[applause] [cheers]

>> north carolina is one of the closest races in the country, with both hillary clinton and donald trump polling slightly ahead. among blackurnout voters is a key element of the clinton campaign strategy in north carolina, and an estimated one quarter of this year's electorate. african-americans are in a larger percentage here than in any other traditional battleground state. the problem for secretary clinton in north carolina is the risk of apathy. north carolina is worth -- where president obama had his smallest margin of victory in 2008, and smallest margin of defeat in 2012. she and donald trump have released new ads. here's a look. >> our children, they look up to

us. what we value, how we treat others. and now they are looking to see what kind of leaders we choose. ourwe will and trust country and their future two. will it be the one we respect around the world, or the one who fights with allies and emboldens enemies? the one understanding the challenges we face, or the one who is unprepared for them? a steady hand, or a loose cannon? common sense and unity, or drama and division? a woman who has spent her life helping children and families, or a man who spent his life helping himself? our children are looking to us. what example will we set? what kind of country will we be? hillary clinton, because we are stronger together. i'm hillaryton:

clinton, and i approve this message. hillary clinton: far too many families today don't earn what they need and don't have the opportunities they deserve. i believe families deserve quality education for their kids, child care they can trust and afford, equal pay for women, and jobs they can really live on. people ask me, what will be different if i'm president. kids and families have been the passion of my life, and they will be the heart of my presidency. i'm hillary clinton, and i approve this message. >> what's at stake in this election? it's not just who goes here, it is who rules here. court.reme the justice who guaranteed your right to own a gun is gone. now, the next president's choice breaks the day. four supreme court justices support your right to own a gun. four justices would take away your right. >> the second amendment is outdated. >> the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right. >> what does the second

amendment mean to you? not the right of an individual to keep a gun next to his bed. >> and hillary says? hillary clinton: the supreme court is got -- wrong on the second amendment. >> hillary has made her choice. now, you need to make yours. hillary.eedom, defeat the nra institute for legislative action is responsible for the content of this advertisement. c-span brings you more debates this week from key u.s. house senate and governor's races. eastern, on:00 c-span, republican senator kelly ayotte and democratic governor maggie hassan debate for the new hampshire senate seat. at 9:00, the iowa senate debate between chuck grassley and democrat patty judge. at 10:00, republican congressman john cap co debates colleen

deacon for the 24th district debate in new york. eastern, thet 8:00 georgia u.s. senate debate. then just before 9:00, democratic congressman rick nolan and republican stuart mill's debate for minnesota's eighth district seat. at nine of -- 9:30, a debate for colorado's sixth congressional district between republican representative mike coffman, and morgan carroll. saturday night at 10:00, the pennsylvania senate debate between republican senator pat toomey and democrat katie mcginty. followed at 11:00, democrat colin thensaturday night hurston ostren, and republican christian new. then at saturday on midnight, north carolina governors debate.

watch on the c-span networks, c-span.org, and was on the c-span radio app. c-span, where history unfolds daily. >> on election day, november 8, the nation decides our next president, and which party controls the house and senate. stay with c-span for coverage of the presidential race, including campaign stops with hillary clinton, donald trump, and their surrogates, and follow key house and senate races with our coverage of their debates and speeches. c-span, where history unfolds daily. supreme court justice clarence thomas reflects on his 25 years on the court writing opinions, and his relationship with the late justice antonin scalia. he also criticizes the supreme court confirmation process. [applause]

>> good evening. thank you everyone. i am director of seminars at heritage and the microphone check this evening. [laughter] before the great american standing next to me opens our program, we would ask everyone if you would be so kind to check that your mobile devices have been silenced or turned off. it is always appreciated. we are so pleased you could join us this evening, and of course, the great gentlemen standing for whom our center for legal and judicial studies is named, the 75th attorney general of the united states. meese.welcome, ed meese: thank you. , john, and thank you ladies and gentlemen. it's a pleasure for me to join john and welcome you to the heritage foundation to welcome me to the distinguished lecture.

this is one of heritage's most prestigious events of the year, and we are happy to sponsor this evening, particularly because of the guest i will introduce in a moment. story lecture has traditionally been held in conjunction with two other important events of the center for legal and judicial studies. forum.the legal strategy in the audience tonight, we have nearly 50 ceos and chief legal officer's from the freedom based law firms of this nation. we are happy to have them with us on this occasion. the other event is a series that we started some years ago, called the preserve the constitution series. this is one of several of these types of events, in which various aspects of stitches in -- the constitution and the rule of law are discussed with various experts. this lecture really fits right into that pattern, where we

discussed the importance of constitutional fidelity and the rule of law. course, this lecture has been named in honor of one of our countries for most -- country's for most judicial and legal scholars. a man who distinguished himself in so many different ways. joseph story was involved in politics and civic activities in his native state of massachusetts. he was a scholar. he taught even while a justice of the supreme court at the harvard law school, and was a starting that faculty, what i suspect was a pattern that has been imitated by many justices since that time, including our guest this evening. he held various offices in his hometown, and that area, and also served in the house of representatives, representing his district in massachusetts. he was appointed to the united states supreme court by james 1812, and served

until 1845, when he passed away at the age of 65. but what makes them particularly noted as far as we are concerned was his commitment to the constitution of the united states, as it was written. he was a true defender of that --ument, our foremost trader charter, and believes being faithful to the text of the constitution and what it was understood to mean by those who wrote it and ratified it, as well as the amendments in subsequent years, was the only way in which a judge or justice could legitimately interpret that document as they would any other legal document. so, it was that commitment to the constitution that led him to write one of the foremost commentaries on the constitution of any author in the history of the country. it was his commentaries that are still used to understand the way in which it should be interpreted by the legal profession and by the judges,

and of course, the members of the supreme court. it's appropriate, then, that the story lecture featured tonight our perfection that particular guest. clarence thomas is also a unique individual. for one thing, he served in all three branches of government. he worked in the senate office for senator jack danforth for missouri. he worked in the reagan administration in two capacities. he was chairman -- the first assistant secretary of education for civil rights, and then chairman of the equal employment opportunity commission. and then, he was appointed initially by george h.w. bush as a judge of the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. then, ultimately, as an associate justice of the united states supreme court in 1991. were discussing

