go that route do not have to. one important part of this aboutm, these decisions how to manage the state workforce are fundamental policy judgments that go to all sorts of considerations the states have to balance when thinking about how to provide public services, to ensure public retention, and there are lots of complicated variables in the mix. -- many ofomplicated

states do notork experience the kind of labor unrest that new york and other states that adopted collective bargaining models have experienced. to suggest to is states they don't have the freedom to do what public employers do conflict with many of the things the supreme court -- said, in many cases the when government is acting as employers, they have more latitude. the court has recognized that we all rely on the government to functions.tain

and it can be resolved through the kind of organization to organization negotiation that collective bargaining allows. government would grind to a halt and the -- that would not be good for anyone who relies on them to provide basic services. is there a federalism issue that the court may steam past without knowing? couple points. absolutely there is federalism issue, but i think we have crossed that bridge. at the very least, it seems like we need a coherent approach to this. once we realize that states are not allowed to manage their workforces with patronage, then we are in the laboratories of democracy. the court has said these are situations that implicate the first amendment. i think it was justice holmes who said everyone is protected

under the constitution, but no one has a right to be a policeman. that's not what he said, but you the courti mean. of could have said, 50 laboratories of democracy. this is you acting as an employer and not his government. but we don't have that. in california and new york, if joinget to say you have to a union to be a public employee, i don't know why texas and arizona to not have to say that you have to join the republican a federal employee. also on federalism, obviously that is important when, but the new york times, libel laws in place for centuries, overturn and get aresident massive -- overturn precedent and did a massive intrusion, so federalism at issue

but it has never stopped the court from vindicating a core constitutional right. ,ne thing on pickering pickering unquestionably gives the government more leeway when but theng employees, union is supposed to be on the other side of the table. union is not regulating employees. the union is supposed to be representing them and advocating them. pickering says, i do not think it follows that you get to a point where the government is telling employees that areize entities to be adverse to the government. argument,pickering but i don't find it persuasive. garrett: let's ask maryanne about that. are we forcing workers to subsidize this?

and we will fight it to the nail at every step? is that right? sensene: i think it makes to return to the perceptions of this case, what the petitioners would have us believe is that they are here to fix something ,hat is a novelist in the law that there is an impression that in spite of many, many cases establishing the contrary, nonunion members are supporting political activity that they are not. is an obvious citizenship at this is he -- advocacy issue, a system of collective arguing chosen toystem has put into place. states have chosen not to put them into place. what we have right now