cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] atouncer: tonight, looking the economy, jobs, and the presidential election. mrs. clinton: and we will defend american job and american workers by saying no to bad trade deals like the transpacific partnership and unfair trade practices. mr. trump: the state of pennsylvania has lost one third of their manufacturing jobs since the clintons put china into the wto. announcer: the program looks at nafta, the trade agreement between the united states, mexico, and canada. mr. clinton: it causes more jobs for our people, and more democracy for our allies. announcer: a discussion on how the founding fathers viewed free trade. >> the fact is that historically, the united date simply was not a free trade

nation for most of american history. the u.s. is, in fact, a terror protected economy. this goes back to our constitution. announcer: and an in-depth look at the body that enforces global trade rules. >> at the time the wto was negotiated or its evil sister, nafta, 800 more pages of specific rules and regulations. my book would be very different. when these two are being negotiated, the u.s. had as its official advisers 500 corporate advisors. our issue watch spotlight on trade deals tonight at eight :00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. announcer: june marked the 800th anniversary of the magna carta. the circuit court of appeals hosted a discussion at its conference earlier this year, focusing on the document and its impact on the u.s. constitution.

this is just under one hour. host: all right, ladies and gentlemen, if we can get started, our next segment will deal with the magna carta. i will tell you that last week, one afternoon, i had a friend of mine and his wife come by to meit, and the husband asked some questions about what was going to go on at this conference, and they said, what are the kinds of things you are going to talk about? i said, well, one of the things we're going to do is celebrate the signing of the magna carta. he said, when was that side? he said 1215. and he looked at his wife and said, honey, i told you we should have come before lunch. we have a very distinguished group. e.have professor a.

ready, and if you are i am going to turn the program over to you, professor. professor howard: good morning, everybody. nice to see all of you. as you know, we are planning this morning to say a word on the 800th anniversary of the magna carta. i am dick allen. i teach at the university of virginia. guests.wo distinguish david hodge from washington, d.c., her majesty's counsel general, a very fancy title. he is not a lawyer. degree in american studies and spent a year at the university of southern

california in san diego, doing i think a thesis on tom wolfe. the other panelist is william hubbard. you, and immediate past president of the american bar association from south carolina. he is an honorary member in year, the 800th anniversary year, he was in at the presiding rededication of the american bar association's memorial to the magna carta. he also presided over the aba london meeting which attracted something like 1000 americans to england. will divide, we this into about two major parts of about equal length. to have a sketch of the magna carta, the 800 years for its origins, how did it survive, how did it managed to get across the atlantic to america, and what does it today,

and then secondly in the second major part of the program, we will turn to a discussion with first david hunt and then william hubbard. give you some sense of the contemporary modern implications of the magna carta, so first, a few words and a little background, a little history of where the magna carta came from. thats an unwilling bargain played a role in the life of 15, and itn june 12 is clear that king john not only was a bad man, he was a bad king. he managed to have an issue with the city of london and most important with the barons. as a military leader, he lost a major battle of france, which resulted in the loss of the normand area. and the magna carta was the result.

you need not worry here about the feudalism that most of the details of the magna carta have to do with, important issues, but among the most important provisions and one that above all survive was the so-called chapter 39 of the magna carta, the one that guarantees proceedings according to the law of the land. call the due process of law. there was another companion provision, chapter 40, which said that justice should not be day -- delayed, denied, or sold. reluctantn, the bargainer, he did not intend to keep his promise. he was going to turn his back on magna carta. he died the next year, 1216, and his successor was nine years old. nine-year-old king going to live in the middle ages

we have all seen "game of thrones" and the like, so william marshall hit upon what we would call a public relations device, and that was that he had reissue the magna carta as a pledge of good faith to the english people and then started down the centuries of each party coming to the throne, reissuing magna carta. tutor period. not think of this as a time of constitutional government. and a word of the 17th century. this is the century were the stewards came to the english throne, the notion of divine right of kings. kings is on a collision course with parliament. there was a commentator on magna , the leader in parliament against the pretensions of the

kings, and he said that the that herta was such would have no sovereign, that the magna carta was against those claims. a veryh century is turbulent period, the execution of charles the first, and when william and mary came to the throne after the so-called glorious revolution in 1688, so a very chaotic period in history , resulting after 1689 in what i think you call the foundations of modern british government. some reform is the english side of the story. what is interesting here, and you can see why the english would be celebrating magna carta. that is where it came from, but why would the americans care? and what about american constitutional law? well, magna carta came to america with the very first charters. the virginia company charter in