this before we came in tonight, that last sunday was his 25th anniversary as a member of the court. [applause] i cannot introduce clarence without also mentioning his lovely wife, who is with us tonight. she herself has a distinguished career in the city, and in the country, both in civic activities and think tax, as well as in tv. we are pleased to have you with us also. [applause] when i say that it is very appropriate that clarence thomas be our joseph story lecture tonight, it is because of his lifelong and particularly judicial period of dedication to

the constitution of the united states. he is in my mind, one of the clearest writers on the supreme court, and his clear writing has made it clear, if you will, that the constitution, as written, should be interpreted according as i mentioned, wrote it and ratified it. that is an important part of preserving the thoughts and ideas that ronald reagan had when he first appointed him to a position in the executive branch , and what president bush had in mind when he appointed him to two judicial positions. that is the fact that we need judges who will be faithful to the rule of law, and to the constitution itself, if we are going to preserve self-government and liberty for the people of this country. at no time in this history is

this something to be defended as the present time. that is why we are so honored to have him. randy barnett, who i see tonight, constitutional law georgetownt university, calls justice thomas a fearless originalist. he honors the constitution georn at -- as it was written. he elevates the original meaning of the text above preston. in other words, he puts the founders above that justices. -- dead justices. [laughter] [applause] abovet add, he puts them alive justices as well. [laughter] [applause] i think the best test of anyone appointed to any court is how the person who appointed him feels about it.

that is why a think we should all be interested to know that aboutent bush, in talking him, said this about him, and how proud he was for this election. he said, while justice thomas is known both for his consistently sober demeanor on the bench, and his thoughtful and respected jurisprudence, he is also widely admired for his want him on his colleague, law clerks, and the court stuff. he wound up by saying, he is a very good man, and that's why i'm so pleased to introduce to you tonight that good man, clarence thomas. [applause] joining him tonight in this discussion is the director of the center for legal and judicial studies, john malcolm, who has a distinguished career himself in the law and government, and now as the thector of the center at

heritage foundation. i will turn it over to you. welcome john malcolm. [applause] mr. malcolm: inky. dr. thomas, it is a real pleasure to be on the stage with you. congratulation ons being on the court for 25 years. i would like to begin with some reflection. what surprised you the most about your time in the court? justice clarence: first of all -- can you all hear me? i'm a little hard of hearing myself. thank generalo meese for the introduction. i met him in december of 1980. i have known him for now over 35

years. that holds true also for his family. i remember when you were being criticized heavily, and that is an understatement. your demeanor, your pleasant demeanor, never changed. your positive attitude, your willingness to talk to young people and persuade them to your ideas, but not returning it with fire. commendas much to itself as to admire. thank you not only for the years together, but for your example. [applause] i would also like to thank heritage and all who were involved with this evening.

of course, my wife and i made lots of trips here. when she was working here, i would love being around her. i don't spend a lot of time thinking back over the time. we are too busy doing our work. i'm not a navelgazing. ers ine enough navelgazin society. over the last few years, we have had things that have happened in the court that changed the way that we work. we have to be focused on that. if i reflected back over the years, the thing i enjoy most are my law clerks. make the it fun, they energy.

the first year was really tough. i don't know how we survived. and then i see those clerks today, and the affection you have for them is just tremendous. they were there at the beginning when we didn't have systems. we didn't have computers. through the years, i think i have to say, the consistency, the effort to have a consistent judicial philosophy, when you can't try to explain why you changed, like you owe that to work,, try to make the understandable, to make it make sense. when it doesn't make sense, to try to point out why you think it doesn't make sense. something like the dormant commerce clause, it's sort of

like a hibernating bear or something. [laughter] if you can't explain it, you should at least tell people why you can't. [laughter] if it doesn't make sense, my oy,nddaddy used to say, b that don't make sense. [laughter] we try to make it accessible. times, i think people in this city, they really enjoy themselves, i don't know. we were on one of our road trips with my law clerks. this gentleman comes up to me, and he's excited. we were at gettysburg. he runs up, and he's really perspiring. it's june. mr. malcom: a civil war

reenactor? justice clarence: no, just a guy. he's running around. he has this fake parchment paper with an opinion on it here he said, i need you to sign this. he said, it is your federal maritime commission opinion. [laughter] justice clarence: i said, why are you here with that? he said, that's what this is all about. [laughter] he said, i want to thank you, because i can understand what you are saying. and he said, i read all your opinions because i can understand them. i think we are obligated to make the constitution and what we write about the constitution accessible to our fellow citizens. empowersm: that it people by giving them a sense that the constitution is really there is, and ought to be accessible. justice clarence: it is theirs. i think that we hide it from them when we write in language

that is inaccessible. if you think about it, i had a buddy of mine who was a wonderful, wonderful friend, who was quadriplegic. curvedber before you had cuts, a curve that high -- curb that i was like the great wall of china. that kind of building was inaccessible to him. i think sometimes we make something that should be accessible -- today, of course, we have made the curbs flush with the street so it is accessible. we can kind of do that with language. one of the things i tell my law clerks is that genius is not putting a two dollar idea in a sentence.

it takes work, and organization and editing. owe owe it to people to presented under constitution in the way they can understand it, to enfranchise them. mr. malcom: you mentioned that you take your clerks to gettysburg. i was curious about that. why do you do that? what are some of the experiences and reactions you have gotten? justice clarence: they are polite. [laughter] actually, i was going to stop doing it. there was some resistance to this continuing. i really enjoy it. battle cry, to understand the 14th amendment in particular. in the civil war era, you have to understand the civil war first, and understand our history. that started when i was at eeoc, i wanted to understand the founding better. i hired some guys from

claremont. i wasn't planning on being a judge, i just wanted to understand the founding. as a part of that, you read civil war history, you read the lincoln douglas debates, all sorts of things. i thought it would be important for my clerks to go, not just talk about the 14th amendment, not just talk about the equal protection clause, not just talks about substantive due process, but to go and feel it. to see the place, cya, what was this about, why did people die? to go where lincoln delivered the gettysburg address. to go where he implores them, the living, to make it .orthwhile, this experiment also, it is the end of the term. at the end of the term, you could be a little bit upset. [laughter]

become -- kids can see how the sausage is made, and become a little bit cynical, a little bit jaded. i was thought it was a great have them see that it wasn't about winning an argument. it wasn't about a subject for this little thing. it's about us and our country. and to encourage them to remain hopeful, despite what they have ,een, to remain idealists despite what they have seen, and what has happened. because in these jobs, a lot of negativity comes in, but that's a lesson i mentioned that i learned from general meese. somehow, you keep it together. you say, look, i know i'm experienced and i have seen the sausage made, but this ideal is all we have left. this wonderful ideal of the

perfectibility of the great republic. that is basically the reason. plus, it's kind of fun. [laughter] mr. malcom: and you can contemplate about how our country would have gone in a completely different direction. right, if wence: had won that would have been a problem. [laughter] justice clarence: it would have been a bigger problem for me than for you. [laughter] so!malcom: probably [laughter] let's stick with reflections on the last ones. i have to mention your maritime opinion. i remember the first time i read an opinion of yours, it just captured me. city of chicago versus moralities, the court struck -- anti-ganglawyer

ordinance. you wrote this passionate --sent about the supported suppose it right to leader of the 2%, condemning 98% of the residents. it just hit me and has stuck with me. i'm curious, what opinions over the course of your career has stuck with you, the ones you are most proud of our profound? justice clarence: i don't know, i think there are different types of opinions. i don't really see them as trophies. i don't think about them that way. there are opinions that i think about, usually the ones that are really hard. the bettis opinion, i really agonize over, and agonize throughout the summer.

she lost her car, the government took her car and her husband's car, that really bothered me a lot. the cases like the haitian refugees. cases where your heart goes one way, but you have to stick with the law. those are hard opinions. i think those are the ones you think a lot about. those are the ones where your hair begins to fall out. ,ut the one you mentioned morale is, the thing that sometimese, i think we write these opinions or the that decides cases, and case was about keeping gangs off the street so that poor, inner-city people could walk down the street. little kids could go to school. i lived in the inner-city. if they are people

not capable of using, whether it is public transportation or public streets. i think sometimes, because we don't have a sense of the neighborhood, we don't . that was just a paragraph of the opinion, but i was just making the point at the end. and lookeally go back at specific opinions. at opinions for example, if -- i taught a course on -- people talke about it a lot. you don't have time to read thousands of pages on that. theones where i'm not sure, one i agonize about and spend more time.

>> will get to that later. you spent time agonizing over the opinion which you are trying to command a majority, or the ones you would say you are the loan to center. dissenter. i don't have a problem writing majority opinions. you are an agent for the majority when you are writing for the majority. in of the things you learn -- at the court overtime is that everybody knows everybody. if you are an honest rocher when you are writing majority you don't have a problem. i have never had a problem with that. fracture -- start out fractured.

that's not a problem. a technicalize over opinion, you take something like whether or not you can patent the breast cancer gene. that is technical, so that is difficult. differenticult and a way from the haitian refugee case. you have to spend a lot of time on it. i don't agonize over it. the opinions might be complemented but you don't lose a lot of emotional energy over taxes. gethen you are trying to some of your fellow justices to join your opinion. justice thomas: i don't spend much time on that.

>> so that your view whether they join you are not. justice thomas: i write a little crisply because someone doesn't want to go as far. but you don't change the principal. you might compromise and not go as far to hold the court. you don't change your underlying view or principle. you never do that harried it doesn't mean that i don't make a mistake, but i don't believe in doing that. when you write separately, you try to be also. even as you go back and you take a look, when i written -- wrote separately in the mcdonald case. i still believe we should not ignore the privileges or immunities squad. we spent a lot of time explaining the history of the

tribute -- privilege or immunity clause and what is included. we had itaying perfectly, but we did a lot of work on it. -- a few years ago, we in theee opinions administrative law area. that was squat all hall because tell therying to applications of what we have been doing. it took a lot of extra work because i think you owe it to people that when you are breaking new ground you have to explain things more in depth. donnell,espect to mick , we can talk about your opinion about the clauses you have been quite bold on that. one thing i know that is on the the of everybody here is

impact of your passing of justice anthony scalia. could you perhaps share some fond reminiscence is of your time on and off the court? i did not know him before i got to the court. i had one law clerk, chris landau, he snuck me in his chambers and that was the most extensive time i had ever 10 at the court before i became a member. when i got to the court, justice scalia made it a point. he had a rep station of being a tough, unfairly treated as being aggressive in some ways. i never fun that side -- found that side. he was always warm. he was also enormously

respectful, from the first days that i was there to the last days. relationship -- i didn't go to the kennedy center to watch -- to see operas with him. i used to kid him about that. just don't want to be around the people who like opera. [laughter] he thought it was really funny and odd that i was from the south that would not go hunting. i thought it was on that he was .rom new york and new jersey he would try to talk me into that and i told him there was no good from adding in the woods. it was delightful.

anduld go in his office most of the time it was just laughing. sometimes he would be a little down and i would boost him up a little bit. one of the funny things towards pretty was -- he was aggressive with that fourth amendment. we were on opposite sides again in a fourth amendment case. it was an anonymous tip about a drunk driver, i forget which one. it might have in the dna case, i can't remember. , libertyssent he said destroying cocktail. i said that's a good line. at the end of the term would want to launch and it was the , at lunch that we want to

tradition we started early on. it was there and he is ordering and trying to figure out what kind of a cocktail do i have before lunch. i said i have a liberty destroying cocktail. he thought it was hilarious. nina ofy favorite is course was a constitutional law .xpert he must've thought i was a wrecking ball or something. we were sitting on the bench one i don't know how to say he leans over to me and is oneclarence, auer of the worst opinions in the

history of the country. you know. you wrote it. [laughter] he couldn't remember when he had done. after 30 years. but i trusted him and we trusted each other. even when we disagree, if i told him i didn't agree with him he trusted that i didn't agree with him. hehe was on the other side would call me up and he had a concern, i trusted him here --. we almost never talked about cases. it was very rare. slightly different reasons we would end up on the wrong side. .e thought it was hilarious

how did you wind up in the same position? you come from a barely literate family, his father was a romance literate seat professor. he was from the north and i was from the south and we wound up the same way -- place. that was one of the points he made in his dissent in which he said if we are going to make policy decisions in the court then regional variation all that matters. if you are going about the task of being a judge, that regional various -- variation shouldn't matter. justice thomas: he tried very hard in my opinion, to always be concerns.sagreements,

he always cared about the big things, the rest of bowls, small things like syntax and punctuation. i would go by to see him and he had his rack up, looking his opinions and he's going through them. he did the small, bigger the cared about at all. that teaches you a lesson that it all matters. away, it wased horrible in every way. i normally left the bench right after him. his chambers were next to mine so i always walked a few steps behind him as i left later. i would catch up to him and we would talk a bit, just yukking it up. ie first and he was gone