1606 had a provision. there was one particular provision that said that those who emigrated to virginia would enjoy the privileges, franchises, and immunities that they would enjoy back in england. in other words, to come to this wilderness called virginia, they did not leave their rights behind, and one of those rights certainly included the protections of the common law, in particular magna carta. while, that was the origins. and then massachusetts and the other colonies had very similar provisions. the revolutiono in the 18th century, magna carta appeared again. many of you will have read about the james otis argument, when he was detained by boston merchants to argue against the system. youral search warrants,

could go into a business or home and search for what you like without any limitation. in that argument cited certain edward cooke, the commentator, and in particular the 1610 case in which cooke had said that if an act of parliament was against right reason, then it would be null and void. the idea was even parliament by the commoned law. well, that doctrine died out in the 18th century. there was a famous commentary written on the laws of england, in which they said that parliament is sovereign. parliament calls the shots. to impact that. that was established back in england, but in america, you had people like james otis making the argument for constitutional supremacy, so you can see the americans and the english were

basically talking past each other. thenew in this period with seven years war, the stamp act impose ad, they try to tax in america. on the factcted that this was taxation without representation. they also complained that these were taking place in admiralty courts, denied their right to trial by jury. then came the boston tea party. the event after which the british close the port of boston. they quarter the american troops and closed down the assembly of massachusetts, but the other colonies rallied to the support of massachusetts, and it became a common cause for the andicans, by and large, congress, 1774, they wanted to forculate some basis

rights, and where did these rights come from, and how did they exist, so at the some said, congress, well, the colonial charters. others said it is like the british constitution, in particular, magna carta, and others said, we think it is the law of god or the law of nature. natural law is the foundation for our rights. well, the cut is called, a very typically american eclectic approach, they slept on this argument and scented with resolutions and said it does not matter what label you put on it, we americans have right which you british are not respecting. that brought us to the ease of revolution, and then americans started writing their own constitutions. assembly in williamsburg and may of 1776, with the virginia delegates at the congress in

philadelphia, introducing the resolution for independence. day, working on a state constitution. two documents, a declaration of rights and then a frame of government. it is interesting that they took those two steps, because the theory was first you declare your rights. those rights precede and do not depend on government, and then you work on a frame of government, the main body of the constitution. one person who was not in williamsburg at that meeting was thomas jefferson, but he spent the next 50 years complaining about that constitution. my guess is that he was complaining because he was not participating. by the way, it is written into

my contract at the university of have aa that i cannot talk without at least one mention of thomas jefferson, so you have just heard my one obligatory mention of jefferson. his idea was that the body of men in williamsburg who wrote constitution was also enacting laws in virginia, and that was confusing, to have the same people constitutions and laws because constitutions are then just ordinary laws. law, so what other we did not do in virginia, our friends in massachusetts did up -- did four years later. the express purpose of writing the constitution, which was then put out in referendum and voted on by the people, so they actually moved the constitution from the ordinary lawmaking process, and america invented the constitutional convention. this was coming that had not been thought of in europe at the

time or england. these were infused with many other provisions of the magna carta and the other liberty documents, such as the bill of rights. statefrom the constitutions, then we get philadelphia, 1787. we tried the federal constitution. i may have missed something, but as far as we know, the magna carta was never mentioned. is really strange. why would it be that after all of these years of staking their claims of right on magna carta, why would they sweep the magna carta offstage? to ask the federalists that question, i think the first answer would be, look. magna carta was a grant from the king to the people, and we are writing a constitution based on popular sovereignty. we the people. and i think the federalists might also say that magna carta was only a limit on royal power,

and we are writing a constitution to limit all other branches of government, executive, legislative, and judicial, and therefore, magna carta is simply not relevant no matter how useful it may have been. well, as you know, the federalists blundered. george mason and others to add a bill of rights. they said we do not need one. it could be difficult. it was a hot and muggy summer in for that opiate, and they just want to go home. and there was an article complaint to the people who became the opponents of the new wastitution that it anti-federalist, because they can go around the country and say, look, these people write the constitution, but they do not provide for our rights. well, james madison and the other federalists got the point. he was reluctant to have a bill of rights. they would ratify the