caught myself coming off the bench and taking a quick step to try to catch them. that was the example of someone who is missing. he is not there. there is nobody to catch up to. he was, for me, a fun guy. cases.not about -- if one of his clerk said he was down a little bit i would go in and hopefully afterwards he would deal a little better. currentsht of the vacancy, one of these days we will have another confirmation hearing. there are a lot of people who believed that the process is broken. your confirmation being one example of that. your thoughts on whether there is any hope to improve the

confirmation process. there is always hope. the city is rogan in some ways. broken in some ways. i have been here most of my life. i think we have become very comfortable with not thinking and debating things. i think that we have decided that rather than confront the disagreements and differences of the union, we will annihilate the person who disagrees with me. don't think that's going to work in a republic or in a civil society. at some point we have to recognize that we are destroying

our institutions. them, going to destroy the day is going to come, if it is not already here when we need the integrity of the institution. even when you disagree with people, if you notice in my opinions, i don't attack personally my colleagues. i disagree with them strongly because it's important for me to leave them standing and leave the institution standing. don't that will change in this city until we get back to that and argue and decide things on facts and reason as opposed to -- who has the best narrative or some other nonsense. >> let me build on that.

a lot of people in this country who believe that the presidency and congress is irretrievably broken. they have lost confidence in the institutions. there are people that have lost confidence in the court and in your court. people who say to believe that? justice thomas: what have we done to gain their confidence? uson't think people all of confidence. it is something that we earn and that you try to do your job in a way that they can have confidence in what you do. you try to do the hard things, but they shouldn't be doing in a way that they can have confidence in, that you can trust. perhaps we should ask ourselves why -- what we have done to not

earn it or to earn a. i am a so sure we have all the answers to that. one of the things i tell my clerks is simply try to live up to the goals that you took. to livean old- oath up to the constitution. you live up to it. in this city that doesn't go for much. it.take heat for that part of the job, you supposed to take heat for it. hopefully, someone will run up --you one a with a fair federal maritime commission and , this lot of confidence is what this is all about. that doesn't sound like a whole lot. most people don't even care about it. but it does mean something to you when an average citizen has confidence that you did your job

fairly and you did it right as the shoe could. he said he could understand it and he accepted it because of that. yourrtainly u.s. some of colleagues when the court has issued a little opinion will call them out for that. youru think that hugh hope colleagues over time will be persuaded? i think that if you are going to do something in run the risk of broad policy decisions. you tend to stray far afield from the law. scalia was saying you have to have room, it has to do some work. nobody is that interested in it, but that is heart of the reasons i dissented in the commercial speech cases.

factor test but always takes you where you want to go. that's not much of a test. i think that the justice understood why it was a lemon test, that we have got to have something with more grip to it then that sort of the test. these leave rooms for you to .ome out where you want to i don't know whether it's totally people are political in the sense of the politics of the city. but the jurisprudence allows for that criticism. in bush v goresm or something like that. i think what you try to do is , you haveur job

applied the law in a fair way. that iars ago, a court really enjoyed being on was the justice souter, o'connor, and stevens. we were together along time. one of the things that one of my colleagues with whom i rarely the planets are consistent. on or around based free in basketball you want to call it the same way. call it the same way for both sides and you can live with it. justice thomas: he never said he agreed. >> i want to talk about certain provisions, sentences -- decisions.

you said the constitution is not a stand-alone document. that it can only be properly understood in combination with the declaration of independence. wasice thomas: my point that we have to understand -- this is what i was trying to answer in the mid-1980's. while this government, wasn't something else. government by consent, inalienable rights, what were we protecting was the structure in our constitution. i think when you look at the constitution, which is a positive document with a declaration as a back drop you ,nderstand why this republic why is separation of powers so important? why is federalism so important.

a written constitution so important? because they are searching you give up some of your rights in order to be governed. not all of them. -- i read limitation a lot of the justices separation of powers this summer. they all seem to come back to one name, protecting individual liberty. it wasn't just to have separation of powers. it wasn't just to have federalism. it wasn't just to have -- it was in order you have these to protect liberty. where does that start? it starts in the declaration. >> people talk about the bill of rights as if that is the cake as

opposed to the 10 amendments to the document. that we the people were going to consent to be governed -- governed. those structural protections are what gave us liberty. justice thomas: i did not fully understand that until the 1980's with can and john. the amendments were a big deal in law school. we didn't even read the constitution. i think the structure is so important. perhaps that's where on the constitutional issues, perhaps were justice scalia saw eye to eye from the beginning, the critical importance of the structure. the other thing was that the text or this is a written constitution. not making it up going

-- as you go along. down. to lock it it has to be a written document. which are amendments really important. i think that the structure is -- most important heart part. you will i am right on the commerce clause. you are in this rating the relationship with the national government can do. this is enumerated power. you go from regulated commerce onits economic effects commerce or whatever. tests quite a different from regulating commerce. i want to lead -- you talked

about privileges or immunities. when you look at different clauses like protecting personal and economic liberties, which causes do you gravitate to? protection clause, privileges clause, what other privileges? it's all there, the bill of attainder's, the third amendment is there, we want to pretend it doesn't exist. , you go backndment to the language. what does it mean? we are obligated to do that. theories -- judge brown gave a lecture about the theories.

they can spin off in a different direction from the limitations built into the constitution itself. i think that is very important. you talked about enumerated powers for government, the structural infections, how immunity clauses have been toward even though it's right there. let's talk about your view of /tarry decisive to -- you are more willing revisit past resident. this is not unique in sometimes the court has revisited preferences -- presidents and some white presidents precedents in semi.

how would you respond to your critics in this? justice thomas: i don't care. criticism i don't care about. that's what i taught for so long. i read everything i could get my decisis.from stare theory was basically that it is a ratchet to improve civil liberties, the strict when you win those cases. but when they need to overrule cases in order to do what is the gett thing then you brandeis. he had his rules on it. what do you do with plessy? and then brown.

you have lots of precedents out there. you have justice brennan redoing in bakerical question the car. i'm not saying he overrule anything but it doesn't look like it used to look. they change a lot of things. when people get what they want then they start yelling stare d ecisis. as if that is going to stop you. the constitution itself is the decisis.stare [applause] nelson has the nice piece on stare decisis. two,ave a choice between

you would on a clean slate to use the at the court has ordered chosen a. court hass were there chosen and you don't change it. but if the court has chosen see than the statue gave you a and b then that is a ruling. everyone thinks that does not deserve stare decisis. you get people saying constantly, i think that what we , the slaughterhouse case is wrongly decided. was int in mcdonald didn't have the answer. everybody agrees this wrongly decided that why are we applying it? simple as that. more than have to do

just say we are not applying it for these reasons. at least you wanting an explanation. i wasn't trying to grandstand and it goes back to my -- that we owe him an explanation even if you come up the other way. you owe him and the nation. we all agree slaughterhouse is wrongly decided. it has had a profound effect on this country and you and i know it. when you guarantee citizenship to people, community of citizenship and then you read it out of the constitution or you trivialize it or minimize it, i said john you are a member of my club. you have all the beverages of immunity and membership in this club.

then i rewrite this for the purposes of immunity for me you get to ride the elevator once a week and that's it. that's a heckuva membership. everybody else's swimming up there and the gym they are in the sauna and i get to ride the elevator once. that's how i feel about the immunity clause. i have a personal interest in this. i lived under segregation. we talked about all around these things. this is at the very heart of it. go back to dred scott. inblack could be a service -- a citizen. they went on and on about the other stuff. the 13th, 14th amendment answered his question. it guaranteed citizenship and

all the privileges of immunity of citizenship. then we sit here and we read it out of the constitution. you said why do you get passionate about it. it is the heart and the soul. it is what makes it all work. it was a way to perfect a big blemish on this country's history. the blemish of slavery. it was a big contradiction here at and we fought a war over it. want ityou get what you is a one-way ratchet. law it becomes settled which ought not to be revisited. justice thomas: if i were on the court of appeals or a district court, and i have to apply the precedent. i did that for the two minutes i was on the d.c. -- i would do that. place.are in a different

i believe we are obligated to think things through, to re-examine ourselves, back areturf to make sure we right. >> you made reference to the -- you seer cases 150 cases. now you have about 70. how did this come to be? is is a positive or negative development? if you think the rightly decided it's a positive development. if you think we have been wrongly deciding cases -- i don't know. to kate -- for thinking there are more cases and that we wind up doing what we were doing before when i got to the court, it was close to 120 cases. that was a lot. the court had me doing a hundred and 50 at some point.

-- 110 around 100 and 10 but i don't see any prospects with our discretionary jurisdiction. also take this into consideration other than the health care, the affordable care misnomerh seems like a . the affordable care act was one of the last pieces of major , it is not like you have a lot of that. where the real action is was the activity that occurs are in the agencies. i don't know if there is that much legislation that is going on that requires review. when i first got to the court we had the new bankruptcy code and we had a view of those cases.

at one point we got the new -- in the criminal area -- and what we are doing in the area of criminal law and collateral , i think you are going to get a lot of review in the lower parts on that. it has not been major legislation. i don't now what the source of the litigation with ep everything is that a lot of the -- i don't know the total impact but a lot of the cases are being siphoned off to mediation or arbitration. we have a very light review of that under the federal arbitration act. they are not coming up like a normal commercial litigation through the federal court system . it is off to the side. that may be across consideration

for the companies that are engaging in this. >> there is very little legislation, you don't like the affordable care act here and i understand that. i totally get that. one interesting point is that that legislation and many other bills that passed when they passed do exactly what you said. i'm going to empower an agency to go out and do good. the agencies effectively function, legislative executive functions and the judicial function. how do roche those -- how do you approach those types of things? to justiceference

-- how do you approach them differently? job.ce thomas: i do my to be honest with you, i think if a cases worthy you take it. i don't get into we may not win this or that's not my job. our job is to decide cases. cases and controversies are the administrative law area is obviously complicated. job. our it is complicated by things like chevron, by our willingness to say, let the expert agency decide and then give them all , so i think --om i did not haven't asked to grind your it i do think that when we

don't review things we advocate are responsibility -- abrogate our responsibility. check andit is a review the cases. you don't review cases when you say we defer to virtually anything the agency does your it that is not a review. we don't do that through a district judge. district judge is our article three judges. they have the same status we have. but we do that through the agencies. i have written again on this. as of a constitutional matter, we are obligated to be more exacting in our review that does not mean you don't show them some deference that we are obligated to do more than just wave our hands at it and be done

with it. that is no review at all. >> how helpful do you find amicus briefs, justice thomas: which one? [laughter] justice thomas: if you have 30 amicus briefs there are people mayhe aclu for example, you not agree what they say, but they are good. that is a good brief you should read. the u.s. government -- you read that. you read the briefs of state if it is for something that they say 10 states are running something. but some people like law professors for a better world, that one is a one off kind of group. you might go through it, but they start out with some polemic, there was an amicus

brief we had about electrical engineers supporting neither party. , they to do with a grid were explaining an electrical grid. i thought it was excellent because what the heck a grid was neither party was explaining it. these engineers helped the court. they were friends of the court. you run across these technical cases also. intellectual property groups might explain a technical patent area. that is a good brief. me a brief if it is thorough if it is honest, if you can look and say this is an honest

broker, if you agree with that position then this is an honest brief. your p -- you read it again. point, youe a good will read the next brief. a one off, you don't spend a lot of time with them. we are nearing the end of our time. you and jenny have to go during the summers and you travel the country. tell us a little bit about that experience. why you do that and how does that help revive you? justice thomas: this is a wonderful country, and we fly for most of it. we fly from destination to destination.

i have never been to east tennessee. i grew up in georgia. the thing about segregation, we have it going on with things like political correctness and also some things in our society which create fear. we couldn't talk to each other. you couldn't go any place. was that i georgia couldn't go to small towns. i had to do that with my mother now. i wanted to see small towns, to .ee our country now that i can do that without fear, we thought that we would do that. my poor wife, she let me do it. she came along and we both love it now. we have the same bus we have had for 17 years. this is east tennessee. have you ever been to severe sevierville.

we have been to a lot of different places and out to the west, we like the mountains. we went down to florida. most of all you see the citizens of the country. an rv park is very democratic. it is some of everybody there. the people are camping out of the back of a motorcycle which is really interesting to see. people the first time -- we have a 40 foot coach and we are next to the civil teardrop thing that was about the size of a table. this is embarrassing. is there, the truckstop, you run into people. it was right after bush the gore.