constitution, and the first congress would propose amendments to create a bill of so that is what they did, of course, and madison was word, and the bill of rights came to being. so basically, what do we have in this door a? we have a story that is part --ovation and part federalism was very american. on the other hand, you have got the tradition of the magna carta and its teachings, in particular in the state and federal bills of rights, so how would i sum up the magna carta legacy setting the stage for my conversation with my colleagues here? the first legacy, i think, would be the rule of law, something that american lawyers love to talk about, the rule of law. i remember being in leningrad now st. petersburg when they were writing the first post-soviet constitution.

i was comparing notes with the drafters, back in the day when we thought russia would be a liberal democracy. it seems a long time ago today. russian, soeak any i was using a translator, and the translator was using the english phrase, rule of law, as a socialist legality. well, what do we americans mean when we talk about the rule of law? articulation the of fundamental rights, the restatement of those rights down through the centuries. now, the idea of putting it in writing, from charters with the constitutions, the notion that if it is that important, it constitutes a written document. supremacy.he idea of driven or my comment about the -- rememberomments

my comment about the james otis. the first tentative or rather distant step, but it begins the process of thinking about some documents as being superior to others, the idea that it is super statute. i think it flows back to the magna carta. it brings us back to the supremacy clause of the constitution. this constitution and all laws enacted in pursuant of it shall be the supreme law of the land. you might remember back to your with year of law school madison, you might be struck by the fact that marshall began with statements of general principle. finally, later in the opinion, he gets to the supremacy clause, but he talks as if it is self evident. you write a constitution, it is bound to be a superior document. that, i think, is a direct .esult of the teachings

and then there is the notion of organic constitution development. really cannot understand american constitutional law without thinking about its common-law background, the the president from age to age. for example, in france, they have the civil code. at the code and applies it to the facts of the case and goes on to the next case. a very different mode of reasoning. and i think the fact that we have this organic tradition is effect twoprotean phrases like due process of law, ,ruel and unusual punishment and coming to mind as to how that process works out under the american constitution, so there you have it a nutshell. there is more to say. some idea of how it was that magna carta survived all of the centuries to have so much to in part ofime, so it is

the contemporary scene, first in the united kingdom with david hyde, and then in the united --tes with william hubbard first in the united kingdom with david hunt. >> in recent years, the events coming out of the united kingdom, the constitutional change has very much been in the air. probably there is nothing like the 17th century. we talked about the transformation of the house of lords, the creation of a supreme court, the passage of the human rights act of 1998, the scottish devolution, and recently the failed referendum on scottish .ndependence a referendum about to take place i think in june, in just a few weeks time, and whether the u.k. will exit the european union, and there are proposals floating around to codify the bill of rights and perhaps even have a

written constitution, so the question i would put to you this morning is given all of these ideas stirring, what place does the magna carta legacy have? >> well thank you very much, professor howard. you are a difficult act to follow. i want to thank you to everyone who is here this morning. thank you for welcoming me so warmly to this conference. it is a great pleasure for me to to talk about perhaps one of britain's greatest contributions to the conversation on law and human rights, which is, of course, magna carta. now, professor howard has said -- i will once again state for the record that i am not a judge. impressions of being well-versed in any legal language will likely come from

watching the u.k. version of "law and order." citizeness as a british and from having spent 15 years in government, i do have some first-hand knowledge or view of how this 800-year-old document we have been talking about has shaped the legal, civic, and cultural thinking of the nation from which i can't, so i will give you the view from across the pond, if i may -- from which i come. the document was originally called the great charter of liberty. indisputableof the 800 years ago, serving as the foundation of our nations freedom, a revolutionized way that we thought of government law and human rights.

and for the first time in history, it places very clear limits on royal power. we havecourse, today, the idea that our rulers cannot punish for dispossess us because they feel like it as a given. a principles at that has caused a certain degree of friction between our two countries historically, and that is no taxation without representation, unless, of course, you live in tc -- in d.c. 1776, a group of very astute, wise men in philadelphia decided, to use some of the , tos of the magna carta found be great country we are currently living and talking in. about that time, of course, you did not need a king to sign off

on those principles because they were held to be self evident truths, and chances are a king would not have agreed to them anyway. in deed, the connection between magna carta and the declaration -- it did note escape winston churchill a proxy of thoughts on the matter, who said the declaration of independence is not only an american document, it follows on magna carta, the british bill of rights, the third great title deed in which the liberties of the english-speaking people were founded. years, we have had our disagreements, and we have held those founding documents in very high regard, so when war broke out in europe in 1939, happening to be in new york at the time on display at the world's fair.

to say this precious document from the bombs on its return to britain, a very kindly offered to keep the document for the duration of the war. it was kept at the library of congress and then moved to fort knox until 1946. you gave thely, lincoln magna carta back, it with an exchange of ideas as leaders in human rights continues until this day. it is actually a great privilege and a power for our countries to be at the forefront of this conversation. we are two countries which have set the tone of what is to follow. when we say that magna carta is a crucial part of british culture, i think it would be a classic understatement, very much like saying the constitution is a moderately important american document. but while part of the magna carta seem modern, there are

other parts of it which really show it's true, true age. up to us to really reevaluate what magna carta means. indeed, as the professor has said, the conversation about right and balances of power looks quite different in the u.k. we of course don't have a written constitution, but in fact, even that has up to the debate amongst legal scholars. you can't agree to the integrity of whether one exists or not. i urge you to think of our constitution with a lower-case " c." it is our thinking on what is right and what is just come and it's ingrained in our national character. constitution and run like a threaded through everything we do as a nation.

terminology, that translates into what is known as d constitution. rather than broadly-worded the britishts, system has relied on the democratic process, the rule of law, the uk's complex system of checks and balances to safeguard civil liberties. in practice, that means our statutes, woven into court judgments, and treaties, and that has resulted in a constitution that is not supreme law. it is both monarchical and democratic. it's unitary and it's also parliamentary-sovereign. this contradiction might seem more trouble than it's worth, but i would argue -- i would contend it has provided us with a living, breathing, quite flexible set of laws. in examining those laws, we have

a collection of legal instruments we refer to as constitutional conventions. i will give you a few examples of how our system works. currently, the prime minister is the leader of the party with an absolute majority in the house of commons, but this has not always been the case. blessed government in which i served before this one was a coalition. another example, all legislation related to money or financial means it must originate in the house of commons, and the civil has the right to royal consent, giving consent to all pass legislation. used elizabeth ii has only her veto power once in her long rain, which was to veto a bill against military action in iraq. fromught to transfer power

the sovereign to parliament to authorize military strikes against that country. we also have some important documents that accompany our bill of rights, passed in 1689, which lays down the limits on the powers of the monarch, sets requirements for free elections, free speech, and regular parliament. others include the act of settlement in 1901, which established the independence of the judiciary, which is good news for all the judges in the audience. more recently, we saw the european communities act of 1972, which regulated the united kingdom within the european union. adding further layers to this has been a devaluation of institutions within the european as well as legislation in scotland, wales, and northern ireland.

thesendreds of years, documents and conventions of work in their own long-standing way -- rather than the herculean effort that would be required to pass a constitutional amendment, laws can be amended and revise more easily, but on occasion, that system has been called into question. most recently, there's been the 1998.rights act of it would seem from confusing the title of the bill of rights there would be little need for a human rights act. however, the bill of rights of 1689 was not concerned about the plight of the common man. instead, it dealt more with the relationship between the parliament and the crown. before the human rights act came along, democratic accountability, checks and balances favored in overall

american south bill of rights. but in the 1960's in the 1970's, a more formal document picked up speed. the u.s. model of american rights have been -- has been rejected because it would mean a more real i'm at the power. betweenignment of power parliament and judiciary. it draws distinctions that contrast quite radically with the constitution here, especially in unqualified rights. for instance, the convention includes the right to life in the right to liberty and security. however, most includes the right to free expression and religion and privacy must be balanced against the side interest, which is national security and public safety. when this act was passed, it was held as relevant and a thing of intellectual beauty, not just by those who drafted it. it was seen as particularly exceptional for the fact that it does not enjoy legal status and can be modified and amended with

legalese. for instance, now there is a movement to replace the human rights act with the u.k. bill of rights. the aim is to restore commonsense, quote", to human rights. -- quote/unquote, to human rights. interestingly, this has not been part of my government's legislative agenda for this year. rest assured, that kind of debate continues in the united kingdom. but a speech on the 800th anniversary of magna carta, my prime minister about to restore the reputation of human rights.