i love the people. the truckers and everybody. i love it all. i give you just two stories. ith v gore whether you know or not was a bit controversial. right? feel that he around here. i had to take my bus down to florida the week after bush versus gore. i took security with me that time. georgiad in brunswick, to refuel. you have to view it your feeling gloves on and look around like you know what you are doing. all these 18 wheelers are around and this trucker comes up to me , --? i said to him

yeah. a second happens all the time. he went on about his business. we were recently on the road, these things happen to you. it's great. even the breakdowns are great. and youin pennsylvania are going up these mountains, endless mountains. thebus speed was ending, so best -- bus was dying. we told him at the truckstop in pennsylvania and we look around and there are these two guys in this mobile van. they knew how to fix do some motors. we were back on the road. these guys were great.

they were great to talk to. it was wonderful. everything about it i love it. this is a great country. we have met a lot of people and been a lot of laces. it is freedom for me. i am.eople don't care who it also tells you that -- it shows you the constituency for the constitution. it shows you is not this eddie, not the people who are doing the talking and the barricading, it's just a person camping out of the back of his motorcycle the wants to be left alone and enjoy his country and raise their family. there are just friendly. if you go to an rv park people

wave and they come. they don't know you from a hill of but they are just friendly. up art it has shown me of the country that you normally would not see. i would not have seen in georgia and i would not have the in in in the ec. -- in washington d.c.. >> in a moment i will bring back.-- ed meese just to sql more question which is, a chance for a national title for the nebraska court -- cornhuskers a shared -- this year? justice thomas: we will remain defeated until we are robbed. [laughter]

we have been treated to a great evening care with justice thomas. [applause] if you would join me here, we have something to present to you first and that is this is our defender of the constitution award. we don't do it every year unless we have a real defender. it says defender of the constitution award, 2016. congratulations. [applause]

set of theing you a commentaries on the constitution. add to this that you already have in your office. or evenfor your home better, for the bus. [applause] i think this might be a better one for the colleagues, because it is a shorter version.

i have an interest in this because i was privileged to write the forward. applause] once there you will see the calendar for this term, list of all current justices and with video-on-demand watch oral arguments and recent c-span appearances i supreme court

justices. as c-span.org. c-span brings you more debates from key u.s. house, senate and governor's races. tonight at eight eastern live on c-span, republican senator kelly ayotte and aggies harrison debate for the new hampshire senate seat. at nine -- at nine, chuck grassley and pattern -- democrat patty judge baird at 10 republican congressman democrats colleen -- for new york's the. on c-span. the georgia senate debate between senator johnny isakson and challenger jim barksdale and libertarian alan buckley. rick nolan and republican stuart mills debate for minnesota's eight district street. at 930 and might for colorado

between republican representative mike coffman and morgan carroll. pennsylvania 10, senate debate between republican senator pat toomey and democrat 11 andcginty followed at republican chris sununu. at midnight on c-span, the north carolina governor's debate between republican government pat mccrory and democrat roy cooper and. what's key debates from house, senate and governor's races on c-span network, c-span.org and listen on the c-span radio at. where history unfolds daily. n n hour and 10 minutes we will hear from john mccain talking about u.s. relationships with russia and whether the new u.s. resident who will be elected in the next two weeks should reengage with moscow.

at 6 p.m. eastern. more about national security issues next with secretaries of the army, navy and air worse speaking about threats, readiness challenge in the pentagon's process for the presidential transition. this is for the -- from the center for the new american security. welcome and good morning.

a, we arelle foreknow grateful that you could join us this morning. today we have a rare and unique opportunity to hear from all three sitting secretaries of the services. secretary of the navy rate may vary, debra lee james and secretary of the army eric fanning to we were just speculating as to whether anybody has gathered them all together like this. this is a wonderful opportunity. as you know the service secretaries play a critical role in the defense. they were for directly to the secretary of defense and provide the civilian leadership and oversight of each of the service is. the services are the force providers. their job is to organize, train, and with the force and the service secretaries provide

direction and civilian oversight of these essential functions. the relationship between the service secretaries and their respect to service chief as among the most important civil and military relationships. each of the speakers know from personal experience what is required for strong and health civil military relationship. havech of these leaders taken on tremendous responsibilities in the department of defense at a challenging time. first of all, amidst one of the most volatile security environments we have seen in decades with the rise of a resurgent russia, the rise of a powerful china, the persistent and evolving threat of terrorism, new technologies and challenges like cyber, persisting rogue states like lear, a middle east in term oil and on and on.

they have have these leadership roles at a time of severe budget constraints, they have to navigate the budget control, unpredictable funding as we emerge from continuing resolutions and all was living under the threat of sequestration. each has had to make some very tough trade-offs in an effort to balance readiness for current operations, structure and modernization. while the combatant command rightly focus on current operations, the service chief in secretaries are charged with giving the future a seat at the table making the investments necessary to ensure that the force will have what it needs to deter and prevail in the future. each of these leaders has also championed reforms with his or her service to reduce unnecessary costs, to free up the resources, to invest in

cutting edge capabilities for the fighters, to bring the department's business rock this is into the 21st century. to strengthen our ability to recruit and develop and retain extraordinary people and who will ensure that they all volunteer force will remain in the world now and in the future. with anning provides us extraordinary opportunity to hear from these leaders about their experiences at the helm of america's defense. what they have achieved, what they have learned, what needs to change versus what needs to continue. the challenges and opportunities that remain i had. wemoderate this discussion have barbara starr, the pentagon correspondent from cnn. before i hand it off to barbara let me just note that before we get to the q&a. we will ask you to write your

questions on note cards, just raise a hand to let staff know that you would like to do a question and they will provide you with a note card and provide . thank you for joining us and looking forward to an insightful conversation. thank you. applause] will spend 45 minutes chatting up in the go to questions or it -- questions. i think what michelle said underlined as everyone in this that thes which is the future has a seat at the table. let me just or a question out , as youoadly and ask

come to what may be the end of your tenure, one way or the differedw has this job from what you thought it was going in, in terms of how you do it and what the priorities are. michelleke to thank and to you barbara and my colleagues. this is an extraordinary opportunity and he appreciate -- appreciate being included. the enemy gets a vote. right at the top of my list in job, theyears on the world has fundamentally changed in so many different ways area as michelle i mentioned three years ago russia had not moved into crimea. and they are now there are they had not moved into syria.

most americans had not heard of this terror group named isil. all of these things has changed in the last three years. our job is to be able to respond. that is a key difference. another difference for me, something that i understand as well as i might have going in the front door, was how difficult it is getting things done in washington. it has become a very divisive situation and was mentioned , continuingtration resolution, it is difficult to advance an agenda these days. we have to get back to the art of compromise in this town. much more than we have been able to do in the past. >> i will give you a different answer. i think one of the great strengths i brought to the navy as i had no idea what the issues were when i came in. navy 40 yearsthe

earlier. but on a different level. short, undistinguished service. opportunity -- i did not have a preconceived notion as to how the job should be done. as to how they should approach the issues. i did not bring any baggage. i got to take a fresh look. the thing that has been as big a is howe or frustration slowly the bureaucracy moves. particularly, dod-wise. if you want to kill something in the pentagon, do one of two things. say, "we need to study this."

it dod-wide."o do then you go to the slowest and common denominator. the army and marine corps have different services and different needs. i think you can get a lot more done if you have a little competition between these services and if you allow them to be the experimenters to see what works and succeed fast or fail fast. had two great teachers when i came into the secretary of the army. i had been in the clinton i had a long time to watch service secretaries and what the roles are.

in the clinton administration i worked in the ost. -- i thought of it as political siberia. that's why it is such a great job. much closer to the troops than when i was working in ost. people in4 million and out of uniform but that is for makes it so rewarding the people who race the right hands to defend the country. are the civilian leaders of the services, let me just drill this down a little

bit. you cover this issue which is far from boring. it has always struck me. it's really about finding a way to move faster and get your decision cycle moving faster than your adversary decision. that is a fundamental struggle because you can have low-tech insurgency movements that move very quickly. how -- practical advice. one for all. if one of the three of you became the next secretary of defense, what could be done to get all of this moving faster?

you look at isis which nobody knew what it was when you came to office. practicalpractical advice. >>two very different things. i did not anticipate how much time would be spent on budget because of the instability each year. if we don't have that stability to plan for the long-term we don't know the topline. it takes an enormous amount of time of institutional leadership to constantly be thinking through the budget based on that instability year after year. for trying to get the decision -- this has been the issue in particular for the army .

i worked closely with the air force office. the army is set up a little bit differently. rather than getting the pristine intoion, getting something the hands of troops that they can use our experiment with and refine in real-time because that is what the adversary is doing. >> that is a real fundamental change in thinking. >> it is. the system is set up for that pristine solution. the acquisition solution, the testing. our soldier can do that as well. we just need to get that capability into their hands. >> exactly what eric said.

i took a chart of what you have to go through. about thistt hi -- big. it was like a plate of spaghetti. all the hoops you have to jump through the gates you have to pass through. we have been doing pilot .rograms an example is navy we put a laser weapon in the arabian gulf. it was supposed to be a six-month pilot program. developsing it now to these weapons. if we had gone to the acquisition program, it wouldn't

be anywhere close. it is to get it out of the lab into the hands of the war fighter. >> especially for both of you. is coming into the field. they're all having problems. challenges getting them up to the standard that you want. you have to have these major weapons systems but it seems harder and harder the more complex they get to work on them for 20 years and to think you know the adversary you will meet 20 years from now. >> the practical advice that i

-- we have many --grams, some are the highly high profile, highly complex types of programs which have run into difficulties over time. along sohem are going my practical advice is to target the significance for your key reviews and the strong oversight and ease up a get -- he's up a bit. less oversight for the many small programs that are doing well. that would allow you to better focus time and attention on the significant few weather could indeed be difficulties. maximize the is to authorities we already have that perhaps we have not fully maximized yet. i'm thinking of the other transaction authority.

this is it provision that allows you to move much more quickly. we in the air force have set up a few more contracts to get people to do this with us particularly in the area of cyber so we can attract new companies and innovations into some oftary to maximize the authorities that we've got. in the third, i want to pile on about the rapid capabilities that we have. are other pockets where we can move much more quickly. i will give you one that is top -- with respect to unmanned aerial systems. they can do damage how do we put

-- damage. how do we put our heads together quickly and figure out how to defeat that type of approach. it's not necessarily the development of a new thing. we need to do that type of work rapidly. >> i suspect he just got everyone's attention with that subject. let's drill down a little bit. nuts and bolts. what can the u.s. military do? we have seen the video of these little drones flying overhead and deploying explosives. what can you do? >> i will tell you that it was a week or two ago. it was a situation. there were four killed. its a problem. i will also tell you, about a informed thatere

there was such -- one such unmanned aerial system in the vicinity and fairly quickly we were able to bring it down. you do not necessarily have to shoot. what we need to do is put our best thinking together in the future. >> did you jam it? how did you do it? >> i cannot get into the specifics of it, as you can imagine, but it is an example of something to attack quickly. >> just the reporter in me, sorry. since the coalition was formed it pose a threat to u.s. ?oalitions >> any trone that is possibly carrying explosives is a threat.

we brought it down. we need to focus on this for the future. >> but suck about the current practical threat. there has been some confusion. very low-tech threat essentially . what can you do about it? it overall do about is, you have a multimission platform, and you train your to bes, your marines, flexible and adaptable because you don't know what the threat will come at you. you don't know what the next thing coming over the horizon will be.

when those missiles were fired at the ships, they took absolutely appropriate action . nothing hit the ships. no one was hurt. to show the value of naval presence. to be in everywhere at the right time, the right place, but all the time, is that, instead of saying, you are in big trouble, two or three weeks from now, we had somebody there. we had a tomahawk shooter right there. when the decision was made to retaliate, to show people that if you attack us, you do so at your peril. we could do it instantly. >> it is interesting that one of is while the bureaucracy may move a little , the enemy isown

pretty fast. we know that they are isis challenging you, rudimentary mustard agent, rudimentary chlorine but they have that capability. a phosphorusire to plant in northern iraq. that doesn't take multibillion-dollar weapons to defend against but it does take your troops being able to still have the equipment to operate. threat that perhaps could be anticipated but when it comes it is very challenging.