and in 2015, the conservative government added it to its election manifesto and and efforts for continued reform has been led by michael gove. there are those who would argue that we should strengthen human rights instead of wasting time by starting over. here of course, in the united states, a thing like the bill of rights would be attributable to heresy. but on the anniversary of the magna carta, a conversation around the u.k. written conversation continues. should the u.k. write a new magna carta, or one that would bring the government together. this has been examined by the committee of the house of commons.

their final verdict was, if we are to create a new magna carta and a written constitution, it should involve all of the people. it should be democratic and its process and not only did hated by legal experts and bureaucrats like myself, but by the young and the old, the rich and the poor, the god-fearing and the atheists the magic of the constitution is that it stands for a symbol of what we are and what we believe in. and that is something i think we should all have a voice in. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. let me ask you a follow-up question. we are aware of this forthcoming referendum next month on whether or not the u.k. should exit the european union. suppose the vote is yes. suppose the voters of the u.k. decide to leave. what are the of occasions for

some of these domestic us additional arrangements where some have to change because of that vote. >> a think you've raised a question which is on so many people's minds and the united kingdom. it's the topic of the day. clearly, there is a lot of discussion and debate about the very question you asked. my prime minister has been very clear that we would be safer, stronger and better off in the european union. for so many reasons. not least because we cooperate so closely on important security issues of the day, like counterterrorism, but also from a prosperity viewpoint, because it means we have access to a civil market of 500 million people, which is an important thing for the u.k. in commerce. i think the phrase most commonly used by the government which i

serve is to leave the eu would in effect be a lead into the dark. so the way we govern ourselves and interact with our european partners, these are unanswered -- unasked questions would take some time to live through. the government is very much focused in making the argument the stay in the year in you because of the importance of the u.k. in doing so. there's been speculation, but really, the debate is all around staying in. >> thank you so much. let me turn to william hubbard. we will turn from the english side to the american side to as a mentioned, you were in england last year connecting kellen's interviews. you were interviewed by bbc. they asked you questions about magna carta. they asked you questions about scoring magna carta and the u.s. constitution with the detention practices at guantanamo. what did you tell bbc?

william: yes, they did. the reporters were quite crafty and were well prepared for the various and reviews -- various interviews. as a general proposition, i engaged in a discussion about, you know, we have these words on a document and we have courts and lawyers have to argue about what are the limits. how do you apply this particular document to specific facts question mark and that is why we have a court system to make those determinations. and fact, there have been four cases since 9/11 that deal with detainee rights that have been decided by the u.s. supreme court. in all for those cases, the court has held for the detainees good and into other cases, the magna carta was cited as authority. in a hunt d versus rumsfeld,

justice souter in his concurrence in the case decided that due process must be made available for hamde to make his defense. now he is an american. in a second opinion, the median versus bush decided in 2008, justice kennedy wrote for the majority of that case, holding the detainees had the right to challenge the tension through habeas corpus. and in that decision, magna carta decreed that no man would be imprisoned contrary to the law of the land. important as the principal was, there was no prescribed legal process to enforce it. gradually, the writ of habeas corpus became the means of which magna carta was fulfilled. dick: chapter 40 of magna carta is the one that says that justice shall not be sold, the

later denied. obviously an important principle. on the american scene, perhaps a modern counterpart's questions about judicial independence, a phrase that we are very much concerned with. and what respects would you say that we in america are falling short with the promises of chapter three? william: let's go back to magna carta. justice shall be delayed. it specifically held the common pleas or not to follow our court, but are to be held in