>> we do a fairly good job of being cared for a multitude of threats. it is that decision cycle. cycle that the adversary is so good at. of innovation in the military. it succeeds despite the processes and barriers that we put up. in many ways the department of defense still operates like it is the 1950's and we are driving technological change. there is all of this change happening outside the department that we cannot keep up with. most onworries you the the point of iterative technology? >> the rapid capabilities office -- we set it up in the army we've been focused on certain types of flights for 15 years.

russia goes into the ukraine and we see they have turned into much more of a learning institution than we thought. they have been watching us and studying us and making improvements. and our decisive advantage wasn't as big as we hoped it was. the office up for things like cyber and electronic warfare. timingn, navigation and and countering this threat of the ua you. the three things that would mean -- most cyber, gnp, gps everything we have this pre-much dependent on it one way or the threat of these unmanned systems we are starting to see. >> we could talk about this point forever but let me shift to the service member side.

everyone in this room has heard the constant conversation whether it is congress and the budget sequestration, the pressure on your budget, what you are not going to be able to do. we've heard from all sides in the political arena to pick your adjective, broken stress disaster, set that aside. let's get the bottom line from all three of you against current and anticipated threats. what do you worry that you cannot due to meet the current threat? how ready are you? how broken is the readiness? >> the united states air force is not at all broken. i would begin by saying that we are the best air force on the planet but we have challenges in

manpower. over the course of 20 years of downsizing air force we have probably gone too far which is why we has stopped downsizing and are now modestly growing some force. particularly to plug certain holes like in the maintenance arena and our cyber force to name just a few. our readiness,o our ability to do our job that we are called upon to do today have to ask yourself are you ready to do what? which job are you talking about? the question is, where we ready to do what we were doing in the east? the answer is, you are darn right we are. east? we have been doing these types of operations for years and we do them extremely effectively.

but then what if you get into a different type of fight where you do not necessarily control the skies? where the enemy on the ground can interfere with you in a major way? what if you get into a fight where there are integrated air defenses? that is where we have concerns about our readiness were we do not have enough of our force fully ready on that level to take on to the fight. if we get called to do it we will do the job but at levels of lower readiness our worry is that it will take longer to get the job done. , more lose more lives people may be hurt or killed. that is the impact of not having sufficiently high levels of readiness for what i call the high-end complex light. -- fight. >> the navy and the marine corps

are ready to fight tonight. we're global and around-the-clock. deploy our att we the absolute top of readiness training and equipping. they're getting the equipment they need and the maintenance being done on the ships. it is the next force, the search force after that that because of decliningter and budgets that we are not getting enough training for the long-term. we are not doing the long-term maintenance as well or as deeply as we should. the number one thing from the navy was when i came in we didn't have enough ships.

from 350 had declined ships to 216 ships in 2008 and you had to make choices as to where you sent assets. in the time from 2001 to 2008 we put 41 ships under contract to keep our fleet from continuing to shrink or our shipyards in business. and my seven years we have put 86 ships under contract. we will get back to those 2021.s, 308 by but we are living with a fleet size today based on decisions made 12 or 15 years ago. i am making on these big-ticket items will determine the fleet size in 2012 five or 2030.

your conversation about giving the future a seat at the table -- you have to do that in a way that you don't know what the threats are going to be. every time that an amphibious ready group comes back i get a briefing on it. constant is that they face something they had not expected. during their training it wasn't covered. we are not very good at foreseeing the future. havenly thing we can do is enough of the equipment and have as rapid change as you can possibly have and finally that flexible.to be very that you are adaptable to edc

new threats when they come in that you are good at it. >> i will echo that the army is ready. it is an incredibly lethal were fighting machine, it is the best in the world. davis and you have to ask the question, best at what -- we say readiness is the number one priority of the army but it is kind of everything if you leave it at that. i think the army is ready, we are expanding and retreating. been focusing on that for the last year, decisive action. the larger scale is a type of adversary, but because of that fight that we have been in in the last 15 years i would never

say broken or years i would nevr say broken or hollow because it is a very strong lethal army. but we have been running it hard. there is no end in sight to that off tempo that has been tough for the army and at the expense future.ways the that future readiness focused on today's readiness making sure that the army is ready for the conversation it finds itself in but i worry about making sure readyhe future army is for what it needs to do. >> what i'm hearing from all three of you is, "yes, ready, but..." that is what you are all paid to do. it impacts all of you because

nobody goes alone to the frontline. if you are suddenly in an area we did not control in an area where you were challenged by missiles on the ground -- let's it's a specific hypothetical, it has been discussed. a flyer -- nodo fly or safe son over syria, many -- safe zone over syria, many say could you prosecute the current isis fight? could you do it, air, sea, ground, and still have the resources if you are ordered to do a no-fly over syria? thatwill begin by saying -- >> without diverting resources from the isis fight?

>> let me begin by saying that if we were called to do a no-fly zone, we know how to do this. we know how to put this together at a planet and executed. but as you point out that would require money and people and resources. we would figure out how to a couple ship. the air force is not -- how to accomplish it. the air force is not alone. we have the navy and congress. we would figure on how to keep a fight doing at pace against isil and we would figure out a way to do a no-fly zone if we were asked to do it. >> you are suggesting that it could be difficult to layer on these additional tasks if threats emerge and additional tasks emerge given what you are all facing now with a challenge to your budget? >> difficult is what the

military guts. we do planning and execution. i want to make this stomach it would not be complex, it would be enormously complex but if asked to do so we would step up to the plate, we would do it with our joint were fighting partners and we would do it with our coalition. there has been a lot of talk about russia going into eastern europe and eastern ukraine at various points. military personnel generals have expressed concern that if russia did make a move, can the u.s. back fastato push it enough?

do you have enough in europe to have that credible deterrent to russia and do you need more? >> i think we are a credible deterrent to russia but let me address that for a minute in terms of if there is a no-fly zone or stepped up rotation in europe. we hold our military to a higher standard as we should. things alld to do over the world. adversaries just have to jam it anyplace ono the globe at any time. as secretary of the army i will always want more to make me feel more comfortable in terms of deterrence to russia or resources for more soldiers but right now we are credible deterrent.

>> i suppose it all depends what level of risk that one is willing to take. you don't give everybody at top alert status around the world all the time but you do have ships just in case. >> that is the value of a maritime force, that presents billion and they out. that is the reason you need the size of fleet that you need. having a ship in norfolk or san diego doesn't do much for an immediate crisis. and we do this is a joint force. we have a lot of presence, particularly navy and marines. the army has come in behind the marines and we work together incredibly well.

notion that we can control desk cannot control the skies are -- the other thing that a maritime force brings you is that we operate off of sovereign u.s. territory. we don't have to ask anyone for permission to get the job done in the best example of that is when the president made the decision to strike isis in august of 2014, we had a carrier on station in less than 30 hours launching strikes. we were the only strike option for 54 days. the country would not allow our points of take off first strike, we did not have to ask. >>