subjects place. this became the court of common pleas as opposed to the king's court, which while looking around for the purpose having confirmation of the king's decrees. so in chapter 17, we see the foundation eating late for separation of powers and physically separating courts from the king himself. that separation from the king's court made it clear that judges were to operate independently of the king of and this led to the development of the concept of judicial independence. so we see the seeds of that judicial independence there, a combination of chapter 40 in chapter 17. have looking, a man of some modern popularity and currency in the world today, placed a judicial independence as reasons why he took up arms in the cause of independence and there wrote eloquently about the importance

of judicial independence in the federalist papers. today, we cad discussion, an important discussion about judicial independence. justice ginsburg has written recently that come essential to the rule of law in any land, is an independent judiciary. and it is vulnerable to assault, she says. it can be shattered in the society it exists to serve does not take care to ensure its preservation. justice breyer recently said society around us can undermine judicial independence, that is the rock upon which the judicial institution rests. justice o'connor, freed from the constraints of being an active justice on the court, has been even more forceful in her concerns of judicial independence. she has dated that there is a crisis of confidence in the

impartiality of court. she says it is real and growing. she noted that elected judges in many states are compelled to solicit money for their campaigns, and has noted, that polls have shown, three of four americans believe campaign contributions affected judicial decisions. i'd like toquote to give you a sense to which she feels this is a deep problem in our society. she says, into many states, judicial elections are becoming political fights where partisan and electoral decisions seek judges that will answer to them instead of the law and the constitution. but fortunately, really has been -- there is some relief and it stems from a decision that was issued on april 29, 2015, the case is william julie versus the

florida bar. dealt with the prohibition of the florida bar that limited the ability of judges to actively seek campaign contributions in support of a reelection campaign. chief justice roberts wrote in favor of the court in deciding on -- in favor of the florida ban on solicitations. judges barred -- cannot supplement campaign donors without diminishing public confidence in judicial integrity. he went on to say this principle dates back to at least eight centuries in magna carta, which proclaimed to no one will we

sell, to no one will we refuse or delay right or justice. so drawing explicitly upon chapter 40, he upheld the limitation on judges seeking campaign contributions it is an interesting time, as we discussed the separation of powers ended initial independence -- and judicial independence. all three of the remaining presidential candidates have indicated that they will insist upon certain litmus tests before they would seek to appoint someone to our supreme court and two other judgeships. so it is a matter of some concern, rather than seeking those that are best qualified. now all of the three remaining candidates are talking about this as an essential part of the process. dick: chapter 39 is perhaps the most famous chapter of mattock

-- magna carta. it is known as due process of law. i was a clerk to justice black. black himself was a great student of the magna carta. perhaps one of his most famous opinions was gideon versus wainwright, the one that requires that if a state appointed counsel for defendants too poor to afford a lawyer. i'm wondering if in your judgment, have we in our time fulfilled the promise of gideon? wemany would submit that have not. a young lawyer who was a major participant in that case and wrote the bulk of the brief, in a recent statement -- gideon was

in 1963, i believe. on the 50th anniversary, he stated publicly and forcefully that many criminal defendants are not adequately represented, and he described this as the unfulfilled promise of gideon. in the last couple months, there has been another u.s. supreme .ourt decision it actually came out this month, and in that case, justice breyer acknowledged sixth amendment adequate counsel, and he cited a recent department of justice report noting that of county-based public defender offices have sufficient to meet caseload standards. this is in the same context where we see budgets being cut fficeslic defenders' op

across the country. in the most recent budget proposal in the state of louisiana, the proposal is to cut the budget by 61%. the question becomes, will underfunding of public defender offices and excessive caseloads become a greater issue in sixth amendment cases going forward? >> there's another chapter in the magna carta, perhaps less and-known than 39 and 40, that is chapter 20, the one that degrees in effect that punishment should fit the crime, that punishment should not be disproportionate and outlandish. there's a good debate in america over sentencing. whether our sentencing laws are consistent with chapter 20 of magna carta. what do you see of the prospects for reform of sentencing? >> in south carolina, we adopted sentencing reform. done so.tes have

in 2010, it was adopted at the state level. the number of admissions to the -- the state prison sentence -- system has decreased 24%, saving taxpayers money and .ut-of-pocket expenses interestingly, the percentages of nonviolent and violent prisoners has flipped so now the majority of the prisoners in south carolina has been convicted for a violent offense rather than a non-violent offense. of course, there are bipartisan efforts in congress to effect the same kind of sentencing reform under the federal criminal laws, but they have been at it for several years and , it hasn't moved. there seems to be some optimism this year that it may pass. you tie a lot of this back to magna carta. chapter 20 stated that a free man is not to be fined except in proportion to the nature of the offense. saving to him his livelihood.

this goes directly to the question of excessive fines and penalties, which have been used recently in many famous situations to support the court system. it creates a pernicious incentive and something we need to be very careful of. we must note that in many circumstances particularly at the state and local level there is incarceration of those who cannot pay these fines. meaning that those are not being saved the opportunity to provide a livelihood which is inconsistent with chapter 20. >> when you realize there are 63 chapters in magna carta and if we wanted to try the patience of our audience we would walk through --

walk through all 63 of them. unfortunately, we don't have time for that. make one last observation to bring this together. what about the copies of the magna carta it self? the document first came to light 800 years ago. there are 17 extant copies of magna carta from the are 1219 to the year 1297 when magna carta went on the statute books of england. there are four copies of the original 1215 charter. two are in the british library. one is at lincoln cathedral. one is that salisbury cathedral. all 17 copies are in england except for two. one is in australia, and one is at the national archives in washington. some of you, i suspect, have seen it. ross perot heard a family in england owned a copy of the 1297

charter, and ross perot had pretty much everything else. he decided he could use a copy of the magna carta. he sent his lawyer over to england to bargain for the purchase of that copy, and that was consummated at the cost of $1.5 million, which in the 1980's -- for ross perot, it may have been pocket change, but for the rest of us, probably not. that copy was in perot's ownership until fairly recently when ross perot decided he didn't need the magna carta anymore. he put it on auction at sotheby's in new york, and another man of some means, david rubenstein, a generous philanthropist who has been kind to places like monticello and montpelier, he bid over the telephone for a purchase of this magna carta, and paid $21.5 million. $1.5 million, even with inflation -- now we know why

ross perot has some money. david rubenstein bought this copy of the magna carta. the national archives called me and said, professor howard, would you be kind enough to come up and give a lecture on the installation of the magna carta? i said, i would be happy to do that. on the thursday before the week i went, " the washington post" ran a little box. it said something like, on tuesday, march 10 at 7:30 at the national archives, professor 80 dick allen at the university of talk about his book "the road from runnymede" and his purchase of a copy of the magna carta. [laughter] for $21.5 million. i went home that night. i told my wife, mary, we are going to start getting some interesting phone calls and

invites to some fancy parties. i said, don't ask -- ask any questions. just say yes. it didn't last very long. most people realize that professor howard probably didn't have $21.5 million to spend on the magna carta. i hope we've tried in a few minutes to give you some sense of how magna carta survived those 800 years, why it still matters in both countries, why it is very much part of our legacy. we don't live in feudal times. we are not worried about the pretensions of monarchs like the uarts or king john, but it is fair to say the magna carta is still with us as we pursue ordered liberty. let me conclude by thanking the fourth circuit for their hospitality, which has been generous, and to thank all of you for being with us this morning. thank you so much. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> thank you, gentlemen. we will need to rearrange the stage to set up the next program. if you would be at ease, i will tell those standing in the back and along the walls, there are plenty of seats down front. we would love to have you come down here. we will start back as quickly as we can.

♪ >> c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up sunday, the latest developments in the presidential campaign with republican pollster and strategist briny neighbor and stefan hankin, the democratic pollster and strategist. they will talk about the significance and accuracy of statewide polling, public opinion, and the effect of the presidential race on down ballot races. corporation's senior international policy analyst annalisa rotter discusses the latest in u.s.-iran relations, including the execution of a scientist accused of spying for the u.s., the continued questions about the $400 million iran, whiche to

coincided with the january release of four americans detained in iran, and the implementations of the nuclear deal. watch "washington journal" beginning live at 7:00 a.m. sunday morning. >> a look at the economy, jobs, and the u.s. election. officials have outlines to combat cyber hacking. and, which is liberty in public schools. liberty in public schools. issue spotlight, a timely look at subjects, from the c-span video archive. this program focuses on trade deals come other impact on the economy, and the views of the lawmakers. topics include the north american free trade agreement, or nafta,